[ Page 2327 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Cigarette smoking hazards. Hon. Mr., McClelland –– 2328

Mr. King –– 2328

Mr. Gibson –– 2328

Mr. Wallace –– 2328

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Conflict of interest of VSE governor. Mr. Macdonald –– 2328

Conflict of interest of Mr. Wid Dickison. Mr. Gibson –– 2329

Coastal transportation services. Mr. Lea –– 2329

Resignation of Deputy Attorney-General. Mr. Wallace –– 2330

Cigarette smoking hazards. Mr. Mussallem –– 2330

Extension of Pharmacare coverage. Ms. Brown –– 2330

Wage and price controls. Mr. Wallace –– 2331

CLEU investigation of organized crime. Mr. Macdonald –– 2331

Tabling reports

Workers' Compensation Board annual report. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2331

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 5) . Committee stage

On section 12.

Mr. Gibson –– 2332

On the amendment to section 12.

Mr. Skelly –– 2332

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2333

Mr. Lauk –– 2333

Mr. Cocke –– 2334

Mr. Wallace –– 2335

Mr. Barber –– 2335

Mr. Lea –– 2336

Mr. Gibson –– 2337

Mr. Skelly –– 2338

Division on the amendment –– 2339

Division on section 12 –– 2339

Report and third reading –– 2339

Travel Agents Registration Act (Bill 2 1) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace –– 2339

Mr. Gibson –– 2342

Mr. Macdonald –– 2342

Mr. Nicolson –– 2343

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2345

Second reading –– 2347

Succession Duty Repeal Act (Bill 12) Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 2347

Mrs. Jordan –– 2349

Mr. King –– 2353

Mr. Kempf –– 2356

Mrs. Dailly –– 2358

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to announce ta the House the presence on the floor of Mr. Dale Sokoloski, His family is in the gallery. The Royal Canadian Humane Association at a luncheon today, through the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , awarded Dale the bronze medal for his brave actions in rescuing a six-year-old boy from drowning near Fishermen's Wharf in Vancouver.

The incident occurred at the foot of Campbell Street in Vancouver on July 1,1976. Hearing the screams of childreri, Dale left his fishboat on which he was working and, fully clothed, jumped into the water to rescue Kevin Phelan. The boy had fallen into the water when he tried to leap from one skiff, on which he had been playing with other children, to another boat. Dale, who was a non-swimmer, gave no thought to his. own safety when he arrived at the scene and saw Kevin Phelan sinking, with only his forehead above water. Not only was Dale fully clothed, but he had heavy tools in the back pocket of his overalls that impeded his movements and dragged him downward. Dale was 'able to surface after jumping in and, after two unsuccessful attempts to grasp the drowning Kevin, he was successful in holdin g on to Kevin's clothing. He th~n managed to struggle a short distance to a float where Dale's father was able to reach out and pull -both Kevin and Dale Sokoloski out of the water to safety.

Dale is a constituent of mine and I am very proud for him, for his family, for the constituency and, I am sure, for all the people of British Columbia. I would ask that all of us here show our appreciation and give Dale a big welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I am pleased to introduce to the House today the Right Reverend David Sommerville, Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of B.C. of the Anglican Church, and the Reverend Alistair 6. McLeod, president of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada. Accompanying them ate Mrs. Molly Boucher and her son, Tony Boucher. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome, please.

.HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): It's a pleasure for me to have two-sevenths of my children in the galleries today, who are enjoying the spring break, or whatever they refer to it now, and another youngster from Richmond: my sons, Darin and Richard Nielsen, and Jamie Lacroix, who is joining them in their spring break. I notice a former MLA is also in the gallery today - the former MLA for Richmond, Mr. Ernie LeCours.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the list is too long to read but generally, and in a group, I'd like to welcome today on behalf of all of us a group of members of the New Democratic Party, who happen to live in James Bay, visiting in the House today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery today is His Worship, Mayor Jim Tonn, of the municipality of Coquitlam. He is visiting the precincts today wearing his other hat, that of chairman of the hospital committee for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, meeting with the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) this afternoon. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, in the House today I would like to introduce my good wife, who is here for the first time this year, my daughter, Ann, and her friend, Terry Clarkson. I know the members would like to welcome them here.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House please to accord a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Willcock, who are visiting from Pender Harbour.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today, and some of them are in the gallery, are over 80 women of the British Columbia Social Credit Party who have been meeting with me in my office and are still in the buildings. I hope to have a further chat with them at the conclusion of question period. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are three people I'd like to introduce: Mr. and Mrs. Dave and Ruth Plain of White Rock and Mrs. Janelle Stewart, formerly of White Rock and the wife of our legislative intern, Mr. Gordon Stewart. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

M S. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in the House today are a group of students from Vancouver City College, a number of whom are new Canadians. I would like the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I stood up three times and was outclassed each time. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce in the Speaker's gallery Mrs. McInnes, who is accompanied

[ Page 2328 ]

by her daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Phillips, who are from Cranbrook. Would the House please make them welcome?

Mr. Speaker, I had quite a surprise today. A nephew of mine from Lethbridge, Alberta, is in the members' gallery. His name is Al Foder and I would appreciate the House making him welcome.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, in the unlikely event that there is anyone in the gallery who has not yet been welcomed to the Legislature, I indeed would like to welcome them today. (Laughter.)

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to make a very short statement.

Leave granted.

CIGARETTE SMOKING HAZARDS

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, with the kind permission of the House, hon. members have on their desks copies of a new "quit smoking" pamphlet which has just been published by the Ministry of Health.

If I may, I would just like to take a couple of moments to explain the history of this publication. It's largely the work of Bob Thompson, who is acting chief of information services in my ministry's division of health education and information.

Bob lost a good friend to lung cancer brought on by cigarette smoking. I believe he was a Victoria reporter. Bob felt that the loss of this man, who was a loving husband and provider for a devoted family, and was in the prime of his life, was a needless tragedy. Accordingly, Bob began to collect all of the information he possibly could on the hazards of cigarette smoking. This pamphlet is largely the result of that research. The pamphlet is intended to help people quit smoking in seven days, and is designed to be hung on the wall and used as a day-to-day encouragement.

We intend to give it wide distribution throughout the province, and I invite any hon. member who really wishes to quit smoking to give it a try.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Health for his explanation and I certainly take it to heart. As one of those who has been anguished over this nasty habit, I certainly intend to try.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I just want to join in and say that I think it's a wonderful idea. I think the government should be advertising some of these things. I hope the minister will give consideration to moving on to alcohol with a similar kind of pamphlet soon.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I have to be careful what I say because I am a non-smoker. We have a great potential to prevent disease by cutting down on smoking, and I think the minister is to be commended for this initiative.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before we start oral question period this afternoon, and at the risk of some of you thinking that I'm becoming tedious and repetitious, I would, like to just offer a few words of guidance with respect to the question period in this House. I know that there is a tendency on the part of both the questioner and those who have the responsibility for answering questions to editorialize somewhat in stating the question and in replying to it. Of course, it becomes difficult, because of the fact that we have an oral question period without notice, for the Chair to always exercise complete authority. When that happens there is a tendency among the members of the House to feel that the Chair is being overzealous in pursuit of the rules.

But for the edification of all of you, I would just like to remind you that it is an oral question period of 15 minutes. The intent and the purpose of a question is to obtain information and to press for action, but not to be a speech. Likewise, I'd like to caution those who reply to questions that replies should not be argumentative, retaliatory or taxing. They should not use the reply as a propaganda vehicle. Because we have questions without notice in this House, we certainly extend to the ministers the right to take questions as notice. That should not be considered by members of any party or any side of the House as something undesirable. It is quite often difficult for a minister to quickly answer a question of which he has no knowledge prior to the time that it was posed. So I think it is not in the best interests of the House to cast aspersions when a question is taken as notice.

I would further caution the members who take questions as notice that when you return with a reply then you certainly should be permitted to give that reply in question period if it is very short and concise. But if it is to be a little longer than that, file it at the table so that the question can then be pursued at another time by the members who may wish to pursue the subject to a greater extent.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OF VSE GOVERNOR

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr.

[ Page 2329 ]

Speaker, does the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs think it is proper that one of the public governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Mr. David Huberman, should be representing an unnamed financier in a takeover bid against Cheyenne Petroleum?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OF MR. WID DICKISON

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Education. I wonder if the minister could tell us when he was first advised of the possible conflict of interest involving Mr. Wid Dickison in his capacity with the ICBC.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the subject of towing contracts came up before the board of directors last fall. Mr. Wid Dickison, ever since he joined ICBC, has made known to senior management of the corporation the full extent of his business relationships.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: in view of what seems to me the evident potential conflict of interest, did the minister take any action to investigate it and to investigate representations that were made to him last fall?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a full internal audit done by the auditors of ICBC at that time.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the seriousness of these charges, will the minister table that report?

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

COASTAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Premier. On March 12, four regional districts representing the north and central coast of the province met in Vancouver to discuss coastal transportation problems. Out of that meeting on the 14th, a telegram was sent to the Premier asking that the provincial government not conclude any negotiations with the federal government on transportation policy for the coast until the Premier and government had met with those regional districts to have input. Will the Premier tell me what he intends to do, or his government intends to do, in regard to that matter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to meet with the representatives, but I'd just advise the member that representation with the federal government is for a grant to be passed on to the B.C. ferry system. Any new routes or designation of routes from money forthcoming would be made by the independent board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. As such, while I would be pleased to meet with the group from the area, hopefully if we're successful in the type of proposal we have made to Ottawa, their approach would be better made to the board of directors or the management of B.C. Ferries.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the groups there know exactly what is going on. They're asking that those negotiations regarding subsidies in any form, in terms of coastal transportation, not be concluded until there is input at a meeting between the Premier and those regional districts.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, historically the problem has been that there has never been any subsidy paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation from the federal government for ferries on the west coast, with the exception of a subsidy which they withdrew, I guess, to Northland Navigation.

The proposal made by the government was that B.C. Ferries be the vehicle to rationalize the ferry service on the Pacific coast. We've called upon Ottawa to give a subsidy to that service. We've also said that the routes then would be developed by the board of directors of the B.C. ferries service. But should, after all these years since we've been in Confederation, the recognition be given to the Pacific coast, directors would be appointed for the middle and upper coast to sit on that board. The communities would have full opportunity to meet with them in the designation or the application for routes.

MR. LEA: What they are asking is that the negotiations that are going on now in regard to that subsidy not be concluded until the meeting with them has taken place. Am I to understand that the Premier is saying that the negotiations that are going on now will be concluded and finalized without that meeting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: MT. Speaker, the application to Ottawa is for money that the province of British Columbia has never received before for the coastal ferry system. As such, it would be an historic breakthrough. I'm still hopeful that the proposal we made to the federal government, which is public knowledge, can be met. As such, that proposal is already public knowledge.

We've said that routes - and that is ferry service -for people will be, if the B.C. Ferry Corporation is chosen, designated by the corporation. The

[ Page 2330 ]

corporation will have directors from all areas of the Pacific coast.

MR. LEA: Am I to understand, then, that the answer is no?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier I'd be quite pleased to meet with them, but the government is not going to take on the role of designating the routes. We've set up the directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation on an independent basis, Should the subsidy we've asked for that's been long awaited in British Columbia on the Pacific coast be paid to the government for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, directors will be added to that board from the middle and upper coast.

I'd be quite pleased though to meet with any community ...

MR. LEA: The answer is no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... representatives, as I do when they come to 'Victoria, or arrange meetings. I'd be very pleased to meet with them.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Will the Premier undertake to meet with the combined regional districts within the next two weeks, along with the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) ? Yes or no, please, Mr. Premier.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly prepared to meet with them any time they arrange a meeting.

RESIGNATION OF

DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he can confirm that his deputy minister has resigned and that the resignation is due to take effect as of Thursday this week.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to respond to the hon. member's question and thank him for the notice, circumlocutive though it was.

When Mr. Vickers accepted the position of Deputy Attorney-General, he initially committed himself to a period of two years. I was most delighted that he agreed to extend that time frame to four years, which will be expiring this coming September, save and except, I'd say, the coming summer months, when Mr. Vickers shall be enjoying some very well-deserved and well-earned holidays. We've had a number of cordial discussions, and the period concerned is mutually agreeable and acceptable. I certainly intend at a future time to pay adequate and proper testimony to Mr. Vickers, but even today I'd say that I would like to express the fact that we shall all miss him when he does leave the public service in this province. He's performed yeoman service for the province of British Columbia, and I would certainly like to express my personal appreciation and gratitude in that regard.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many problems in the administration of justice, which we're all well aware of, and in view of the great importance of continuity when Mr. Vickers steps down from his position, can the minister tell the House whether there will be any transitional phase when Mr. Vickers' successor can be brought into the job prior to Mr. Vickers' leaving, since this is such a crucial stage in the administration of justice at the present time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With every respect to the member's interpretation of this being the most critical stage in the administration of justice, I cannot really agree with that. But I can certainly assure him that it will be attended to in the most businesslike manner that we can.

CIGARETTE SMOKING HAZARDS

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding your admonition, I proceed with the greatest care. I compliment the Minister of Health for his magnificent document here, and the pamphlet. It is an excellent thing. But I also ask the question: is the minister prepared to consider, perhaps, embarking on a dangerous and perilous road of legislation against advertising tobacco and cigarettes, notwithstanding all the arguments - which have been considered a little phony - against it? Would the minister consider this perilous trip, as he has our entire support? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Chicken!

EXTENSION OF PHARMACARE COVERAGE

MS. BROWN: To the Minister of Human Resources: on page 6 of the throne speech, universal Pharmacare, it was stated: it "will assure that all the approximately 2.5 million people in British Columbia have assistance in the purchase of prescription drugs." Was this a true statement and will the minister's new plan, which he is bringing down, cover every citizen in British Columbia, as stated?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the new plan will be the best ever anywhere in Canada

[ Page 2331 ]

and it will be announced very soon now.

MS. BROWN: I have no doubt that the minister will think that it's the best plan ever in all of Canada. However, I would like to restate my question. I am trying to do this without being disagreeable, as we were admonished to be in the prayer today. Was this a true statement? Are the 2.5 million people in British Columbia going to have assistance in the purchase of prescription drugs? Was this a true statement?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would assure the member that it will be a very good plan. It will be announced within the next several weeks and it certainly will provide the benefits where required.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister: was this an untrue statement? I haven't received a response.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Did the Queen's representative lie? That's all I am trying to find out. In this Speech from the Throne, did the Queen's representative lie? That's all I'm trying to find out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I just draw to the member's attention that it is improper to restate a question that has already been asked? Now could I proceed for just one moment? The hon. member asked a question. The hon. minister gave an answer. It may not be that you agree with his answer, but he did get up and give an answer in his opinion. In your opinion it may not have been the answer you were listening for or wanted to hear, but it was an answer, hon. member. To restate the question in another form is completely improper.

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

MR. WALLACE: With regard to ongoing discussions with the Anti-Inflation Board officials and in view of recent statements by federal cabinet ministers that the federal Minister of Finance will present his budget on Thursday, can the Premier tell the House if Mr. Donald Macdonald or any of his staff have been in touch with the Premier to give him prior notification of the date on which federal anti-inflation controls will be lifted?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no advance notice of any of the items that will be discussed in the federal budget to be brought down by the Hon. Donald Macdonald. I understand he is going to make a statement on the future of the anti-inflation programme besides the rest of the budget information. As far as the government of British Columbia is concerned, all of the information in that budget is confidential to the minister and the federal government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Premier's statement at the Fraser Valley meeting last Saturday that the lifting of federal controls would be unfortunate if carried out this year, can the Premier confirm to the House that his government has now definitely decided to bring in a provincial controls programme if in fact federal controls are lifted before the end of 1977?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't confirm that, Mr. Speaker.

CLEU INVESTIGATION

OF ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the second stage of the CLEU programme against organized crime was to be crime commission hearings, similar to those in Quebec, for exposure and to get at the real kingpins of organized crime, can the Attorney-General make an announcement as to whether this is being actively considered at the present time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is being considered, Mr. Member.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if during the question period I were to ask a minister what time of day it was and the minister were to respond that it is the best day in the year, would that in your opinion constitute an answer? In other words, if I ask about apples and I get an answer about oranges, does that in your opinion constitute an answer?

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, hon. member, that was an improper point of order. It's not the duty of the Chair to decide what answers are acceptable and what answers are not, any more than it is the duty of the Chair to rule out a question, provided the question is in order in terms of the rules of the House. So it's not the prerogative or the duty of the Speaker to rule on the answers.

Hon. Mr. Williams files the 60th annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia for the year ended December 31,1976.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

[ Page 2332 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

POLLUTION CONTROL (196 7)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. GIBSON: I am concerned that this bill should have some teeth in it, and I'm particularly concerned that persons who would operate and own tanker vessels in British Columbia waters should be put on notice that British Columbia takes the possibility of oil spillages and leakages very seriously. One of the ways of putting people on notice is to ask them in advance to consider the financial consequences of their actions. One of the ways of doing that is to require that a bond be put up for any kind of damage that they may do.

Mr. Chairman, it's not only a question of putting people on notice; it's a question of actually being able to collect. You may see in subsection (3) of the amended section 26 where it says, "Money required for the purpose of this section may, on the requisition of the minister and with the approval of the Minister of Finance, be paid out of consolidated revenue funds without an appropriation."

But, Mr. Chairman, if this money is paid out for curing the damage caused by an oil spill, how is the province going to recover it? I'm not a lawyer, but there may be some civil action, let us say, against the tanker company concerned. But as we all know, it's often very difficult to track down the ownership -the actual financial power - behind any given tanker vessel. They are registered under flags of convenience all over the world and the owners may well be beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the government of the province of British Columbia.

What this amendment, which would authorize -not require, but authorize - the minister to require the posting of a bond by the owners or operators of tanker vessels working within British Columbia waters, would do is to ensure that if there were indeed any costs occasioned to the people of British Columbia through the operation of such vessels, we would have at least some way of making a recovery through the seizure of such portion of the bond as might be necessary to effect adequate compensation.

Without that kind of access, the ship may no longer be in Canadian waters, Mr. Minister.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Or in one piece.

MR. GIBSON: Or the ship may no longer be in one piece. It may not be worth anything. It's insufficient to say: "Seize the ship!" The ship may not be adequate compensation for what has happened to the people of British Columbia.

If a tanker with tens of thousands of tons of oil founders upon one of our rocks and is worth nothing but scrap iron, I'll tell you, the leakages caused by that foundering will be far more than any theoretical amount that we might raise as a province by seizing whatever is left of the wreckage and shipping it over to Taiwan to be sawn up into little pieces for the steel mill. That's not a good enough financial guarantee.

Alternately, vessels may come into our water, pump out their bilges, pollute whatever port they like, and depart without any way of seizing them because they are gone from our territorial waters by the time you get any kind of a court order. On the other hand, if you have within the jurisdiction of the province a financial bond and if you succeed in obtaining judgment, then you can also obtain financial satisfaction. That is all this amendment seeks to do, Mr. Chairman. It does not seek to put an obligation on the Crown; it just gives the Crown some extra powers.

I don't see why the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is over there mumbling about it. I just want to give him some extra powers, and I don't often want to do that with this government. But this is just the extra power to require that a bond be posted at the discretion of the minister. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper which would add a subsection (6) as follows: "Where the minister makes an order under subsection (1) , he may require the owners of a tanker operating within the territorial jurisdiction of British Columbia to post a bond sufficient to indemnify costs of potential oil spill cleanup arising from such vessel."

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister was just rising to his feet and you caught him off guard there. He was going to respond to the amendment.

I think it's an excellent amendment. I believe the New Democratic Party members in this House are prepared to support it.

The problem with the Canada Shipping Act and the regulations as they apply to tankers coming into territorial waters is that it is difficult to apply the regulations, Mr. Chairman, even though the standards are adequate for construction, for equipment, for crews and this type of thing. Inspection of steamships isn't done until they've arrived in port. There is not

[ Page 2333 ]

enough staff on the west coast of Canada to do the necessary inspections. It's only when they arrive in port that the ships are inspected. In other words, those ships will be coming through Canadian territorial waters, and British Columbia's waters, and nobody will have any idea of what type of standard they comply with, or what type of equipment they have, or crews, et cetera, until they arrive in port - if they're fortunate enough to arrive in port.

I think a bond of this type is necessary, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that the minister would respond to an excellent amendment such as this.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the amendment, I must regretfully say that we will not be able to support the amendment for a number of reasons - not the intent. We do not disagree with the intent.

The problems that have been outlined to us by members of the ministry and legal advisers indicate that we are dealing in an area of considerable constitutional questions. We're speaking of the physical possibilities of doing what this amendment would have us do. As it is an amendment to the section mentioned by the Liberal leader, in effect it would mean that every vessel in the jurisdictional waters of British Columbia would be required to have a bond.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I appreciate that, but in that there is no way of knowing that the pollution actually occurred until such time as the spill i occurred, unless of course you were to examine each vessel and offer an opinion as to the likelihood of any one vessel causing the damage. We have been in contact with the federal government. We are continuing to seek their advice and attempting to encourage them to provide us with some very specific information as to what their intent is under their jurisdiction.

It may sound somewhat odd to members in the House that the jurisdiction question is very much in the air. Precisely where does the provincial jurisdiction begin? If oil from a tanker is being pumped from the ship to shore, presumably, according to the advice we receive, it is federal jurisdiction should a spill occur. If oil is being pumped from land to the ship and spills, it's the provincial responsibility. At least, this is the interpretation we have offered to us. The constitutionality of that amendment and the effects was brought into question by persons from whom we sought advice. We're pursuing this concept and other matters relating to oil transport with the federal government. We've reviewed the provision of the Canada Shipping Act which provides for the posting of a bond to cover any oil spill clean-up costs and payment for lost and damaged resources.

There are a number of limitations to the administration of these provisions. I understand it only applies to spills from tankers carrying greater than 1,000 gallons. We hope we can have discussions with the federal authorities to clearly determine their jurisdictional responsibilities and how they propose to administer them in face of the tanker traffic which we envisage along the B.C. coast.

But, Mr. Chairman, I know the amendment is specifically speaking about the oil spills. As I said, it is not the spirit of the amendment that we cannot support. We certainly will be continuing on our negotiations with the federal government to try to determine precisely what their capabilities are, what their attitudes, what their responsibilities are, and again, this jurisdictional question.

So in saying that we will not be supporting the amendment, I assure the member who proposed it that, indeed, it is not the spirit of the amendment which we oppose.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I support and lend support to this amendment. I think it's, a good amendment.

If we're talking about constitutional disputes, of course, let it be tested. I ask all hon. members to recall some history with respect to constitutional disputes under the British North America Act. At one time there was a question of whether the provinces had jurisdiction over its own highways; at one time there was a question of whether the province had jurisdiction on traffic violations involving automobiles. Had the province of this country sat back and said, "oh, well, there's a jurisdictional dispute, " there would be no regulation of automobile traffic on our highways - none.

What went before the Supreme Court of Canada to be decided? A provincial statute controlling traffic on provincial highways. What about national marketing boards? What about income tax? There's always a jurisdictional dispute. That's the nature of Confederation. If that's being used by the minister as an excuse to sit down and say, "well, we're bickering with Ottawa, " and in the meantime our beaches are polluted and our environment is lost with no recompense - taxpayers' dollars going to clean up other people's negligence - then that's an abdication of responsibility on the part of this government and, in particular, on the part of this minister.

Mr. Chairman, this minister and his government should be gleefully accepting this amendment to this statute - well thought out and considered by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) .

Interjection.

[ Page 2334 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Would all hon. members please return to their own chairs? The committee is unruly.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Is what?

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) asks if it is unruly, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Unruly - yes, it's a word that's unknown to the Minister of Mines.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members! Please proceed, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Constitutional questions are very often decided by bold provincial governments putting forward their points of view in legislation, and having them tested in the courts of this land. You shouldn't be shy of that, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Shame!

MR. LAUK: That's a shameful thing for the hon. minister to say, indeed. It's his peculiar sense of humour, Mr. Chairman.

This question is a serious question. We're talking about pollution; we're talking about oil spills. We're not talking about possibilities; we're not talking about likelihood, as the minister said. We're talking about inevitable oil spills. There's no question that we're going to be facing this very problem. It frightens me, as it should concern every citizen of this province, that when those inevitable oil spills occur, this government, and in particular this minister, has done nothing to respond to the problem, to plan for it, to take every possible care to avoid the costs and the devastation caused by those oil spills.

The statute is toothless, as the hon. Liberal leader has stated. We stated in second reading on this bill that it was an ineffectual bill, it was window-dressing, it was cosmetic. Now the minister has an opportunity to respond in a way that will allow the people of this province to take what he's doing seriously. This is a cosmetic bill without such teeth, without such enforceable impact.

The posting of a bond, says the minister, may be required, if we pass this amendment, by every ship operating in British Columbia waters. I say well and good. The posting of a bond is simply the posting of a bond. It need not be paid out unless there is an oil spill. We need not concern ourselves with any bureaucracy to find out whether there's going to be or there will likely be an oil spill. There will be an oil spill, and we've got to take care of that eventuality.

A bond posted by each and every vessel operating in British Columbia waters is just fine, Mr. Chairman. Let the government in Ottawa take this to a high court for a constitutional decision. It'll be something the new Deputy Attorney-General will be able to get his teeth into - a good constitutional question. It keeps Deputy Attorneys-General out of trouble. Isn't that right, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you applying?

MR. LAUK: Am I applying!

But in all seriousness, this amendment should be accepted by the hon. minister. The questions raised are typical questions that if raised on every piece of legislation brought before this House would roadblock every piece of legislation, because, Mr. Chairman, there's always a jurisdictional dispute under the British North America Act - always. You find more than one lawyer, or even one lawyer, and you'll find a jurisdictional dispute he'll tell you about under the British North America Act. That's the stock in trade. Let's not be afraid of that. If we were afraid of that we wouldn't have built railways, we wouldn't have brought in a highway regulation Act, we wouldn't have brought in national marketing boards. We would have been in real problems. We would have had income tax jurisdictional problems and so on. There's always a dispute that has to be negotiated. That's the nature of this country. That's the nature of Confederation, and I urge the minister to accept this amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, when the bill came down for second reading it was indicated quite clearly at the time, because of the lack of any kind of thoughtfulness that had gone into this bill with respect to enforcement, that the bill was a sham.

Now the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has given the minister an opportunity to show good faith. In order to really give some credibility to his performance as Minister of the Environment, I would suggest to him very clearly at this point to accept this amendment. Failing accepting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, he admits.... Really, that's what he was standing up saying. He wasn't saying !all those words that he said. What he was saying is: "We want the bill to be a toothless Act of the Legislature in order to afford people the palliative of thinking that we're doing something." He's forgetting all the arguments about those ships that are licensed in ports of convenience,

[ Page 2335 ]

remembering that when the ship goes down, there is no money to be paid over from that shipping company because the ship is the total corporation. There's nothing there to look after the tremendous damage that's going to be done. I agree with the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk): it's not a case of if, it's a case of when. It's not just a distinct possibility, the situation is going to occur.

So, Mr. Chairman, what we're asking is that the government - the minister - put some teeth in his Act in order to let the world know that you don't mess around in B.C. waters without taking some actual responsibility. Presently there is no responsibility being taken by the majority of these large tankers that are licensed under flags of convenience. Most of the large oil tankers are licensed in those particular countries that afford them that luxury.

So, Mr. Chairman, let the minister stand up and indicate quite clearly that he's prepared to make this something other than just a piece of paper that's telegraphing the message that people continue to get away with the kinds of things that have occurred in this world without taking any responsibility. Let the minister really show that he means business in that Environment department; otherwise the whole department becomes a sham.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to support the amendment. I was disappointed that while the minister acknowledged the spirit behind the amendment and what it was trying to accomplish, he felt that there might be constitutional or practical problems down the road somewhere. I think people in British Columbia are really looking for leadership in this whole matter of the problem of oil spills and the need to both recognize and emphasize the dangers we're facing with these enormous supertankers - not just go on wringing our hands about what a terrible tragedy it will be when that first inevitable spill occurs, but to get on and try and do something in a preventive way to either ensure that it doesn't happen, or have preventive measures ready to deal with it when it does happen.

I agree with the thought of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that very often people are much more responsible when they have to put some money on the table. If we could bring about a system of ensuring that a bond is posted it might go at least some way towards ensuring that ship owners and ship operators try to have their ship in better condition than apparently many of the ships that are sailing off our coast right now.

I also think the comment that we should show a little bit of courage is reasonable. The Liberal leader interjected that the minister should dare to be a Daniel and dare to stand alone. Maybe other coastal provinces on the east coast have not attempted this approach. But someone has to take some courageous step of this magnitude, with the admitted risk that it might be challenged in the courts. I think the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was quite correct in saying that sometimes that is the only way progress is made in our rather complicated jurisdictional system in Canada. One jurisdiction simply has to attempt to legislate; if it's challenged in court, we then at least have some guideline as to what might then be done if, in fact, the legislation is unconstitutional.

So I strongly support both the spirit behind this amendment and the very practical effort that the Liberal leader is making to write it into legislation in the hope that some progress can be made to prevent oil spills, rather than having us spend as much time as we did on second reading discussing the ways in which oil spills can be cleaned up. It's a little analogous to the measure that we say the Minister of Health take this afternoon whereby, instead of providing more and more hospital operating rooms to cut out lung cancer, he's trying to make people stop smoking. It seems to me that exactly the same kind of sound common sense should apply in relation to the danger of oil spills. We should be finding this kind of vehicle or this kind of method of trying to discourage ship owners from running the risk of spilling the oil in the first place, when they know there's really no effective way in which the damaged municipality can seek financial redress from the agent of the ship causing the spill. It would seem to me it would be far better to put it in the legislation. If it has to be tested in court, so be it.

MR. BARBER: Those of us who have observed the debate this afternoon on this amendment have observed one thing. It's not just ignorance that governs that ministry; it's fear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member please be seated? I will remind the member for Victoria again that in debate in this House we should make it a practice to use temperate language if at all possible. As a matter of fact, the rules of this House make it incumbent upon the Chairman to interrupt immediately any debate in which language is used that might tend to disorder. I would suggest that the member would take this into consideration while he's making his speech. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Well, if it's not ignorance that governs that department, I don't know what it is, but I'll happily accept your language. It's certainly fear on two grounds, and let me point it out, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

[ Page 2336 ]

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister would withdraw that, please.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: It's only through listening to you, I suppose.

Let me continue, Mr. Chairman. It's fear of encountering the oil companies which are responsible corporately and immorally for destroying coast after coast, sea after sea and ocean after ocean on this planet. It's fear of confronting them in a serious way that propels that minister to refuse to accept this most responsible amendment proposed by the Liberal leader. It's fear of encountering and challenging those companies and that organization on an international scale that compels that minister to refuse this most responsible amendment.

It's also fear of another sort, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that this amendment was on the order paper. The minister had advance warning that the Liberal leader was going to present it. He presumably asked his department to advise him and he came here with that advice. I also noticed that the minister was afraid to listen to the whole debate before standing up and saying that he would not accept the amendment. He did not wait until he had heard the opposition make its arguments. He did not wait until he had heard the Liberal leader present his case. He did not wait to see whether new information, arguments, points of view and criticisms might be put forward which perhaps would open and thereby change his mind and allow him to consider it possible that this amendment was worth supporting.

Rather, out of fear of hearing those arguments, Mr. Chairman, he spoke before any of them have been made. Immediately the Liberal leader had moved the motion, he rose to condemn it - before hearing a single argument, a single statement, any opposing point of view, or contrary aspect at all. The minister chose, instead, to say: "No, it's unacceptable to us because we're afraid of taking on the international oil companies." I think it's absolutely disgraceful, Mr. Chairman, that this coalition government refuses to take those companies on and, as evidenced this afternoon, refuses even to listen to debate before they make up their minds on whether to support this amendment. No wonder we're in trouble in the Environment portfolio of this department.

MR. LEA: I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that we are looking at a new answer to some of the problems. What we are doing is just requiring that another segment come under rules that are already there. When someone is threatened by another person physically, you can, by law, request that person to post a bond so that if the person then does take some action against you and harms your body, then that person will forfeit the bond.

What we're looking at here is exactly the same principle, but instead of an individual or a group of people being threatened physically, we're looking at the environment in which we live being threatened physically. The principle is exactly the same. Because there is a threat to our coast, to our environment, to our marine life, to our way of life, all this amendment does is ask that the minister make the people who are posing the threat post a bond so that indeed, if that threat becomes a reality and we have an oil spill, they forfeit money. Now if there is not an oil spill then they don't have to pay anything. Their bond remains intact and it costs them no money whatsoever. All this amendment will do, in my opinion, is make the transporters of oil much more careful. It will create an added incentive to go by the navigational aids that are there and to be more alert.

As a matter of fact, it might be an idea, Mr. Chairman, if there were some small sanction against the people who were actually doing the piloting if, indeed, it happened to be negligence on their part. Maybe the company should have to pay for the spill, but say the person who is to be the lookout and watching for navigational hazards fell asleep and was negligent in his or her duty. There could be some small sanctions there also. They would be much more aware of the fact that if they didn't do their job properly there would be some small sanction against them. It wouldn't, of course, be to pay for the oil spill, because it would probably take them two lifetimes, but there would be some small sanction.

But I think the reason this amendment is not being accepted is the stupidest reason in the world. When you're sworn in as a cabinet you actually think there are little mints that are being handed out at the Lieutenant-Governor's, but they are called Stupid Pills. One ingredient in that Stupid Pill - and we're all susceptible to it; every government is susceptible to it....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Is that what happened to you?

MR. LEA: That's right. That's what happens to every government. Even when the opposition makes a good amendment the first rule of government is that you don't accept any amendment because you've taken the sleeping pill. We have a minister who overdosed. (Laughter.) That's what we have - an overdose o f Stupid Pills from the Lieutenant-Governor's when you get sworn in! Not to accept this amendment would have to be complete folly.

We were as much at fault when we were government as is this government in not accepting amendments from the opposition that made sense.

[ Page 2337 ]

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom- knows that. Everyone who was in this House - the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) - knows that, but this is the opportunity to change that way once and for all and have government accept an amendment from the opposition that makes sense. Do you know what's going on in minds over there, Mr. Chairman? I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not relevant to the amendment.

MR. LEA: Yes, it is. What is going on over there, Mr. Chairman, is that they're thinking "You know, that really is a good amendment. I wish we had that in but because the opposition brought it up we can't do it. Well, I guess we'll put it in next session, or maybe two sessions down the road." That is what's going on in the heads over there. I know it. I look at the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and I know full well that he realizes what I'm talking about - that it is absolute stupidity and folly for a government never to accept an amendment from the opposition. It is!

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Mines agrees. It is not a loss of face. As a matter of fact, the government and the minister would gain respect in the community if they accept this amendment. They would do nothing but gain. It would probably give us all, as legislators, a little more respect in the province. We would finally deserve a little respect if we were to act in that way. Accept an amendment from the opposition. It's not going to hurt the government politically. In fact, it would help them. Built somehow or other, after taking one of those pills at the Lieutenant-Governor's, nobody in government ever accepts an amendment unless it's some amendment that doesn't mean anything. That's the way it is.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) shakes his head, but he knows I am telling the truth. He knows I am telling the truth. The government will not accept this amendment for just absolutely the wrong reasons altogether. I believe they agree with the amendment and would like to have it in but are just afraid to do it because, somehow or other, they think it scores political points for the opposition. That's the sole reason for not accepting this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. Just before you begin, hon. member, may I call the committee to order? Order, please! The committee is unusually noisy today and the Chair, in order to try to assist orderly debate, will have to begin addressing individual members.

The Chair will need some guidance. Do we want conferences in this room? If so, I'll be very happy to permit them, but I must provide for everyone the same permission. Therefore I ask the committee to let common sense prevail, and let us have order in the House.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest that we should disagree without being disagreeable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to differ without being difficult. (Laughter.)

When the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was making his remarks about an overdose of Stupid Pills, the distinguished medical member (Mr. Wallace) to my left - or to my right as the case may be -observed that there was no known antidote for Stupid Pills. I suggested to him that an election is one that clears the head quickly.

MR. LAUK: How did you mean that?

MR. GIBSON: I noted that the minister said that he does not disagree with the intent of the amendment, but he raised some reservations with respect to constitutional validity and with respect to administrative possibility.

Now I tried to be quite careful on the constitutional side because there is some reason to believe that there was a goodly federal responsibility in the sense of control of shipping. On the other hand, this is an amendment, it seems to me, that does not turn on the question of to what extent British Columbia controls shipping within our territorial waters. It turns, rather, on the undoubted power of this province to legislate with respect to property and civil rights.

That property has been undoubted throughout the term of our constitution, and indeed has been expanded by the privy council and subsequently by the supreme court over the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should go to court.

MR. GIBSON: Well, perhaps it should go to court. Mr. Member, but I don't think it ever need be.

First of all, it is unquestioned that the Province of British Columbia has the right to require persons to file a bond. This is a property question. The province has a right to require persons within its jurisdiction to file a bond. Secondly, the province clearly has responsibility and authority over damage done to property within the province, as would be done by an oil spill.

So all that this amendment does is to conjoin the

[ Page 2338 ]

authority, on the other hand, to take some care with respect to such damage to property and gives the government optional power - I want to stress that; it's optional power; it's not obligatory in any way -to take certain precautions.

Next, the minister suggested that there might be some difficulty as to the practicality. I think he said you'd have to inspect every ship in British Columbia waters, or something like that.

Nothing of the sort, Mr. Chairman! The minister would only have to exercise this authority in any case about which he felt concerned. It is discretionary; it is not obligatory. If he was satisfied, for example, that tankers operating under such-and-such a national flag, with strong restrictions as to guidance systems and double bottoms and all of these kinds of things that you can have to increase the security of tankers, pose no danger - though I would question this always - then you don't require the posting of a bond. It's purely discretionary authority.

But we know by experience that there are some national flag carriers that operate vessels that do not have the best of navigational equipment, that do not necessarily have the size of crews with the proper training required to operate in a way which would make us in British Columbia feel comfortable if these ships were calling in our ports.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What would you do if they didn't post it - if they refused to?

MR. GIBSON: The Attorney-General says: "What would you do if they didn't post it?" Well, if they refused to post it, you would refuse them docking privileges. It's very simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's federal.

MR. GIBSON: That's simple enough, is it not?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, you'd let them provision, Mr. Minister. I don't mean to be unkind. You could send it out on lighters. But the question of enforcement is one that is possible.

The point is that here is something that can be done to increase the security of British Columbia. It's optional. We're not saying to the minister: "We must do this"; we're just saying, "We're giving you one more power, one more thing in your bag of tricks to make it a little bit safer for British Columbians."

Mr. Chairman, the government wants economic development in this province. We all want economic development. Economic development, among other things, requires the movement of energy. Where that energy should best move through this province, and by what means and in what form.... Some of it will certainly be oil. Tanker traffic will continue on our coasts, and probably increase.

So it would seem to me that a government that did want economic development would, in every way it could, take routes to make the public feel safe, to put the public mind at rest as to the fact that the government had done everything within its power to sensitize shipping companies as to the possibilities of oil spills to provide for the cleanup costs.

I was just passed a note by another member that raises a good point with respect to the very question of enforceability that the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was raising sotto voce across the floor. I would ask that Attorney-General if the question of enforcement - and a very real question it is - prevented most of the members of his party from voting against the seatbelt law. It did not. Sometimes, even if there is a question as to enforcement, this House has not only a right but at times a duty -though I happen to agree with that particular bill -to say: "We want to express ourselves in this particular way."

Now I happen to think that in the seatbelt case it's better done by resolution because there's a real question as to enforceability there. I don't think there's a question of enforceability here. I think that the province of British Columbia has a sufficiency of powers, one way or another, to make it sufficiently unpleasant for any shipping operator or owner who did not comply with this Act so that they would be very chary about attempting to operate in British Columbia. Not only that, but I think we would have a reasonable right to call upon the federal government to assist us through their obviously ample powers in the enforcement of this law.

So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is enforceable, that it is constitutional, that it is practicable, and that the government should accept it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is reconsidering his position on this.

I think one of the reasons why the British Columbia coast is considered open and available for oil ports on the Pacific coast of America is the fact that we don't have effective environmental regulations on the coast. One of the reasons for the hon. Liberal leader's bill is that this doesn't change that in any way unless some financial disincentive is placed in the bill.

Most other states on the coast of North America have the requirement that a bond be posted. So B.C. is considered open territory for oil ports. But the minister himself, in replying initially to the amendment, stated that certain activities of tankers, once they have docked, are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government - that is, when they're transferring oil from the ship to the shore. I'm wondering, if this is under provincial jurisdiction, if

[ Page 2339 ]

it's possible that this requirement for a bond is necessary to cover those activities over which the federal government has no jurisdiction. I would like the minister to reconsider this amendment, and I'm certain that members of this party would be willing to accept it in view of the fact that certain activities of tankers and oil companies, once they are in British Columbia waters, do come under his jurisdiction and therefore would come under the jurisdiction of this Act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 19

NAYS - 26

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

NAYS - 17

Hon. Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 21.

TRAVEL AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT

(continued)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to support this bill. The response of the travel agents generally has been one of approval and recognition of the fact that some kind of improved control is necessary.

I would say that I support this bill with some personal feelings. As I was telling the minister privately, my brother and his wife, who were about to visit Victoria from Scotland this summer, just wrote last week and told me that the 600 British pounds that they had paid for their air fare had disappeared down the drain through some dishonest operation who had gone bankrupt to something close to a million pounds in Britain. So it's quite obvious that the kind of problems we have in Canada are certainly not unique to our country in the travel industry.

I think that all that the opposition members should be doing in debating this bill is to try to suggest, perhaps, one or two improvements that might be made to the bill, but certainly accepting the very basic general principle that some control is needed. I think it must be some credit to the government that when they bring in this kind of bill, the people most affected by it, namely the travel agents, are generally supportive of the measures, albeit with some reservations.

The minister has, since tabling the bill, made it

[ Page 2340 ]

known by amendments - which we will, of course, debate later in committee - that the placing of payments by intending travellers into trust accounts is just not a practical proposition.

I think we should also recognize the very excellent submission that was made to all members of the House by Hagen's Travel in Vancouver in which they outline some of the very practical difficulties in attempting to operate a chequing account with entries and exits of money every day almost, and still, somehow or other, maintaining these funds in a trust account. It was also pointed out that in any case, the public could very readily be fooled by the use of the words "trust account, " since the trust account only depends on the integrity of those who can write cheques on that account. It's really integrity we're talking about, plus some arrangement whereby a person who loses his or her prepayment of travel expenses can have some recourse to the fund which is set up by the legislation.

I would just ask one or two questions as I make my comments, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can explain just how protective is the phrase "deemed to be held in trust." Just how protective, in effect, is that in law when we might discover that some individual has been misusing those prepayments of travel expenses made to the travel agent?

I'd also be interested to know about the compulsory payments that will be paid to the fund in this bill. Again I'm not well aware or well informed about all the detailed workings of travel agents, but I would assume that a smaller travel agent might be somewhat concerned about the amount of money he might be compelled to contribute to the fund. I am wondering how that money will be calculated, what the formula will be. I'm very interested, again, in the comments by Hagen's Travel, which suggests that each travel agent should pay a percentage of gross commissions into the fund. I would be interested to know whether the government and the minister have had consultations on this specific point with travel agents.

I'm also interested to know that the bill provides for the Crown to recover money, if possible; that the Crown has the right to recover that money, and also the right to deduct costs of recovery; and that the legislation includes solicitor costs. I'm just wondering, again, whether that is reasonable because I'm just wondering how much that recovery cost might be. If some traveller finds that his $500 has been misused, and the Crown spends $200 or $300 recovering what can be recovered, of course the would-be traveller might finish up with a reasonably small part.... That's section 19, Mr. Minister. I don't want to transgress the rules of the House by getting too specific on sections, but these are some points that occurred to me on reading the bill.

The other point that is made in some of the reaction by the travel industry is that very large sums of money are handled by many of these travel agents, and that the temptation of handling large sums of other people's money is always a serious one to which people can succumb. For that reason I'm wondering why there should be separate penalties or different penalties depending on whether the agent is an individual or a corporation or an incorporated company.

Again, I just think that the frankness and reasonableness with which Hagen's Travel have made this point is to be commended. They point out that they feel the fine should be the same for everybody involved, and go further to say that maybe $25,000 isn't a large enough fine, and that it would seem, in relation to the sums of money which many firms handle, that perhaps even $50,000 would not be excessive. Again, I'm not well qualified to pass an opinion on that, but coming from people who are working in the business every day, I'm impressed by what . seems to be a very reasonable suggestion. Certainly, as I say, the experience I've just been made aware of in Scotland involved somewhere close to one million pounds by the time the bankruptcy was revealed publicly.

One of the other principles of the bill, Mr. Speaker, relates to the possibility that one very sizeable loophole has been left. Both in the submissions that have been made, and in private conversations that I've had with travel agents, they would like to think that transportation companies who can provide scheduled travel services should not be exempted from this Act. For example, the possibility of an airline, either a large major one or a smaller regional airline, promoting package travel through some agent.... In the case of CP Air, really giving that agent a great deal of public status and credibility simply because their agency is being sponsored by CP Air.... They could well default on providing the service that is being paid for. But when the dust settles and there's a big lack of money to pay the actual cost, the airline has no onus to pay a nickel.

There's the kind of example of a smaller airline offering tours to Reno, and there's the example quoted in some of the correspondence that members have received where the agency did pay up on two occasions, but CP Air was involved in the promotion and wouldn't pay a nickel. It may well be that transportation companies are covered by federal law, or there may be some constitutional problem here. We seem to be plagued with these problems this afternoon.

Nevertheless, as was pointed out to me, some of these airlines often sponsor tours using their well-known logo and giving credibility and public recognition to the agent. It is felt, under these circumstances, that such an airline should accept the

[ Page 2341 ]

same responsibility as the agent now accepts under this bill.

Going beyond even that point, of course, the question is whether this bill is deficient in not providing something in the form of licensing to the actual persons in the travel industry who function as travel agents, in much the same way that a real estate agent cannot simply sell real estate until he or she has provided some evidence of training and knowledge and reliability as a salesperson whereas, as I read this bill, there is nothing to stop an individual from becoming a travel agent, regardless of his or her knowledge of the whole business of selling travel services, provided they register under the provisions of this new Act.

Many people have had the experience of receiving service for money paid, but the quality of that service, the bungling of arrangements and the sometimes inadequate accommodation provided compared to what they were promised can create problems. I think there is some real validity in suggesting that maybe this bill should be amended to provide some form of licensing and a description for that licensing.

.AN HON. MEMBERS: Hold up a sign saying "Regulations."

MR. WALLACE: Regulations? Mr. Speaker, I know the people I've talked to in the industry would be happy to hear that the point I've raised will be covered by regulations.

One of the gentlemen to whom I spoke emphasized that a travel agent has never gone broke in British Columbia, but travel wholesalers have certainly gone bankrupt. It brings me back to the point that the travel industry as a whole - all those involved even in a less-than-direct way, such as airlines, in the sales of travel services - should be covered in the definitions. That should, perhaps, be another amendment that we might consider.

They made the point to me that the purpose of the bill, as described in the explanatory notes, is to regulate sellers of travel services. They feel that other elements in the travel industry are at least indirectly involved and should meet the provisions of this Act in protecting the public consumer.

There is another element in the bill whereby agents can practise and do their work for 90 days after the bill is passed. It has been drawn to my attention that many very small operations, whose financial integrity and stability as a business might be questioned, seem to have come into being quite recently. I have no wish to name names in this debate, but there are companies where the agency involves little more than a telephone at a desk in a particular hotel in the city. That is really the measure of the travel agency but it's advertised under quite a grandiose name which could be very misleading to the consumer. There is another small restaurant in Victoria that advertises air travel through one of the Oriental airlines and it is little more than a telephone where the message is passed on to somebody else in an agency in Vancouver.

I assume that that type of agency can apply for registration once this bill is proclaimed. That brings me to the next point, Mr. Speaker. I think it's specifically section S: To what degree can we be assured - it seems to me that the language is quite reassuring in that particular section - that the track record of applicants who were functioning as agents prior to the proclamation of this bill will be properly and adequately scrutinized before they are registered under this new piece of legislation? Once again, I've been informed about one particular firm with a rather grandiose title. One of the individuals concerned with that travel agency has gone through two bankruptcies but quite recently he has opened up in business again.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's an experienced man!

MR. WALLACE: This man is showing a lot of experience in how to rise above his failures.

The individual whom I discussed this with, who is a very honourable and honest person in the industry, feels that it is exactly this kind of person whom the Act seeks to control and, if evidence is such, put out of business. But I'm not certain - and the agent to whom I spoke was not certain - that section 5, in particular, gives the minister or the industry adequate assurance that this kind of person I've just described will not be able to at least be given one - dare I use slang? - kick at the cat.

The feeling in the industry is that just about anybody can get registered and if they then default and breach the law they might still cause a lot of financial hardship to intending travellers. It was hoped that in debate I could get some assurance from the minister that the track record of people who have previously shown something less than a good record as travel agents will not get registered in the first place.

I think this is generally a good bill and I hope some of these suggestions I've made might lead to amendments which would improve it. I just want the minister and the House to know that in the research I have done, and among the people to whom I have talked, it's a pleasant change to find that the legislation seems to meet as much approval as anywhere from the actual persons who will be most affected by it. I think that's a great credit to the people in the travel industry - the travel agents -and it is also a credit to this minister, who presumably had some detailed consultations with the industry before he brought in the bill. I would hope that this might set the pace for future legislation by

[ Page 2342 ]

other ministers.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. I was pleased with this bill when it was first filed and when the minister rose, in all his wainscotted urbanity, during second reading to explain it to us, I was even more pleased. Then when he filed the amendments, it was even better, It works to the interests of all concerned as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker. It works to the interests of the travelling public; it works to the interests of travel agents; and it works to the interests of wholesalers - all of these except those who would be deliberately fly-by-night. It even works to the interests of the providers of accommodations and services in various parts of the world because, as a result of this bill being passed, they will feel more secure about dealing with the purveyors of travel service in British Columbia, whether at the retail or the wholesale level.

Many have been burned at the consumer level and at the supplier level and this will, generally speaking, increase the confidence of all concerned in the British Columbia travel industry. That is of tremendous importance to us. It will increase the financial stability of that industry as well. I have some technical concerns with various parts of the bill. Some of those have been removed by the amendments filed. Others, such as, for example, the fine section - the way it's worded - and section 16 relating to what seems to me to be a very unbridled right to specify contributions to the fund without any formula suggested to restrain the government in any way, I will deal with when we get to committee stage. But in principle, which is what we are discussing now, this is a bill that I believe isvery good for the public of British Columbia and for the travel industry, and I shall support it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, everybody is being very complimentary today to the Minister of Consumer and corpulent ... Corporate Affairs. (Laughter.) I've got to get that name right. I think the minister has been a mouse and not a tiger on this problem. We had the problem a year ago of a number t of the fly-by-nighters who went bust. Then, last January and February, we had the Haina one. While s the minister has sat on a problem where he has had a report in his office right from the NDP days, for 161/2 months, the delay has cost people in the province of British Columbia - hundreds of them - their holidays, their money or both. I don't think the problem is all that difficult. We c had among the travel agents those who are working with established airlines and are therefore licensed under IATA, and they're all bonded. The problem was with those who were not bonded, came into the industry without any restriction or standards, set up shop, and then they could only sell tours or charters.

The social and economic problem and threat posed by those operators has been known in British Columbia for the last two or three years. The minister's action has not been too little, but it has been too late for a lot of the people of the province of B.C. I think there was a simple solution a year ago, and there was a simple solution if we had had a fall session of this Legislature. This government is not as vigilant as I would like to see it be in terms of protection of consumer interests when the problem was very obvious for all to see more than a year ago.

I would think, too, that the bill will not be something that will stand on the statute books in its present form for too long. The problem, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, or one of the problems, apart from the lateness of the thing, is this section as to who may be a travel agent. I suppose it's section 5 because that number was referred to. It says that "where the person shows financial responsibility in past conduct, " and passes those hurdles, then they become a travel agent.

That means there's not much in the way of criteria there, Mr. Speaker, as to who can apply. There's no suggestion that they should have some education in the travel industry business, which should be the case. That's not in the section. There's no suggestion there that there should be past experience of having worked as an employee in a travel agency and having learned how to deal with the public and learned about how to keep the accounts and what services are available to the public. None of that is there.

The criteria for entry into the profession are very broad and very vague. I would think the registrar, holding arbitrary power.... Is that what is to be exercised? I would think not. I would think he would think he'd have to accept almost anybody who didn't have a series of bankruptcies in the past and who could put up the same kind of financial security that the existing industry has. So the result is that you have an industry that's subject to being infinitely enlarged and then they have to cut comers to stay in business. It's the old problem that the minister has with the real estate salesmen; he does nothing about hat one either.

If you want a good industry, you should have standards, education, training and experience before you can enter that industry and start doing business with the public. While the minister was playing with these concepts, as I said, Haina agency was handling 60,000 tourists a year, obviously in precarious shape with no bond ' even though the established agents all carried the bond. So it's too late. There should be better standards as to who can be admitted and who cannot.

I know you can appeal to the court, but appeal on what? What are the standards of admission to this particular industry? They don't exist and they should exist. Otherwise you'll still have fly-by-nighters who

[ Page 2343 ]

can come in. They'll go to the registrar and say, "I've got just as good credentials as somebody else and I want to be registered, " and they'll be perfectly entitled to be registered. While the other provisions of the Act are good in terms of setting up a fund and perhaps bonding that person.... The threat to the public has been diminished, but the threat to the industry is still there because too many people can swarm into it without experience, without training, without standards.

So that's one of the problems, and I think the minister.... You say you can spell that out in the regulations, Mr. Speaker. I say you can't because the regulations cannot amend section 5. As I recall that particular section, they don't purport to give the power to make regulations with respect to standards of admission to the travel industry business. I don't think you could anyway. When you set out the standards in the section, you're not going to be able to change those by regulation. So subject to that, it's too late, but not really too little and not really protection for the industry, which should be a group of trained, semi-professional people and not too many of them. They should not be subject to being raided by a big influx of other people who decide to set up their shingle in a hotel room or on a street and say: "I'm a travel agent."

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, like other members of this House, I do intend to support this bill in second reading, but I certainly have some concerns and some which I don't think have been expressed thus far.

First of all, I don't believe that there is complete protection in this. I think there's a double duty incumbent upon a minister who is responsible for consumer affairs, because when you remove the principle of caveat emptor, you are placing the public in a position of trust, where they know that legislation exists. The public have a faith in government and a faith in legislation and could get into very serious financial difficulty. In reading this, I don't see that there would be full compensation even for the costs incurred and for the loss. It says that amounts will be fixed, but it doesn't say that it will be full compensation. The public might have the impression that they would be getting full compensation when indeed they might not.

I also feel that this matter of compensation certainly doesn't take into account the inconvenience that happens when people have a holiday set at one time of the year. There's no way we can compensate for the loss in terms of the timing. If you have your holidays set up for a certain time, you have your arrangements made and that company goes bankrupt, even returning your plane fares and other things do not compensate for what is the lost holiday and the fact that you will not be able to get to your destination and enjoy the holiday as you'd intended. In fact, I believe that they have similar legislation in Ontario, but it hasn't even prevented certain outfits from declaring bankruptcy and going back into business again. I could refer to a travel failure covered in the Canadian Travel Courier: "Travel India Failure Brings Demand for Penalties." This occurred in Ontario. Travel India was subject to claims of $21,000 against the Ontario compensation fund, made in connection with the default of Travel India

Worldwide Service. The agency was registered in the name of a certain individual. That individual, I understand, is back in business today with a company called India Travel. What I might go on to say a little bit later, and I think that it might call some question in those remarks.... But it is still a concern. I noticed it was a concern with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . He wasn't completely satisfied that persons who had filed bankruptcy would be prohibited from re-entering this line of business.

This is a sort of blockbuster bill. There is everything in this thing - every awesome, sweeping power. I'm surprised that other members haven't pointed to it. There's a complete infringement of civil liberties and civil rights in this bill in the name of protecting the travelling public.

Now I'm in favour of protecting the travelling public. I'm even going to vote for this in second reading, but I have some very serious reservations. What this bill is doing ... I think it should be dealing with one specific group, and that is as has been outlined - the group that deals in wholesaling and that is not normally members of IATA. I don't believe that any of the members of IATA in British Columbia have been subject to the default in terms of travelling arrangements. The recent failures which we've had and ones in the past have been little fly-by-night outfits that have sprung up.

There certainly is a great deal that could be subject to regulation in the travel industry. I believe the practice right now is that some people get their tickets and arrangements through outfits in Bellingham, Washington, sell them in Vancouver and set up a little operation. Things are almost completely unregulated. But in getting after these irresponsible fly-by-night outfits, we are, in this legislation, taking some very strong measures which are affecting the total travel industry.

I think the acceptance of the total travel industry of this legislation is a tribute to their sense of responsibility and points out that the responsible sector of the travel industry doesn't need this heavy a regulation. The fact that they're willing to submit to it just shows that they are responsible, and that they're willing to show their concern.

But in the matter of bankruptcies, you know that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned

[ Page 2344 ]

that he doesn't believe that this legislation will necessarily prevent chronic bankrupts from going back into business. You know, that is the case. We find this as the experience with regulated self-licensing associations and various types of business that come under this. We find that these people do not necessarily lose their right to practise that profession.

I could point out - and I see the name right in front of me - one such individual right here in Victoria. I see his list of creditors supplied by the bankrupt without prejudice in the matter of a bankruptcy. I see that first of all, indebted in this case of bankruptcy were the Department of National Revenue, Al's Home Service, B.C. Stevens and Brown's Nurseries. Even the Uplands Golf Club, I believe, was filing against this bankrupt.

This particular businessperson has filed bankruptcy three times in Victoria and yet is still allowed to practise. In this type of bankruptcy, this particular self-regulated, self-licensed organization to which this person must belong happens to be the medical profession. So you can see why I might be concerned that there is not the guarantee within this legislation to prevent chronic bankrupts from continuing to practise the travel industry. Certainly if doctors can continue time after time to file bankruptcy and yet still be allowed to practise medicine, then I have no such assurance from the minister that this should apply to people engaged in bankruptcy.

So I would tell and urge this minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that maybe as an aside he should perhaps consider other agencies, such as the medical profession and perhaps the legal profession, in order to make sure that the same standards are applied to them as are being applied to the travel industry. Indeed, perhaps some of these regulations and these standards could be established for car dealerships. I think that

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Going on with this, though, and things which I think are a little bit of an overkill in a terms of inspection, it says: "Where the registrar believes on reasonable and probable grounds that at person has committed an offence under the Criminal Code Then there is a whole list of powers which he has to seize and search and enter premises - not only the registered business premises but, where they're satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing there is a record related to a person whose affairs are being investigated, a building, a dwelling house, a receptacle, any place. These are awesome, sweeping powers of investigation and regulation and discrimination. In fact, the creation of a registrar, which is one of the main parts of this Bill, will be creating a new police force, really, with all the powers of the Public Inquiries Act and many others in addition. Going even beyond that, they can also put such premises as a business under investigation if anyone, I suppose, files a complaint. If they launch an investigation, the registrar can apply for an appointment of a receiver or a liquidator or a trustee. He can put such a business into receivership. And the incredible thing is that if the government goofs, if the minister goofs, if the registrar goofs, or if a board member or their agents, officers, employees, representatives and persons acting on their behalf make a mistake, they are not liable in their personal or official capacities for loss or damage suffered by the person by reason of anything done or admitted to be done in good faith in the exercise.

So they're going to take over a business and they're going to put it into receivership, Mr. Speaker, and, if they make a mistake, there is no liability. That's one of the first things that the NDP government did; it made the Crown responsible and made the Crown liable and I should hope that it is spelled out in here.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, of course, the second section does say that it doesn't relieve the Crown from liability but I don't know, if there is willful neglect or real neglect on behalf of a person, a registrar or anyone, you cannot - you should not -legislate away responsibility. I think that this is just going too easily. There should be responsibility and certainly, if there is some sort of a gross neglect or misconduct on behalf of any public servants - the minister or the registrar – they should be held responsible. This is a tremendous responsibility that the minister is taking, Mr. Speaker. He is asking this Legislature to grant the right, where they feel that there should be an investigation, to make over a business and to put it into receivership -indeed, to liquidate it if they so feel - with just an investigation underway. I certainly feel that there is a great deal that could be rethought in this bill, even after the long and lengthy delay. I don't rise to support this bill quite as heartily as he member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I feel that this bill has missed the mark and hat it could have been more specific. We know who he culprits are. We know who the bad actors are. But what we're doing is labelling the whole industry rather than going after a particular group. And to the credit of that industry, people like Hagen's Travel didn’t even mention some of these awesome, weeping powers, and I think that's a credit to their sense of responsibility in terms of creating a good image for the whole industry, because the public doesn’t understand the various facets of this industry.

[ Page 2345 ]

They don't understand how it's been operating. Indeed, the fact is that the small outfits like Hagen's Travel and Totem and Bayshore and Bains and all of these outfits have stood behind their customers when some of these tours have declared bankruptcy and they've made things good on their own.

It's like labelling all teenagers by the actions of a minority. What was the total volume of sales last year and what was the total amount lost by fraud? How many agencies were involved in that fraud? These are the questions that the minister should have asked and then he should have said: "How can I best prevent that from happening without having to create a false impression about the conduct of the entire industry?" I don't think that - to use the example that I just cited - the whole medical profession should be put in a bad light because of the actions of one member, but it's certainly no less true for the travel industry.

I think that the minister has come out with legislation that's too all-encompassing. I hope that the comments of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will be true - that this legislation will be temporary, that there will be a fine tuning, and perhaps either massive amendments brought into this, maybe in the next session of the Legislature, or perhaps even a new bill.

I know that it's a difficult area in which to operate. So it's only because the minister is asking this House to trust him with these awesome, sweeping powers that I will support this. But if that minister should betray that trust, Mr. Speaker ... never again, never again. So with those remarks, I hope the minister will take it to heart and consider that very carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would, of course, like to take this opportunity to thank members of the opposition parties who took the time to discuss this bill with me before it was presented to the House. Particularly, I'd like to express my gratitude to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) .

I would like to, however, correct the impression -I'm not sure he meant to give it - that I thought he gave that there was very little consultation between my ministry and the industry before this bill was prepared and presented. That impression is incorrect. There were a great many meetings. As a matter of fact, they went on before my time, back into the time of my predecessor. There have been a great many meetings since the bill has been tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker.

I think I'd particularly like to refer to an extensive conference that took place between my deputy and members of my staff and representatives of the industry and their counsel, going over many of the areas that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard expressed to this House a week or so ago. Because of those discussions which took place, the amendments which are now on the order paper were indeed prepared and tabled. Although I'm sure the member did not mean to give that impression, I hope the House does not have the impression that this bill has been entered into lightly and without extensive and lengthy conferences with the industry throughout British Columbia.

I would like to say also, Mr. Speaker, that in drafting this bill and bringing it to the House, we drew upon the experience of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Quebec's experience has been perhaps not as happy as Ontario's. Ontario has had better than a year of experience, and I personally spent an afternoon with their Department of Consumer and Commercial Relations, going over the problems that they had. I might say that the input I received from them also convinced me that the trust provisions which we had in the bill were likely to be unworkable.

I quite agree, too, with the observations made by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard and by others in this House that we are indeed only dealing with a few. I also agree that the travel industry has generally had a very good reputation indeed. Evidence of that continuing good reputation is the fact that they worked so hard with us in the preparation of the bill which is now before the House. It is a pity that we can't legislate only against those who are going to be transgressors. Unfortunately, that's not the nature of the beast and we must legislate in general terms, which we have done in this particular bill.

The amendments on the order paper, which will be dealt with, of course, in committee, do indeed take out many of the trust provisions. But in answer both to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard and to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , they will still leave the moneys - for want of a better word labelled "trust moneys" - for purposes of receivership, bankruptcy and the doctrine of tracing. So even though the trust money does not have to be dealt with in the same way that a lawyer or a real estate company must deal with its trust accounts, the moneys are still trust moneys.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with the points raised by the member for Oak Bay in his very thoughtful speech on this matter. Obviously he has gone to a great deal of trouble to get his background material.

I think, first of all, I've dealt with the question of the trust moneys. I'd like to deal now with the funding - where the money is to come from. This, of course, will be provided by regulation in due course. We propose to follow the same course of action

[ Page 2346 ]

followed in Ontario, which is a percentage of the gross sales. This has worked well in Ontario. Ontario, of course, is an excellent province from which to draw on in terms of experience because they are much larger than we are. At the same time, they're one of the few provinces that have not only a large travel industry but a large wholesaling industry. In spending time with their department, I'm convinced that is the best way to go.

The question of penalties was raised by the member for Oak Bay, and I'm quite prepared to take this under advisement. The only specific answer I could give to him at this point is that this is consistent with penalties and other Acts of a similar nature and kind. I think that it's fairly typical that the larger travel agencies or the larger wholesalers do in fact become corporations, which gives rise to the greater penalty imposed upon them. However, that's something we will certainly deal with.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised a question of a possible loophole being the international airlines and so on, and I quite agree that there is a problem there. It is, however, as the member pointed out himself, one that is constitutional in its nature. Fortunately, most of the large international airlines have indicated the willingness, insofar as they are travel agents, to submit to the provisions of this Act voluntarily, which is going to be a great assistance to us.

The question of licensing and standards was raised. Once again, I must agree that this does pose a difficulty. However, it is very difficult to impose standards on an industry of this sort that you can, for want of a better expression, etch on tablets of stone and with which everybody can live. We do agree that the registrar is going to have wide powers. But, after all, what the registrar does to a large degree is going to determine whether or not the agents' own money is paid out in claims under the fund into which they put the money. They themselves expect the registrar to have wide powers for this very purpose. It is their money that he is going to be called upon to protect.

Further, the member for Oak Bay raised the question of control of travel agents and wholesalers under section 5. 1 think we must remember that until now there was no control at all. At least this is a start; there's no question about it. We will be looking at the track record of the individual both in his business background and in other areas before allowing him to be registered.

My notes indicate the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) did not intend to raise anything in second reading but preferred to wait until committee.

Then the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose to tell us once again what the NDP was going to do. I listened with great interest to that member tell us what they were going to do. One of these days he may tell us why he didn't do any of these things when he had the power to do so, why he and his government knuckled under to the reaction of some members of the travel industry when they threw up a trial balloon and proposed legislation.

MR. MACDONALD: You just finished saying we did too much.

HON. MR. MAIR: They had them coming down from Kamloops and all over the place to protest, and they did nothing about it, even though Air Club International was the scandal of the moment. I personally think that our government has every right to take credit for dealing with these situations rather than saying that we're going to deal with it at some future time.

I notice all of the things that that member did about the Real Estate Act when he had it under his supervision, and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and the interesting way he messed up the liquor situation. But I suppose he would have taken care of that if they had got back into power, Mr. Speaker. So once again he must be forgiven.

Now the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) did raise a great many interesting questions, which I think were also raised by the member for Oak Bay, although perhaps in somewhat kinder terms. But one point I think that he did raise that I should deal with here rather than in committee is that question that we're only dealing with fly-by-nighters. Mr. Member, I quite agree with you: that's what we are dealing with. But these fly-by-nighters take out a heck of a lot of money when they come and go. And they come and go very, very quickly. Now Haina Agencies is a very good example of how $300,000 or $400,000 or whatever the final figures are, can come and go before anybody really has a chance to get a handle on the situation.

I might say in that regard that while I have praised the travel industry throughout these proceedings, I'm afraid I'm going to throw a little brickbat at them. During our discussions with the travel industry, I found out to my horror that a great many of them knew that this was going to happen to Haina. A great many of them had refused to handle Haina's cheques, refused to take the cheques, or if they did take them, ran over immediately to the bank to certify them. Of course, that is not very helpful to those of us who are trying to administer the law and the Trade Practices Act.

That, Mr. Member, leads me to the final question I think you raised which I ought to deal with at this stage of the game - the question of the powers given to the registrar when he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that some offence has been committed.

These things do not permit a lethargic approach,

[ Page 2347 ]

Mr. Member. When we do find out about these things, the person who has all the money and is about to go over the hill with it is not giving us a lot of lead time and advance notice. When we do get anything to go on, we have to go on it very quickly indeed. And in the same context that I spoke under the Consumer Protection Act, I must say that the director of trade practices throughout the history of his position has always acted in a responsible and proper manner. I have no reason to expect that he would not do so in any future dealings under this Act.

Having made those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Travel Agents Registration Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

SUCCESSION DUTY REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I find that I am in a bit of a turmoil, should I say, whenever I try to figure out in my own mind how people can change their minds so quickly, how people can in one year take one stand on a specific issue and then a year or two later find themselves completely turned around in their whole approach towards that same subject.

I'm speaking particularly about the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , who is now telling us that succession duties are causing people to take investment out of this province and yet is offering us no proof. I'm particularly surprised that he doesn't have something very concrete to tell us in view of the fact that back in 1972, that same minister stood in this House and said - it's quoted in Hansard:

In this instance I propose to support the bill because I believe we're into a whole new ball game in the terms of taxation in Canada. We shouldn't at this stage look at this legislation and say succession duties are out. We should at least allow them to stand trial in this province. I think they create a substantial revenue. If you don't think $21 million is substantial, my friend, well, you're looking at a different code of ethics than I am.

Those were the minister's words, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say:

Because it is a new ball game where taxation is concerned, the question we have to ask is whether or not, at this stage, succession duties are obsolete. I say they are not, and therefore I stand to support this bill.

Now certainly something must have made him change his mind, Mr. Speaker. When a man has taken a stand as definite and as firm as that, then I would suggest that before he comes before this House and says he has changed his mind, he should have some rather concrete evidence and reasons for changing his mind. Instead of that, he has said: "Well, we believe that it's causing people to take money out of the province. We believe it's hindering investment." We believe; we think - no concrete proof, Mr. Speaker. To me, that's not good enough.

He had a report prepared but he says the effects of the.... This was from the Colonist, in March of this year. He says: "The report being prepared by the Finance ministry on the effects of lifting succession duties will not be made public." Now why not, Mr. Speaker? If, in fact, the minister has changed his mind, he must have some reasons. Perhaps those reasons are in that report, and yet he's not going to make that report public. To me, that's not the kind of proof I would like to see in order to convince me succession duties are no longer a valid tax.

One of the reasons that has been suggested is that it causes a hardship on people inheriting farms -direct-line inheritance of farms. Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly if that's the case then perhaps something should be corrected there, but I don't believe that is the case - certainly not in very many instances.

MR. KEMPF: Read your own Act.

MRS. WALLACE: According to statistics, only 1,906 of more than 13,000 estates assessed in 1975 were taxable; 96 per cent of nearly 12,000 direct-line estates were not taxable because of the $150,000 exemption. Of the 1,906 that were taxable, 1,469 were valued at under the exemption level but were taxed at a total of $8.4 million because they had no direct heirs or were out-of-province estates. The remaining 430 estates accounted for $20 million, or 70 per cent of the entire amount of tax collected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't leave very much doubt that there was very little cause for alarm as far as the farm population was concerned. The exemptions were very large. If the home site was included in the farm estate and it went to a direct-line heir - that is, father, mother, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, any of those direct-line descendants - and if it included the home site, it was absolutely and totally exempt regardless of the value. If the home site was not included, then it went to including 50 per cent of the family farm if it exceeded $150,000. That's a pretty major estate, Mr. Speaker, and the provisions were there to provide exclusion of the family -farm. If there are any members of this House who think they were not sufficient, an amendment would be fine. I don't

[ Page 2348 ]

believe it was necessary, but if that's the case, if there are proven cases that that was necessary, then an amendment is all that's required. It certainly doesn't require the complete removal of the succession duties.

The other reason that has been given is the fact that it's taking investment out of this province. It's been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that corporations don't pay succession duties. Certainly many, many citizens outside of British Columbia are stockholders and voters in deciding the policy of corporations. Common sense would suggest that corporate decision-making is certainly not affected by this tax.

It's been suggested that succession duties have been superseded by capital gains tax. But that's not true either, and that's very evident by the fact that succession duties bring in something like $30 million a year to this province, while corporate gains taxes bring in something like $1.5 million. So certainly one is not superseding the other.

We've had a lot of rhetoric about these taxes and whether or not they are causing investment to leave this province. We've had a lot of changes of mind by the former Social Credit government and this government. We had the former Premier holding forth very strong, very loud and very long in support of succession duties. In fact, it was he who introduced them into this province. Now we have this government reversing that decision.

But we have no facts. No one has come out and said that it is the succession duties that are causing people to leave B.C. and take their investment out of this province. They've said it but they haven't proved it; they have not offered proof. They said: "Our investment is going to Alberta where the succession duties have been removed."

That was a very interesting thought to me. No one seemed to have any proof of this so I decided to do a little investigation on my own. One of the things I found out, Mr. Speaker, is that.... A little notice came out in the paper the other day that said there were 8,117 millionaires in Canada. This caused me to do a little wondering about where these millionaires were. So I checked it out and I found that in Alberta, with a population of 1.85 million, they have 549 millionaires. That's 29 for every 100,000 of population. What have we got in B.C., where succession duties are supposed to be driving the millionaires out of the province? We have a population of 2.502 million and we have 850 millionaires. That is a percentage, Mr. Speaker, of 34 to every 100,000.

MR. KEMPF: What's wrong with that?

MRS. WALLACE: We have more millionaires per capita in British Columbia than we have in Alberta.

MS. BROWN: Under socialism!

MRS. WALLACE: Yet we're supposed to have driven all these millionaires and all the investment out into Alberta.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, we have a higher per-capita ratio of millionaires in British Columbia than we have in Alberta - 34 to 29.

MR. KEMPF: Point Grey socialism!

MRS. WALLACE: Those are the Canadian statistics just, issued.

In Alberta, Mr. Speaker, they repealed the Succession Duties Act in 1967, so we would expect that there were some great things happening after 1967 in the way of investment in Alberta.

I acquired figures from the Alberta statistical releases for the four years preceding that repeal of succession duties and the four years following that repeal. In 1964 the ratio of the gross domestic product to the gross fixed capital formation by business - that is, the ratio of the amount of investment in the province in proportion to the gross domestic~ product - was 25.4 per cent. That was while they had succession duties, Mr. Speaker.

In 1965 that ratio increased to 26.05 per cent. In 1966, still with succession duties, the ratio increased to 26.33 per cent. In 1967, when succession duties were repealed, you would expect that there would have been an increase. Instead, there was a decrease -a 25.58 per cent ratio.

In 1968 the ratio increased very slightly to 25.85 per cent. In 1969 it was 26.36 per cent. In 1970 it was 25.08 per cent - down again, Mr. Speaker. In 19 7 1, it was 2 5.3.

I think those figures speak very loud and clear. The per cent increases averaged, in the four years while succession duties were in effect, 25.84. In the four years after succession duties were repealed, it decreased to 25.71 per cent. There is no proof, Mr. Speaker - absolutely no proof - that removal of succession duties increases investment in a province. In fact, the opposite is true in Alberta.

The minister has said that this is one of the reasons that he has changed his mind. He has offered us no proof - just vague statements. I'm suggesting that these are hard, cold facts right out of the statistics of the province of Alberta. I suggest that they deny the premise he is making.

Surely that is the only ground that could possibly be brought forward to repeal a bill which is bringing into the coffers of this province something like $30 million a year out of the pockets of the people who can well afford to pay: the very large estates. To find,

[ Page 2349 ]

in a time of stress and in a time of recession when other taxes based on the backs of the little people have been increased and increased and increased, that this government - with no proof positive, only vague generalities which in my opinion have been proven wrong - would dare to move to repeal this bill is very surprising, Mr. Speaker.

I think I can do no better than to quote the words of the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, when he said:

"This government believes a broad base for taxation is the most suitable method to raise the funds necessary to carry out essential services provided by government. The government is aware that thrifty, industrious and prudent citizens in our society need encouragement and are entitled to encouragement to continue their contribution to the economy of the province. The British Columbia succession duties will, therefore, only apply to very large estates, as basic exemptions outlined above eliminate most beneficiaries."

That was the statement of the Premier of the day, Mr. Speaker.

"My friends, I don't wonder at all that some of these representatives of the fat cats are preaching their doctrine. I'm going to tell you this: they talk about double taxation, the federal income tax, and that we wanted larger exemptions. As long as I'm Minister of Finance, I will never agree to tax the people with low incomes and let the people with wealthy estates off scot-free, my friends."

That's what the former Premier of this province said. That's what the opposition is saying now, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you recall that vote. You were in the House then, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall how you voted at that time, Mr. Speaker? I've reminded the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) how he voted at that time. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is not in his seat, but I wonder if he remembers how he and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) voted at that time.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think he was there then, Mr. Member. No, I don't think so.

But certainly the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was here at that time and I wonder how he voted. All of you, Mr. Speaker, supported the legislation to bring in succession duties - every one of you - with one exception, who is no longer in the House.

And yet they are now going to turn it around now, at a time when they tell us that the government needs money so badly that they are increasing taxation. They are increasing charges levied on the little people of this province in every possible way that they can. Mr. Speaker, it upsets me very greatly that people in this House can reverse their decision so lightly and so easily to meet a political commitment - because that is the only reason, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with investment in this province. It has nothing to do with that at all. It's a political commitment, Mr. Speaker. They are committed to this piece of legislation and they are prepared to stoop to any lengths to bring this in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Saskatchewan?

MRS. WALLACE: The question of Saskatchewan has been raised, Mr. Speaker. In Saskatchewan, those succession duties were a direct charge on farms and nothing else. There's a farm population in Saskatchewan. They were, in effect, doing what we had done with the NDP amendment to exempt farms. Farmers were the only people who were paying and it was $4 million to the treasury.

We're talking about something quite different here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about a giveaway to those who least need it. I oppose this bill very strenuously, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I must say how much I enjoyed, as I always do, the member for Cowichan-Malahat's presentation. I listened very carefully to her points and very carefully to her questions. They were well taken; she's quite right. It's astonishing to many of us how quickly people can change their minds and why. I must draw to your attention, Madam Member, the change that was placed by the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) on the very floor of this House, but last week he, who was one of the greatest promoters of lotteries, instant millionaires and windfall profits, suddenly changed his mind. The reason, I suggest, that he changed his mind was because that party has found itself in an extremely difficult situation. When that debate took place, I asked....

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please relate her remarks to the second reading of this bill?

MRS. JORDAN: I am indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly shall.

MR. SPEAKER: I am waiting patiently to hear.

MRS. JORDAN: I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the conflict between supporting instant millionaires through no effort and opposing the right of hard-working individuals to reap the rewards of their efforts. In doing this I must point out that the

[ Page 2350 ]

former Attorney-General, when I cautioned him about this and asked why he supported this proliferation of instant millionaires, wouldn't answer. At that time I accused the NDP government of maintaining a position which would lead people to believe that they believed in lotteries and windfall profits, but, in fact, if they were in government long enough they would tax those profits. I suggest that that is part of the flip-flop that is taking place with that party at this time.

I just simply cannot understand, Madam Member, as you can't, how you and your party can reconcile in your minds the tremendous support, the impetus that you gave to the promotion of lotteries and windfall profits and instant millionaires in this country, and then how you can stand and make the speech that you did today.

Mr. Speaker, one just has to look at the paper day after day after day. Here's one on March 13,1977. It gives the ticket numbers. There are 20 instant millionaires! There are 20 instant millionaires who will derive $1 million not taxed. They can do with it as they wish during their lifetime. Yet people who have worked hard, families who have developed businesses, widows who have put years of efforts into helping their families develop assets, the value of which they are often not truly aware of until the time of death, should also reap the same benefits. On moneys which have already been taxed, at least once or twice....

I think this is very interesting. Don McGillivray said in The Province on Tuesday, March 8, "sometimes this country sounds like a banana republic without bananas, " although one might argue there's been a few bananas showing around here. But he says: "On the day it was announced that our economic output had dropped in the last three months of 1976, the Provincial Lottery created five instant millionaires at the draw in Stratford, Ontario."

Loto Canada, supported by the NDP....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MRS. JORDAN: Fine! Admirable! Oh, yes. I think that Mr. Broadbent and David Lewis supported Loto Canada. Fine!

Anyway, Loto Canada, an agency of the federal government, took large space in newspapers at the taxpayers' expense to congratulate the winners of the rival lottery and invite them to take part in "the biggest draw in Canada's history, which will create a dozen more millionaires on March 13." At a time when our ability to produce wealth is in doubt, we seem to be better than ever, and probably better than any country in the world, at creating instant millionaires.

Madam Member, I want to tell you about a meeting I had yesterday in the constituency of North Okanagan with a constituent of mine - second generation, a very hard-working family which had built up a gravel business, a construction business and had devoted a great deal to this country. They have had to cut back on their business. I said: "Russ, can you employ any students or more people this summer?" He said:

"Pat, you know, I had to cut back. I simply am not going to do it anymore. Why should I slave my heart out, go through all the problems, fill out the forms, get an ulcer, get a coronary to build a business to create jobs that the government is going to take away from me? I can't pass it on to my children. I can't pass it on to my wife unless I go through so much really illegal manoeuvring to avoid taxes that I just don't want to be part of it."

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that, Madam Member, is one of the most serious crises that this province faces today. The initiative, the integrity and the drive to build businesses in this province is gone unless you.... I am sure you don't want to be part of a system that leaves nothing to the conglomerate. Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, you said the companies are exempt. Which side of the fence are you on - the companies or the people?

In taking that position, they're public companies-, those shares are owned by people in other parts of Canada as well as British Columbia. You, Madam Member, are making second-class citizens out of our citizens because they will have to pay estate taxes on those shares in many, many instances.

So why should people want to work hard and save their money? Why would they want to invest in public companies, in private companies to build this province if their neighbour in Alberta, who may have the same shares and may have the same assets, is going to be taxed? Their wives will be taxed, their children will be taxed, so that they'll really have nothing left, and they aren't going to be.

I'd like to continue on. He says:

"It is no coincidence that the lottery bug has bitten Canadians at a time when they seem to be losing faith in hard work, prudence, personal saving and wise investment as a path to a secure and prosperous future. Lotteries produce no new wealth. They distribute what we have, leaving a lot of people a little poorer and a few much richer. The latest report on the gross national product by Statistics Canada is a reminder that we must find a way to get the country producing more new wealth for everyone."

Madam Member, that is true.

In British Columbia, we have acknowledged as a government the problems there are with our basic resource industries, the problems we have in

[ Page 2351 ]

developing sound new secondary industries. I suggest, in addressing this bill, that we have to show tremendous imagination and drive in developing a new wave of secondary cash flow and economic development in this country and in this province.

That must be away from the current trend of companies and industries centralizing. All that does in the name of efficiency is to create more unemployment. We must look to such things as tourism, recreation, culture, heritage as a means of creating wealth, of creating jobs and creating economy. We must look to the individual drive of the individual citizen, the family group and the small business to do this. We must look to more labour-intensive, imaginative industries in order to meet our unemployment problems and our economic problems. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in doing that, that unless people can be sure that their efforts and their investment are going to leave something for their families, they're not going to exert the effort necessary.

The member also talked about agriculture, and I would suggest that either that member has been far too susceptible to the charms of the former Minister of Agriculture and Finance (Mr. Stupich) or she simply hasn't read the legislation. I don't intend to 90 into it detail after detail because my colleague from Salmon Arm is going to do this, but I would make very clear, Mr. Speaker, in this debate that there are people in the very area that I represent who fall into a category of complete discrimination because of the Succession Duty Act as designed by the NDP government. That, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to agricultural land inheritance.

First of all, the qualifications to inherit a farm within a family are still so rigid and there are so many ands, ifs and buts that there is no free flow of this land to the individual families. The land must be on one title. This is not always in the best interests of long-range agricultural planning nor is it necessarily what a father may wish because of the danger of creating friction in his family.

This also creates disparities in areas of the province, Madam Member. For example, in the Okanagan, you might have a farmer and he would be classed, perhaps, on an income basis as a poor farmer because, as most members of this House know, Mr. Speaker, the returns in agriculture are simply not there today. If he dies and he has 60 acres of land which might be presently valued at $5,000 per acre -and I would suggest this is low - he has a total value of $300,000, which in most instances is going to be taxed very heavily. If he leaves this farm to his wife, she's going to be forced to sell.

At the same time, there may be a farmer in the Bulkley Valley who has perhaps been deriving the same income - perhaps even a little bit more because the cost of production may be lower up there for certain reasons. He would have land of 60 acres, but its market value and assessed value for estate-tax purposes would be $500 an acre. Therefore he would have a total evaluation for succession duties of $30,000. When he dies, regardless of what happens, there would be no succession duty paid.

Yet these are two families of the same type, living in the same province but in different areas, who would be having the same income. In fact, the one getting slightly more income would be having a greater advantage in succession duties and they would be treated completely inequitably because of the way this Act is and because of the philosophy there.

I should also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the moneys used to build up an estate in most instances - well, in all instances unless you're a lottery winner or illegal - have already been taxed once, sometimes twice.

When we talk about change in vote, yes, I voted with the former Premier, as the member mentioned. She's quite right, and I don't apologize for it. That vote came up right after the federal government changed its position, removed succession duties and put on a capital gains tax. None of us were aware -and I'm certainly not afraid to change my mind with good reason - of the impact that capital gains tax was going to have. None of us were aware, as many people are not aware today, that capital gains tax comes into play in many instances at the time of death, and certainly will still, even with the removal of succession duties and gift taxes in British Columbia.

I would remind the member that once we realized that in fact we were creating an inequity, the former Social Credit government was quick to change its position. Unlike the NDP, Social Crediters do not like to be confused with the facts. We like to know the facts. (Laughter.) I think we were slightly mixed up there. I would repeat for the record that unlike the NDP, who do not wish to be confused with the facts, we are quite willing to open our minds and....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I think my son would say: "Mom, you just committed a nerdy."

We want to look at the facts. We are willing to change as circumstances change. We certainly, as a government, don't want to see our legislation create inequities or hardships any more than is possible.

The hon. minister did vote against it, and his words were said. They were true, and we believed, at the time, that the evidence was there that that was the case. But we stand proudly today realizing what happened and anxious to remove this double-taxation burden, this hardship on our people. I would suggest to the hon. member that there are many people who may even be opposing this change because they think

[ Page 2352 ]

it doesn't affect them who will find to their sadness and dismay at the time of death that not only do they have the tremendous emotional trauma and loss but they will, in fact, be involved in succession duties.

Speaking of agricultural land, I would advise you, Mr. Speaker - and I'm sure this will distress you -that in the Okanagan we're finding that many people will not buy agricultural land. These are people who might want to go into farming but don't because they know the income situation and they know they don't have the opportunity to pass this on to their wife and family. People from Alberta and other provinces who are coming to British Columbia can afford to buy that land and hold it knowing that it's a long-term, future investment. Some of them are even gambling that! the pressure of growth will mean that it will come out of the land freeze in 50 years. It may well do. Who knows?

We're making second-class citizens of our own citizens in this instance, too. We're not encouraging them to get into agriculture, to buy agricultural land, knowing that even though they may not make a great income they have an asset that will help their wives or their husbands, if either partner dies, and their children. We are creating an advantage to people outside the province that our own citizens cannot have. Then we're asking our citizens to compete and we're asking our taxpayers to support, through income assurance, those very people who are coming from outside the province with a tremendous long-term investment advantage as well as an income-assurance advantage which they don't even have in their own province. It seems to me that that's a very important factor to consider when we're talking about tax dollars.

The same applies, Mr. Speaker, to fishermen who have most of their assets in terms of their boats. These are very valuable. They find themselves in a position where they may not have a great yearly income, but they are building up an asset. They hope to use that as part of their gift to their children, their sharing with their wife, their sharing with their children who work with them. As it stands now, they are excluded from this benefit. When this Act is passed they will have a reasonable opportunity to do this. They still have to pay their capital gains tax. This is a triple tax that you're standing in support of.

I also think in terms of the cost of administration. This has not been accepted by the members of the opposition. Perhaps in the total provincial budget the administration of the department is not that great, but I suggest the cost is a hidden cost. If you're very wealthy, or if you're a private company, obviously you can afford high-priced lawyers, very experienced people and tax experts to tell you how to avoid succession duties, but if you're the average farmer whom I've described, or the average fisherman, or the average family in British Columbia - who, to their amazement, with today's values, will find themselves in a succession duty position - you can't afford that sort of expertise.

Again we're making them second-class citizens. We're saying that if you have money then we'll give you the capability to escape succession duties, but if you don't have a lot of money you won't have it, unless you want to do away with even more of your little pleasures now. Why should people who can't even make it income tax deductible today be forced to hire high-priced lawyers, high-priced accountants -and there's nothing against them; I'm sure they're worth their money - with their hard-earned money....

HON. MR. MAIR: You bet!

MRS. JORDAN: No, they're very valuable in society. But, Mr. Minister, you know yourself that you have many constituents that you had to donate your time to to help them get a rightful situation in terms of their succession duties.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: They don't know. They never donated their time to anybody.

MRS. JORDAN: So again I say that the cost in the administration of this Act is not in the figures evident in the books of the government. It's in the unevident, the unknown figures in the family pocket. It shows up only when it comes to the end and these people cannot afford this, they don't have the knowledge to go about it, and they end up carrying; the can around their necks, and often they're widows. Much of the succession duty is based on potential income to be earned from a pension based on the average lifespan of the surviving spouse. Why, I wonder if the former Premier is aware that it would appear that his wife, if he dropped dead tomorrow - and I'm certainly not suggesting anything - would receive a pension of approximately $20,000 a year. He set this up. But I wonder if he thought about ...

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: By the government pension plan; that wasn't an unkind remark.

... what the tax would be on that sort of a pension. It would be approximately $37,000, because they would take the life expectancy of this woman. That, I think, is unfair. If the pension is fair and a person has worked for it and contributed to it, there should be no reason why the spouse shouldn't enjoy it. We have many widows today who worked in partnership with their husbands to develop pension programmes which they hoped to benefit from. By

[ Page 2353 ]

the time they'd paid the succession duties on their expected lifespan and the income, and by the time that inflation had taken over, they became the working poor of the senior citizen people, who can't enjoy any of the privileges that they should be able to have. I suggest that we don't want to see this happen in British Columbia.

There are other matters. I have a case here and I won't go into it in great detail. It happens to be a very tragic case. But two sisters went together and decided they would develop their assets together. One didn't have any money and the other did, so she paid for the house and it was in joint tenancy. There's been a battle going on. One sister died and they were quite young women. I would give you the name except, as I say, there are certain tragic circumstances. But the battle has been going on between her lawyers, between the MLA from the area, and between two people in this Ministry of Finance, who are all interpreting the Act in different ways. We maintain that she has sufficient proof to show that it was her money and she shouldn't have to pay any tax. We've got it cleared up now, but one gentleman in the tax department was maintaining that she had to pay the tax. In the meantime, what little resources she has are being chewed up by the accountants and the lawyers. Again, this is not a criticism of them; it's a criticism of the system - the system that we intend to change.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are many other areas in which one can defend this. I would just quote from The Province of February 22, because the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mentioned Saskatchewan:

"Succession Duty Called Major Irritant

"The national president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen said Monday that small businesses in Manitoba are probably the most heavily taxed in Canada.

"Bullock, whose federation has 3,500 members in Manitoba and a total of 40,000 in Canada, ' said: 'Succession duties are a major irritant to these small enterprises. Nobody is going to build a business to give it to the government.' "

Mr. Speaker, I stand with pride in support of this bill because I believe it's going to help the very people that this government intends to help - those who are prudent, those who pay their taxes and those who assume the responsibilities they can. We have an obligation to help the people with initiative and to help the people with drive, and to encourage them to develop that part of the economy that they can to provide jobs for their fellow citizens.

I stand in support of it because I know that the agricultural people in the area I represent are going to benefit. They're going to be on a much fairer footing and their families are going to benefit. I know that it's going to mean that more agricultural land, that is changing hands anyway, will stay in British Columbia family hands.

I stand proud because I know there are going to be many widows and widowers who would otherwise end up on welfare or on very marginal incomes, with inflation....

MR. COCKE: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the hon. NDP House Leader laughs. Can that party guarantee that there's not going to be inflation? For heaven's sake, people who retired five years ago and thought they had enough money to live on comfortably today are worried. There's one article here where the million-dollar winner of the lottery said he couldn't sleep all night he was so worried about what he was going to do with the money. I'll tell you there, are hard-working people in this province who can't sleep at night because they don't know how they're going to live on their few remaining assets.

MR. COCKE: But they're not affected by this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Yet the NDP laughs. Our government, Mr. Speaker, does not laugh. We care and we're going to bring this bill in and the people are going to benefit. There are going to be more jobs created and this province is going to benefit.

MR. KING: That was a truly remarkable presentation by the member for North Okanagan. I think it was more significant for the Freudian slips than for the content of the presentation itself. Mr. Speaker, when the member indicated that the Social Credit Party never becomes confused by the facts, that was very obvious from her presentation.

Secondly, when she observed that those people who die find that their estates are being eroded, then that completed the full cycle of her thought processes. Mr. Speaker, it's that kind of concentration and that kind of thinking which is undoubtedly responsible for this bill. I don't wonder that the member supports it.

The final irony that the member suggests, that widows will sleep easier tonight because they are no longer facing the charitable mercies of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) after being relieved of an obligation to pay succession duties on a $250,000 estate, is absolutely too much, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure the member for North Okanagan that the Minister of Human Resources would in no way allow any widow in this province having as assets $250,000 to receive any welfare vouchers from his department. I think that's fairly safe to say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed by the dodging around.

[ Page 2354 ]

That was one of the most convoluted presentations I ever heard - truly. And it's symptomatic of all of the comments that have been coming out of the government benches, both cabinet and back bench. We had Mr. Chips - I mean the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) - saying a while ago that he was concerned about the family farm. I draw the attention of all members of the House, particularly the cabinet benches, whom I would expect to know the laws of the province, to the Succession Duty Act, article 5, section N, which specifically excludes family farms from the obligation to pay succession duties.

When the member for North Okanagan says that those exemptions are too restrictive and inflexible, I would like to draw to the attention of the House, particularly that member's attention, an answer which my colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , received from the supervisor of the probate and succession duties branch when she queried him on April 2 of 1976 regarding the subject of the Succession Duty Act and its application to family farms. I'll read the response, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's worthwhile clearing up some of the misinformation which government members are attempting to throw in the hopper here to justify their reversal of the position they took in 1972.

"Pursuant to your telephone call of today's date relating to the impact of B.C. Succession Duty Act on family farms under certain circumstances, I would advise as follows:

" (1) Where the family farm qualifies as the family home, as defined under section 5 (3) (a) of the above Act, no duties are payable no matter what the value of any portion thereof which passes to those members of the special beneficiary class, which includes husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, son-in-law or daughter-in-law."

That does not seem unduly restrictive, Mr. Speaker.

" (2) Where the farm property qualifies as a family farm under the regulations (a copy of which is attached) but does not qualify as the family home, and passes to the wife as the surviving joint tenant, there could be duties exigible if the value of the decedent's estate, including 50 per cent of the family farm, exceeds $125,000 exclusive of the family home, $25,000 insurance and the present value of any non-commutable pension or annuity of $250 per month."

And on it goes, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to read the whole document but the information is available to members of this House and to the government. It does not appear to me to be unduly restrictive; it seems to be available for the information of government members if they were concerned enough to find out.

But, Mr. Speaker, even if we did acknowledge that the submissions made by the government members thus far had some validity - and there is little cause to do that - then surely what would be necessary would be simply amendments to the Act rather than the wholesale abolition of the Act and the whole concept of succession duties. Surely that would be all that would be necessary.

I think it is valid, as my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has done, to remind government members who are still in this House of the position they took, I believe it was in March of 1972, not very many years ago when the succession duties legislation was introduced by the then Premier of a truly Social Credit government. As much as I disagreed with some of their right-wing philosophies, they were much to the left of the existing coalition group, Mr. Speaker. They were much more moderate than the existing coalition group, and they had a heart and some compassion and concern with people.

We had the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) getting up and applauding the millionaires. Mr. Speaker, I think I would have more respect for the member's perspective if he shed some tears for the over 100,000 unemployed people in the province at the moment rather than cheering the millionaires. But perhaps that's the road to Damascus. The road to cabinet is through the good graces of the millionaires on the government benches, Mr. Speaker.

I think they should be reminded of the position they took. There were times that members of the New Democratic Party and the former Premier of the province agreed. There were times, Mr. Speaker, when the official opposition of that day - and of this day, for that matter - supported certain government initiatives. But I want to tell you, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) supported the institution of succession duties in that day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to drag that all out again?

MR. KING: Yes, indeed I am. I know that the Minister of Finance has some difficulties. I know he's sensitive about this and doesn't like to be reminded about the speeches he made in the House. I think it was one of the more intelligent speeches he ever made, and now he is going to have to get up and try and undo it. He's going to have to try and get up and undo the only logic that he ever mouthed in this House. He doesn't like to be reminded of the conflict that that places him in. But I don't want to embarrass him.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not very difficult for a Socred.

[ Page 2355 ]

MR. KING: My colleague says it's not very difficult for a Socred.

But I think it's worthwhile putting forward some of the arguments the minister used. He said:

In other years, when we have looked at amendment to this bill, I've had some concern as to whether to support succession duties. In this instance I propose to support the bill because I believe we're into a whole new ball game in terms of taxation in Canada. We shouldn't, at this stage, look at this legislation and say succession duties are out. We should at least allow them to stand on trial in this province. I think they create substantial revenue. If you don't think $21 million is substantial, my friend, well, you're looking at a different code of ethics than I am.

Well, I hadn't really looked at millions of dollars as anything to do with a code of ethics, but perhaps that's the philosophy on that side of the House. But I do agree with the minister that it's certainly significant. Perhaps that is the only code of ethics the government knows. I don't know; that may well be the case.

But he waxed very eloquent, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to quote him at any great length, except to observe....

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You'd better talk about Revelstoke-Slocan. This is not your bag.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Thanks to the Minister of Finance! I agree. I'm better than that government at most things I debate, quite frankly, because on this side of the House we have a philosophy that's designed for people, not for millionaires, not for rip-off artists. We believe in sharing the wealth and resources of this province on behalf of the people whom we represent, not special interests, not the downtown slickers that that group has become over there. That's the difference, Mr. Speaker.

Now the former Premier's position has been well enunciated. I think it has been quoted in this House quite a number of times. I'm not going to quote it again, but I want to say that on that occasion members of our party - I remember specifically the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , congratulated the then Premier and supported him in the institution of succession duties as a fair taxation, a fair method of equalizing income in this province. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the whole basis of taxation is an attempt to equalize income to some extent. And now this government is departing from that principle, a principle that is inherent not only in the province's policies, but right through Confederation. Taxation on the "have" provinces is provided through transfer payments to "have-not" provinces. Taxation of the wealthy provides revenue to deliver services to the people in this province who are handicapped, who are aged and who need assistance.

Mr. Speaker, it's patently apparent to anyone in this province at the moment that the removal of this Act and the consequent income of about $30 million a year has resulted directly in the cutback of services to senior citizens and to handicapped people in this province. That's very obvious. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) estimates have been cut by almost precisely the same amount of revenue that will be lost through the abolition of the Succession Duty Act. That's why the government members are sensitive. They're trying to get up and divorce themselves from responsibility for this kind of insensitive approach. They're desperately trying to find some rationale for having changed their position, for having turned tail and run from a principle which they supported a few years ago in 1972.

Mr. Speaker, let's call the roll on those people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

MR. KING: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources knows who was involved. I'm going to call the roll and tell this House once again who was there and how they voted on the introduction of the succession duties bill in 1972.

The members of the government of that day who are still in the House, Mr. Speaker: the minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the member for Columbia River; the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) , who just gave that rather unusual presentation; the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) - he's looking the other way - the charitable Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo. He supported taxing the rich and trying to create 11chobs" (laughter) in British Columbia on that occasion, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker of the House (Hon. Mr. Smith) supported succession duties, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope that he hasn't had a change of heart.

MR. COCKE: We'll never know.

MR. SPEAKER: You will if it's a tie vote.

MR. KING: The former Minister of Mines is not with us any more, but the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) supported the bill. He was here then, Mr. Speaker. He was then the member for Omineca. He not only changed his principles, Mr. Speaker; he changed his seat. No wonder that member thinks he can change his vote and change his attitude and his philosophy and get away with it! He thinks: "Now that I'm in a new constituency, nobody will recognize what I did in the past. I won't be held accountable for any consistency in my political approach in this province." We smoked him out, Mr. Speaker; we

[ Page 2356 ]

found him. Sure enough, here he was voting with the government to impose succession duties so revenue may be created to ease the pangs of hunger and unemployment that are so rampant in this province at the moment.

"Free ride for the millionaires!" That's all that group knows, Mr. Speaker, because they have I I millionaires among their ranks. Eleven millionaires and most of them hold the key to the cabinet door, Mr. Speaker. They're whipping the back bench into shape. They're saying: "Stand up, change your principles. Punish the poor and reward the rich inheritors, whether they live in British Columbia or not. If you don't, you're not getting into the cabinet."

That's the state of the principles embodied in that government over there, Mr. Speaker. I regret it. I know that you're embarrassed, Mr. Speaker. I know that you're embarrassed, becau i se I believe that you would have stuck to the position you took in 1972 and not abandoned the poor people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill, as many may have suspected.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I don't really know how to follow an act like we just saw from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, but I'll give it a try.

I'm going to be very brief as I stand in my place very proudly today in support of this legislation that will abolish inequities ...

MR. LAUK: Did you sell some land?

M R. K E MPF: ... in this province of the succession duties. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it will take very long to convince the free-thinking, intelligent members of this House and the people of British Columbia that abolition of this very unfair tax is necessary.

MR. COCKE: Oh, time for amusement!

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I've said it before in this House and I'll say it again, that this Act to abolish succession duties is a great step forward in the province of British Columbia. Had the people of this province not been hoodwinked into electing a socialist government in 1972, this would have happened a lot sooner than 1977.

1 read from the Kelowna Charter of 1972, which says: "The provincial government will also, at the next session of the Legislature, in order to build up capital in the hands of British Columbians, cancel succession duties, and cancel as well gift taxes in the province of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, we would have had this legislation back in 1972 had not a socialist government come to power with only 27 per cent of the vote of this province of British Columbia - 27 per cent!

MR. COCKE: What per cent?

MR. KEMPF: Twenty-seven per cent.

MR. COCKE: Your mathematics are bad!

MR. KEMPF: We would have had this legislation had we returned the Social Credit Party in 1972.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that the abolition of succession duties in this province is a step forward for British Columbia. We hear those socialists over there say time and time again that we're playing into the hands of the rich. I've even heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) call it rich-a-care.

To that - and I've said it before in this House - I must ask the question: who are the rich? Who are the rich in the province of British Columbia? Are they not the pioneers who settled this raw land?

MR. LEA: No!

MR. KEMPF: Are they not the people who hacked out a homestead, cleared our forests, and after a lifetime of hard work ...

MR. LEA: Name names!

MR. KEMPF: ... and diligent effort ...

MR. LEA: Name names!

MR. KEMPF: ... produced a viable farm or a cattle ranch that they could pass on to their children?

MR. LEA: No!

MR. KEMPF: Are they not the people who were born in this province ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. KEMPF: ... or came to this province early in life and started work in our forests ...

MR. LEA: Maybe!

MR. BARBER: From New Brunswick!

MR. KEMPF: ... as chokermen and Catskinners?

MR. LEA: No!

MR. KEMPF: And from there, with just a whole lot of guts and brawn, Mr. Speaker, they built from literally nothing but hard work - logging, trucking or sawmill operations.... Are these the rich of our

[ Page 2357 ]

province?

MR. LEA: No, we're talking about their heirs!

MR. KEMPF: Are they not the people who started by providing our citizens with the services of grocery stores and dry goods shops and garages - starting from veritably nothing, in many cases from just a hole in the wall - to provide our citizens with a service and built these businesses into something that was viable and something that they could leave their heirs?

Are they people such as the lady who wrote me pleading for the abolition of succession duties in order that her mother, after raising three daughters entirely on her own, who after working as a waitress, as a restaurant cook for as many as 18 hours a day, and later as a rooming-house operator, paying her taxes, paying her debts to society in this province and never taking one penny at any time from welfare or any other type of assistance could leave a small apartment, which she is still paying for, to those daughters when she dies? Are these the rich of our province whom the opposition talks about.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did she become a millionaire?

MR. KEMPF: Are they the people like an individual who just died in my own hometown? He was an immigrant from Holland. After working for 35 years in the province of British Columbia and having built up an estate which he would leave to his family, to his widow and daughter.... Well, I want to tell you, hon. members, I had the daughter of that individual approach me a short time ago, wondering if they would come within the sphere of the new Act or of the Act that was going to be abolished. Would they get under the wire, because they were finding it very, very difficult, after the loss of their husband and father, to find the $15,000 that they had to pay in succession duties? They had to pay $15,000, unfortunately. You look with surprise, hon. member. Yes, they had to find $15,000 to pay the succession duties. They had to go to the bank and borrow the $15,000 or sell some part of the estate th~t this person worked for for 35 years. He was a pillar of the community who gave of his time tirelessly to that community for 35 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much was the estate?

MR. KEMPF: Name names? I'll name names if you wish.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Omineca has the floor.

MR. KEMPF: The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is no longer in his place. It's interesting that he would relate the abolition of succession duties to employment and unemployment, Mr. Speaker. It's very interesting that he should do that. But because he did, I would like to again voice my opinion, as I have done many times in this House, to say that, yes, there are 103,000 people in this province on unemployment insurance.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. KEMPF: But there are not 103,000 people in' this province looking for jobs. There are not, Mr. Speaker - not at all. The opposition spoke of jobs and said that the abolition of this Act would not create any jobs in the province of British Columbia. Maybe it won't create one new job, but it will certainly go a long way to retaining those jobs which we already have.

I would like to read from The Daily Colonist of Tuesday, January 25, in which a Mr. John Kahl of London Life, who is also chairman of the Estate Planning Council of Victoria, said he was pleased the measure had been taken, pleased that we were going to abolish the Succession Duty Act. "Not only is this important, " Mr. Kahl goes on, "but in many cases it will mean that the employees of a company the deceased has owned will get to keep their jobs." They will not lose their jobs because an operation is closed down if estate taxes have to be paid.

The opposition likes to play on the word "unemployed." We heard some time ago the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) talk about his 10,000 unemployed whom he meets with at 4 o'clock in the morning. I challenged that member at that time to come forward with names.

MR. LEA: Careful! Careful!

MR. KEMPF: If he did, I would help him find jobs for those people in my constituency of Omineca. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was some weeks ago. Still this member has not come forward with those names.

We heard the socialist Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) - the temporary socialist Leader of the Opposition - say that capital does not leave the province because of succession duties. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the researchers for the official opposition aren't giving them all the facts. I would like to read again from a newspaper, the Vancouver Province, an article written by Pat Durante. It reads as follows:

"Elimination of succession duties in British Columbia could halt the movement of millions of dollars worth of assets out of the province

[ Page 2358 ]

by people seeking to avoid the tax, according to tax lawyers and accountants."

It goes on to say:

"Mr. John N. Hurst of the Ladner Downs law firm said: 'Enormous amounts of property had been moved from B.C. to Alberta and elsewhere to avoid succession duties. Hopefully the budget proposal will halt this outflow of capital and remove the reason for people to take up technical residence outside of British Columbia.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: The poor pay!

MR. KEMPF: It continues:

" 'Some of the capital could come back, and perhaps people who have been deterred from moving here because of succession duties will change their minds.

" 'We are following what has been done in other provinces, and it seems equitable to remove succession duties now that the capital gains tax is becoming mature, ' he said. 'Succession duties, plus capital gains tax, in effect, double taxation.' Succession duties were popularly thought to be rich men's tax, but they hit more people than you might expect.' " These people are experts, Mr. Speaker, and they know what they're talking about. Your researchers are giving you the wrong information, hon. members. Taking from the poor and giving to the rich indeed. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan said that we are not doing anything for the people of the province of British Columbia. Well, he hasn't even read the budget speech which points out that expenditures in education are up this year; expenditures in health are up this year; expenditures in highways and public works - which will create jobs in this province of British Columbia - are up this year. We're not doing anything for the people of this province?

The member for Prince Rupert laughs, Mr. Speaker. I can remember when we were debating this issue some time ago in the House, he asked me whether I checked with my constituents. Yes, hon. member, I can assure you that I have checked with my constituents, and they tell me loudly and clearly that they want to see succession duties abolished. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I stood today in my place and spoke in favour of that abolition.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I always have - I don't know whether it's fortune or misfortune - to follow the member for Omineca whose very ultra right-wing statements leave me, frankly, in a state of shock.

You know, we hear the same speech from that member no matter what topic we're dealing with. The same remarks come forward - the same comments and references to the member for Victoria, and references to people who don't work, people on welfare - no matter what we're discussing. That member just recycles the same speech.

MR. COCKE: And his Bible is the Kelowna Charter.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, and his Bible is the Kelowna Charter. I think we would look forward someday to perhaps an original speech from that member, one that perhaps dealt with the subject at hand which I would Eke to get back to. Of course, we're dealing with the bill to remove succession duty taxes. Along with my fellow members of the New Democratic Party, I strongly object to this bill. We've already heard a number of very cogent arguments from this side of the House as to our objections and yet, to this date, I have yet to hear one very solid argument from the other side, including the minister who introduced the bill, as to why this tax is being removed.

The main point made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , and by some of his other members, has been the concern that this tax discourages industry. I'd like to comment on that matter right now, Mr. Speaker, because these objections that the tax will discourage industry and thrift and that it will drive away capital from this province really apply to a succession duty tax less than to almost any other form of taxation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor and there's a great deal of chatter going on around the room which is not really in the best interest of conducting an orderly debate.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: I know we're reaching that period of adjournment, Mr. Speaker, so I can accept some of it. I know you're listening, and some of my colleagues, and that does help at this particular moment.

I'd like to repeat then, because of the fair amount of noise at the time I mentioned my last statement, that the objections made by the other members from the Social Credit Party that this tax will discourage industry and drive capital away from the provine really do apply to the succession duty tax less than to almost any other form of taxation. After all, death is usually looked at by most people as a fairly remote event, fortunately.

MR. LEA: But conclusive.

MRS. DAILLY: But very conclusive. That's right, Mr. Member. But it occupies generally not that. prominent a place - again I say fortunately - in the

[ Page 2359 ]

minds of most people. Therefore if people have the inclination to save property to leave to their heirs, their efforts should not be diminished but perhaps rather increased, Mr. Speaker, by the thought that 1 or 2 per cent of their savings, or even more, may have to go to the province.

The inheritance tax, Mr. Speaker, is less a discouragement to industry, if we want to analyse it, than the income tax. It's less a discouragement to thrift than the property tax. No tax which can be levied on movable wealth will have less effect in driving away capital. The deterrent effect of a tax to be paid after death is not to be compared with that of a tax which must be paid every year, Mr. Speaker. I think the argument which has been presented by the hon. minister in introducing the bill is not at all a valid argument.

One of the arguments in favour of the succession duty tax is that by diminishing large fortunes to a degree, which of course is not going to remove their fortunes to their heirs, it will tend to bring about a better distribution of wealth. That is the concern of the New Democratic Party. We are concerned with the distribution of wealth throughout this province, and it is quite obvious the members of the Social Credit Party are not concerned with the distribution of wealth throughout the province.

Inheritances and legacies mean for the recipient enrichment, and consequently an increase of the taxpaying ability. This applies to the succession duty tax in common with the production tax or the income tax. But the latter tax has to do with the ability which has arisen from the work and the economic activity of that taxpayer, while inheritance tax and succession duty taxes have in great measure the character of unearned wealth and are therefore to be classed with lottery winnings, which was apparently pointed out by the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . But she doesn't seem to see any connection at all with the removal here of the succession duty tax with speculative gains and similar acquisitions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we tax that for which a person has laboured, then it is still more reasonable, surely, that we must not leave untaxed the income acquired by chance.

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is, according to many people, an indication that there is a general change in the feeling of the public also. It's interesting to note that the acceptance of this policy and the acceptance of inheritance or succession duty taxes has become almost today an institution of our democratic society. We find that it is maintained in nearly every civilized country on this globe. But it is mainly in the most democratic countries - Great Britain, France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and, of course, we see even the United States is also moving towards it in many areas and in many states.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about the spirit of democracy, this Social Credit Party seems to be ready to flout even those traditions in the removal of this tax.

HON. MR. MAIR: What about the Fascist countries?

MRS. DAILLY: What about the Fascist countries? Right.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Saskatchewan?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we are here in British Columbia. We are the New Democratic Party of British Columbia and we are speaking for the policies of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia and not for those of any other province. I think it's up to each province to make its own decisions in these areas. We happen to take a very clear cut stand on this. I am not going to get into debate on it. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances in the situation of Saskatchewan in the number of farms which are involved. But I am not going to get into that debate. That's up to that province.

It's interesting to note that even one of the most famous millionaires of our time, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, has more than once in his time declared himself in favour of an inheritance tax, just the same as the former Premier of the Social Credit Party did. Mr. Speaker, I remember so well - and we've already had it repeated so well - listening to the former Social Credit Premier stand in this House and declare himself so much in favour of maintaining that tax. It is rather tragic and rather sad that his son, who is now Premier, has done a complete reversal on this when his father made so many articulate, cogent arguments in favour of maintaining that tax.

As a matter of fact, Andrew Carnegie, even as far back as 1892, stated: "Every dollar of taxes required must be obtained in this manner, without interfering in the least with the forces which tend to the development of the country through the production of wealth." So even old Andrew Carnegie accepted the premise that these taxes would not interfere with the production of wealth. That seems to be the only argument that is emanating from across the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that one of the first taxes along the line of a succession duty tax came out away back in the days of the Roman Empire around the 5th century. As a matter of fact, it was 6 A.D. when such a tax was first established in the Roman Empire. Here we are, debating it in 1977 in this province of British Columbia, after it has been accepted by most of the civilized countries of our world that this is an essential tax. Here we have this government elected and in charge of this province in

[ Page 2360 ]

the year 1977 wanting to regress back into what, I may say, is almost an uncivilized manner in dealing with the distribution of wealth in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I or any of my colleagues could possibly support a bill which is unfair, which is unnecessary and which certainly is not going to interfere with the wealth of this province.

On behalf of Mr. Lea, Mr. Cocke moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.