[ Page 2361 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Succession Duty Repeal Act (Bill 12) Second reading.

Mr. Lea –– 2361

Mr. Bawtree –– 2366

Mr. Kahl –– 2368

Ms. Brown –– 2370

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2374

Mr. Lauk –– 2376

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2380

Mr. Stupich –– 2381

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 12.

SUCCESSION DUTY REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You know I'm against this bill, do you?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I think, Mr. Speaker, the member for Point Grey and Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "Your comrades in Saskatchewan are for removal of succession duties." I say they're wrong.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): They're not comrades?

MR. LEA: They're wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've survived longer than you have.

MR. LEA: Probably because we weren't wrong.

You know, I think probably the best summation for this legislation was by a Victoria businessman speaking to his sister, who said: "I don't care what the Socreds do. I don't care whether they steal, cheat or bribe, as long as they do two things - lift the land freeze and remove the succession duties."

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. LEA: I guess that about answers it, doesn't it? It doesn't matter. I think that's what we have here. We have two Acts that, in my opinion, are Acts of immorality: one to do away with, as the businessman sought, the Land Commission

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You pull that all the time. Name names!

MR. LEA: I don't want to name the name.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made it up.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. Where have you people been for supper?

AN HON. MEMBER: At your house.

MR. LEA: No you weren't.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me?

MR. LEA: I would like to have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe you have the floor, but if you sit down, you won't have it. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: I see, Mr. Speaker. I get your point -it's okay.

I just thought I'd ask the Speaker to maybe try and have the members of government and their supporters possibly let the member who is standing speak.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members please allow the hon. member for Prince Rupert to proceed?

MR. LEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, when he introduced succession duties, I believe, echoed the sentiments of a great many people in this province. He said: "If these people. . ." He didn't say these exact words, but what he said was: "If these people who make their money in British Columbia do not want to pay this tax and act like good citizens, then they can leave." That's what he said. But the one thing that the former Premier didn't understand was that even though he felt that he would like to see the money he had made in this province taxed to help the elderly, he didn't understand that he was not going to be the person to inherit that wealth, that he was the one who was going to leave it and that the person who was going to inherit that wealth may have far different ideas than the father. Because the father saw his responsibility, obviously, and said: "The people who make their money here should help to pay some of the costs for the elderly and for those who are left behind."

The present Premier, the son, says that is wrong. He said: "I am the inheritor and this Act must go." This is what is being said: that the sons and daughters of the wealthy very much want to see this Act. But what about the fathers and the mothers? They are the ones who are leaving money in this province. They

[ Page 2362 ]

are the people who, I'm sure, want to see the money that they've made over their lifetime They want to see some portion of that money go to help those who are left behind to live a better life. But the sons and the daughters don't want their fathers and their mothers to do that because they want to get their greedy little hands on that money with no sharing whatsoever. That's what this succession duty is all about.

But what amazes me, Mr. Speaker, are those who stand no chance to inherit money of any great amount who are also backing this Act, those people who like to just sort of be in the shadow of the wealthy, those people who would like to hang around and have a bit rub off - not the money, just what they see as the prestige. Look at the Munchkins!

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about getting some money from the wealthy that we couldn't get during their lifetimes. The wealthy, during their lifetimes, are protected by law from giving their money into taxes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that's why you see them putting their money in land. The wealthy always put their money where you can't get at it. I admit that it's legal, because so many of our laws have been made for the wealthy.

As a matter of fact, is there anybody who makes money on a T4 slip who can defer their taxes from year to year to year to year - and never pay any taxes? I don't know anybody who makes their money on a T4 slip who can do that. Yet the oil companies can do it.

What I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that people like the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , who just interjected and, who, I'm sure, is not a wealthy man - I don't think he is; I think he's a person who goes along working, trying to make some money for his family and to have a little better life -would say that it's all right for those who make a great deal of money in this province not to have to pay some succession duties when they pass on. The people who pass on really don't need the money. They don't need the money because the old saying is: "You can't take it with you."

So who is really interested in succession duties being lifted? It's not the people who have made the money. It's not the people who have worked with their brawn, with their brains and with endeavour to make money. They aren't the ones who are complaining or who want the succession duties removed. It's those people who want to inherit the fruits of their fathers' and their grandfathers' hard work. They don't want to start anew. They don't want to start and build something for themselves. All they want to do is inherit. The funny thing about those people is that you always find the inheritors talking about being self-made people. That's the only group that you hear talking about it. You don't hear people who have been born into nothing and who have struggled and worked to make money talk about being self-made. It's always the inheritors.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. LEA: One thing I can't understand, Mr. Speaker, is how the children of the working class, who may be on welfare and not contributing anything towards our society, are criticized by these wealthy people. They say: "Welfare people are bums. Welfare people are a scourge on our society." And they say: "What do they contribute to our society?" Yet what is the difference between someone from a working-class family who wan't work and won't contribute to our society and someone who doesn't contribute anything except to go to the bank and draw money out from money that his father or his mother made? What do those people contribute to society? Yet who says that they're bums and they're not contributing anything?

As a matter of fact, that follows down all through. Did you ever go to a courtroom and watch some young person from a poor family who's in court? They usually are dealt with by a judge who sends them to jail. What happens to the sons and daughters of the rich? How many times have you heard people in court arguing for the sons and the daughters of the rich by saying: "Oh, Your Worship, this child comes from a good family"? What do they mean by "good family"? They mean that the father and mother are well oft That's what they mean. They're not talking about whether there's love and respect in the family. They're talking about whether the family is well off and has a status in the community because of the money they've made. That's what they're talking about. You can hear it probably every day in the courtrooms of this province - people saying: "They come from a good family." So then what the judge usually does is to really tell them off - but he doesn't put them in a reform school or in an industrial park. What they do is really tell them off and tell them how bad they've been and let them go home, But that's not what happens to the sons and daughters of ordinary people.

Here we are in this House today, discussing a bill that will benefit probably about I I people in this room.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I think about 14.

MR. LEA: About 11 to 14 - that's what it will do. It will benefit the sons and daughters of the wealthy, or they hope that it will benefit their sons and daughters.

Quite~ frankly, Mr. Speaker, I personally don't believe in inheritance at all. I believe that we should all be equal; we should have the same opportunity.

[ Page 2363 ]

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): We're all born equal.

MR. LEA: We're all born equal? We're not all born equal, Mr. Member. Can you tell me that you were born with the same opportunity as the son of John Rockefeller? Can you tell me that?

MR. BARRETT: How come it took you so long to get into cabinet?

MR. LEA: And one of the other things that they always say is: "You're just jealous because you don't have a bunch of money to inherit." That's one of their big ones, right?

MR. BARRETT: Go out and earn yourself a millionaire father!

MR. LEA: How many people in this room who stand to inherit money or to leave a great amount of money to their sons and daughters had a little bit of a help? I mean, is there anybody here who is successful in business who may have inherited the business from his father? Is there anybody who's like that here? I wonder where those people would be today if they hadn't done that.

Do you think it's easy to walk into a bank and borrow money to start a business? If you're name's Smith or maybe....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Or Brown.

MR. LEA: But what if your name just happened to be Bennett?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Brown.

MR. LEA: Bennett.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Brown.

MR. LEA: Let's say Bennett. Is it easier to borrow money when you name's Bennett, or is it easier to borrow money when your name's Smith?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Brown.

MR. LEA: I wonder which is the easiest.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen them over there like that before? You know something? I think that they're ashamed. They're shamed by this Act. They are ashamed to lift succession duties. That's why they're over there giggling, smirking and yelling.

MR. KEMPF: We're ashamed of it; that's why we're doing away with it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you know what's going to happen here? All the Socreds are going to vote for this bill, right? They're going to push it through the House and that's going to be it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't prejudge.

MR. LEA: Don't prejudge! When you really look at this piece of legislation that we're going to be asked to vote on, you wonder what kind of people would bring it in. What kind of people would knock $6 million off of senior citizens' housing and then bring in a bill that gives millionaires $30 million? What kind of people would do that, Mr. Speaker? I ask you, what kind of people would raise the sales tax from five points to seven points - a regressive tax that hits the poor and the working poor and the middle class, but doesn't hit the rich to any great extent -- and then bring in a bill to give the rich $30 million? What kind of people would double car insurance to working and ordinary people in this province and then turn around and give the millionaires $30 million?

Mr. Speaker, I think that this, more than any other piece of legislation which we are going to deal with in this session or any other session of this Parliament, indicates the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. Those people over there, Mr. Speaker, honestly believe that greed should be the mode of the day. They believe that greed is the thing that makes the world go round. As a matter of fact, those exact words were expressed by another Social Credit cabinet minister - P.A. Gaglardi.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, it was P.A. Gaglardi. He said: "Nothing wrong with greed, my friends; it's what makes the would go round." That's what he said. You know, we have a whole bunch of government people in this room who believe that, too. They really believe that greed is the answer and the more material goods and money you can acquire in your lifetime means you're a better person - you're more moral; you should gain more respect in your community with the more money you have, the more wealth you have and the more land you have, They believe that you should gain respect in this society by having a great deal of money.

Do you know why they believe that, Mr. Speaker? Because that's who they respect. They respect everybody who has more than they have and they have no respect for anyone who has less. That's why even in their own benches you find those who have little respecting those who have more, and because

[ Page 2364 ]

those who have more have told those who have less that we need to have this succession duty, they've gone right along with it. They'll vote for it because they honestly believe that people who have more money have more wisdom, have more morality and should be in charge.

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again.

MR. LEA: No, I'm not wrong again.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, you are.

MR. LEA: No, I'm not wrong again, because I'll wager you that not one Social Credit member will vote against this bill. One or two may duck out so they don't have to vote, but there won't be one Social Credit member voting against this bill because they believe that if someone who has $1 million told them it's a good thing, then they should buy it right down the line. That's the way they are.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: If the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) -there's only one Liberal member in this House -votes for this bill, then he's wrong, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: As a matter of fact, he shouldn't be allowed to vote on the legislation anyway, in my opinion. Nobody should be able to vote on legislation that's going to bring benefit to himself and not to others - no one. That's what's going to happen in this House. We are going to have 11 people vote for this piece of legislation who will benefit directly from that vote. As the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows, you're not allowed to do that on city council, are you?

MR. KEMPF: How would you know?

MR. LEA: But you're going to have to do it here. People are going to vote in this House on a piece of legislation that will bring them direct pecuniary interest. That's what they're going to get. They are going to vote on a piece of legislation that will make them money personally.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Or your family. That is wrong. I wonder whether the 14 people in this Legislature who are going to make a great deal of money out of the passage of this legislation are actually going to vote on this legislation. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that I really believe the Victoria businessman who did say he didn't care whether the Social Credit government steals or takes graft as long as they lift the Land Commission Act and the succession duties. If that doesn't about sum up the whole tribe of them....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that I allowed you to open your remarks this evening by supposedly quoting a Victoria businessman. I'd like you to understand that it's improper to say, or to use a third person reference, to bring that type of a charge against hon. members of the House. Now I have listened closely and you have not specifically named members, but you have used a term including every one who represents a party in this House. That, I believe, would be improper in that you are, not as an individual yourself taking responsibility for it but in a third-party manner, casting the type of reflection on the members of that party in this House that is not really proper. I just caution you in using that type of an approach.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would be no more proper for a member on the other side of the House to use a blanket phrase against an opposition party. That means that all of the members of this House who belong to that party become associated with those words by implication, and that's not correct. It would seem to me that it would be more proper not to take that approach. You are circumventing the situation slightly in order to make it appear correct, but at the same time you're charging members of a party in this House with a type of action that is certainly not parliamentary.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House is not cognizant, nor should he be cognizant, of the fact that there are parties of the House, according to tradition. If my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , refers to a political party, that in itself may be wrong. Maybe there shouldn't be political parties. According to the traditions of the Commons, the Speaker does not take cognizance of political parties.

MR. SPEAKER: Can I draw to the hon. member's attention that I listened closely to the member for Prince Rupert? He referred to the government. The government is the executive council. In so doing, he referred to hon. members of this House. That is why I caution the member. Use some discretion, hon. member, when approaching the matter of debate as you have been doing in the last little while. It's not the type of reflection that I think should be made in this House.

[ Page 2365 ]

MR. LEA: What reflection? I don't quite understand. Someone has said that, in his opinion, he wouldn't care what they did as government as long as they did two things.

MR. SPEAKER: When you use that type of reasoning, hon. member, you personally must take responsibility for what you are saying.

MR.LEA:I am.

MR. SPEAKER: In so doing you are then casting a reflection on the government of the day, which is a reflection on hon. members of this House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I didn't know that they were going to do that sort of thing, but now that you've reminded me that they may, I'll go by your rule.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just read to you from... ?

AN HON. MEMBER: A ruling!

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we'll have the ruling right now from Sir Erskine May, page 419, the 18th edition: "A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in someone else's mouth." In listening to the debate that took place, that, in my opinion, is what the member is attempting to do, and that's why I've cautioned him, hon. members.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did run into another person the other day who said that the government was made up of some of the nicest people he'd ever met in the world.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw!

MR. LEA: Is that all right? Oh, that's not all right either? I see. I think it's a little ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I mean, I can say nice things but not bad things, is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: That's quite true.

MR. LEA: That's quite true?

MR. SPEAKER: The bad things happen to be unparliamentary, hon. member, whether you or someone else utters them. That's all I have to say.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't think they are, Mr. Speaker. If someone tells me that in his opinion he wants the government to do one or two things, and he doesn't care what else they do, I don't think that's unparliamentary at all.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I don't think that's anything at all. That's right, and I'll repeat it. I was told that a person didn't care - and that person has a lot of money -what the government does as long as they do two things. He said he didn't mind whether they stole ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LEA: ... and he didn't mind whether they bribed, as long as they did two things: lifted succession duties and lifted the Land Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you're now repeating your statement which I cautioned you about originally, in that you're implicating the members of this House who are the executive council when you refer to the government of this House and to this province. So I suggest to you, hon. member that it is an improper line of debate to proceed on. I'm sure that you would not sit idly in your seat and listen to the same remarks cast across the floor at yourselves. I would certainly interrupt....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I did for three and a half years. For three and a half years I listened to that group over there ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: ... say any darned thing that came to their heads.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the Speaker of the day drew it to their attention and asked for withdrawals.

MR. LEA: Oh, come on!

MR. SPEAKER: So what I'm suggesting, hon. member, is that it is an improper form of debate. I'd ask you to proceed in another manner.

MR. LEA: Well, it's a very simple thing, Mr. Speaker.

Let me close by saying this: the thing that I can't say that they were going to do has come to pass. They've gutted the Land Commission Act. They've gutted it by pure administration, and an attitude. But with ill they have, in fact, met the wishes of a very few people in this province. They have paid a campaign promise to lift succession duties from the rich of this province. That's what they've done.

And what else did they promise? They promised not to raise taxes. They didn't keep that one. They promised not to raise taxes to working people, and

[ Page 2366 ]

they didn't keep it; they promised to help the rich by lifting succession duties, and they did keep it. That's the size of it. They promised not to raise taxes, and what did they do? The sales tax went up, ICBC is up, income tax is up, ferry fares are up. All the things they said they wouldn't do, they did do, right? That's what they did. But the one promise they're going to keep is to make sure that the millionaires are satisfied, to make sure that the wealthy in this province will not turn their heads away from them at the next election. That's right - not turn their heads away at the next election, because as far as I'm concerned, the Social Credit government is nothing more than the pawn of the rich, and this Act does nothing more or less than to prove that very fact.

Senior citizens are going to suffer by not having the same amount of money. The handicapped are going to suffer by not having the same kind of money. The only group that's going to get a raise this year in this province is the millionaires. Yet they turn around, Mr. Speaker, and say that they're for the people.

We have a member who stood up this afternoon and said there were 103,000 people out of work in this province, but he's sure there aren't 103,000 looking for work.

MR. KEMPF: That's true.

MR. LEA: That's probably true, but how many?

You implied all of them weren't; all of them, you implied, weren't. That 103,000 people in this province were out of work and are lazy no-good-for-nothings who aren't looking for work was the implication. That's what it was. But those 103,000 are just bums because they're not the inheritors of the wealth. That was the implication.

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't got the guts to find a rich father.

MR. LEA: That's right - not enough guts to find a rich father. I guess that's it.

Well, I'll just say one thing: you can inherit wealth, but there's one thing you can't inherit, and that's integrity.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: When W.A.C. Bennett stood in this House and made his speech about what rich people could do if they didn't like to be taxed - leave this province - I think there was a man who spoke with integrity on that day. But all he can leave is his wealth.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support Bill 12, the Succession Duty Repeal Act.

This bill will be of great assistance to the agricultural community who have in too many instances had to sell or break up the farm or ranch in order to pay the succession duties.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who isn't in the House at the moment, said the other day:

No, Mr. Member, you've got it wrong. Mr. Member, the farm, both unincorporated and incorporated, was totally exempted from succession duty under the direction of the former Minister of Agriculture sitting here as my colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . For two years in this province, not one farm - unincorporated or incorporated - that has passed on within a family has had to pay a single penny of succession duties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong!

MR. BAWTREE: That is very definitely wrong.

The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said: "Mr. Speaker, the incorporated farms, the ordinary farms and the family farms were all taken care of by the previous government."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they were, all right!

MR. BAWTREE: "They were all taken care of by the previous government. We read the Act. As a matter of fact, we created it." Well, there's no doubt that they created it, Mr. Speaker.

But I would just like to mention just one instance where a neighbour of mine had to pay succession duties. He was not a large farmer. He lived in the Ender by area and he had a relatively small dairy farm - a good farm but a relatively small dairy farm. He died at the age of about 47 and he wanted to make provision for his wife and some of his children and pass the remainder of his farm on to a son. He had to pay $30,000 succession duties. That farm nearly went under. They had to go to the bank in order to borrow the $30,000 in order to pay the succession duties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. BAWTREE: Now I know there was provision made so that succession duties could be paid off over a I 0-year period. But if you needed title to that farm, you had to pay them off much sooner in order to keep operating. Things are tough enough already in transferring ownership of farms and ranches in this province due to capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes re an illusionary gain and one that does not really reflect any increase in value. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. minister to try to persuade the federal government to relate capital gains for tax

[ Page 2367 ]

purposes to a constant 1972 dollar. This would be of great assistance to agriculture in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, there are many, many bona fide family farms that could not meet the great many restrictions which effectively prevented , the handing on of the family farm from one person to another. Even where it was to be handed on from one generation to another, there were many restrictions imposed. One of the conditions for exemption from succession duties was that the farm had to pass from a parent to a child. A transmission from a husband to a wife, or vice versa, was not exempt. This legislation discriminated against the wife.

AN HON. MEMBER: They hated women!

MR. BAWTREE: I don't think the opposition understood what their own legislation said. They quoted on several occasions this afternoon section 50) . Section 5 (l) (n) says that the property is exempt from succession duties "if that property is a family farm as defined in the regulations, passing on the death of the deceased to a child." The regulations indicate very clearly that in order to achieve this, you must be a child - not a grandchild, not a mother, not a father, not a nephew or anything else - but the child.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): How about a wife?

MR. BAWTREE: No wife either. It must be a child of the deceased, resident in the province, and such child must operate the family farm as an active farming operation for a period of not less than 10 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: They hated wives.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Rosemary in then?

MR. BAWTREE: One of the problems has been that under the Income Tax Act, deferral of the capital gains is permitted on all property passing to the spouse. But where property passes to the children there is no deferral except for a direct interest in such things as farmlands, buildings and equipment. Under the same Income Tax Act, a farm held in a corporation or in a partnership does not qualify for tax deferral on passing to a child.

Mr. Speaker, the normal tax exemption under the Succession Duty Act for a person passing a farm on to his son or daughter and other members of the family was $150,000, or $125,000 plus the family residence, whichever was the greater. Many ranches and farms in B.C. operate through farm corporations. In the majority of these cases, as well as many instances of private individual ownership, the value of these farm units is considerably in excess of the exemption limits within the Succession Duty Act.

Many ranchers found themselves between a rock and a hard place because if a person passed his property on to his spouse in order to delay the capital gains, he exposed his estate to full taxation under the Succession Duty Act. However, if he sought to ensure exemption from succession duties, he exposed his estate to substantial capital gains taxation in the event of his premature death.

Due to the actions of the socialist government that was imposed on this province, the inflation rate has been at an all-time high.

MS. BROWN: That's nonsense!

MR. BAWTREE: This, combined with the impact of Bill 42, removed much of the land from the market and consequently doubled, tripled, and quadrupled farmland prices. Under this situation, the capital gains tax has been excessive and often even greater than the succession duties.

Interjections.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the Succession Duty Act will make it easier for family-farm corporations to continue in the family. One of the great difficulties was where a farmer might have one son. This was the case that I related of the chap from Enderby who wished to continue with the farm and also had other children who he wished to share in the estate.

The exemptions under this Act were not cumulative, Mr. Speaker, and if the estate was to be shared by several children it usually meant that the farm or ranch had to be sold to pay the succession duties and capital gains tax. The repeal of the succession duties will help to reduce the number of forced tax sales, but it will be of assistance in other ways as well.

It has only been possible to pass on a family farm to a child, and that child had to continue farming for 10 years in order to receive the full exemptions. There was no provision to pass on a farm or ranch to a brother, sister, wife, or any other relative, without paying the succession duty tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Particularly not a wife.

MR. BAWTREE: The opposition has stated many times that this bill will only help the idle rich. This isn't true, Mr. Speaker. A wealthy individual with a portfolio of stocks and bonds could quite easily arrange his affairs so that his investments were held in

[ Page 2368 ]

a trust or a corporation situated in Alberta or some other tax haven. Mr. Speaker, this tax was not a burden on the idle rich but rather a tax on the industrious businessmen, the farmers, ranchers and entrepreneurs who could not move their farms or buildings out of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Particularly the farmers' wives.

MR. BAWTREE: There was another detrimental effect, Mr. Speaker. An investment, corporation or trust resident in another province paid provincial income tax in that province, not in B.C. where the owner resided.

AN HON. MEMBER: They called it economic development.

MR. BAWTREE: The repeal of this bill will eliminate the incentive to shift ownership of assets to another province and the provincial income taxes will remain in this province and will be of benefit to British Columbia.

When property was left to unrelated persons, estates just slightly over $10,000 became subject to succession duties, An estate of $ 14,000 or $ 15,000 is not a very large estate, Mr. Speaker, but it was subject to succession duty if left to an unrelated person. Very often the unrelated person, the unrelated beneficiary, was a charitable organization. Under the Succession Duty Act up to 10 per cent of the estate could be left to B.C. charities without tax, but charitable bequests in excess of the 10 per cent were taxable if the estate exceeded the $10,000. Therefore the losers in this instance were the heart foundation, the crippled children, or any other charitable institutions.

MR. LAUK: Did you read the Act?

MR. BAWTREE: When I want to get some information, Mr. Member, I go to the people I feel are knowledgeable on the subject.

It is said that this bill only helps the millionaires but, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the statistics for 1975, we find that only 1.16 per cent of all the estates that had duty payable were over $1 million. In other words, nearly 99 per cent were estates of less than $1 million in 1975.

I would like to quote from one of the leading accountants in the province who is most knowledgeable on succession duties, capital gains and estate planning.

"My experience indicates that the Succession Duty Act did not greatly inconvenience the sophisticated, wealthy investor, but created substantial concern and problems for the successful entrepreneur and significantly reduced the flow of funds to worthwhile charities. Also, I suspect that the loss of revenue as a consequence of repeal of this Act will be offset by benefits to the province, in part by the increase in income taxes as the diversion of investment income to tax havens ceases, and in part by making B.C. more attractive to small businessmen."

The province is overtaxed, over controlled, over governed and beset on all sides with bureaucratic red tape, and unless we break through these obstacles, there will be no opportunity for people with ideas. I read the line just recently, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's worthwhile quoting: "When there are no avenues in a society for men and women with ideas, they tend to take them elsewhere." This is what is happening, not only in this province but in all of Canada today. This bill to repeal the succession duties will give a little bit of breathing room to people with ideas. It is my belief and the belief of most of the knowledgeable people in the province that the repeal of this Act will help to encourage greater investment and, therefore, a greater number of jobs. It will help to make the job of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) just a little bit easier. It will help to make the job of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) just a little bit easier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe a wife can be a beneficiary.

MR. BAWTREE: Most important, because of increased investment it will help to provide jobs and therefore reduce the burden of having some of our people on some sort of social assistance.

It is not a complete solution, Mr. Speaker, but it is a step in the right direction, and for these reasons I am most happy to support this bill.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place this evening to support this bill and I want to say only a few words. We've listened to a great deal of verbal garbage from the other side of the House that dealt with quotes from numerous newspapers and other jurisdictions throughout Canada. I have the budget speech from Saskatchewan, March 10,1977.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where from?

MR. KAHL: We've heard a great deal from the ex-Premier of this province about Saskatchewan and all the great things they did with regards to this. I want to read a portion of this to you, and the ex-Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) , who was booted out of his position on December 11,1975, might learn something. He didn't learn anything and he

[ Page 2369 ]

didn't pass anything on at that time, but it's an opportunity for him to learn a little bit anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't stand the heat.

MR. KAHL: I'm glad to see that he's leaving the chamber. When there's a little heat, get out of the kitchen. I want to read to you from page 30 of the budget speech:

"Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has had a long history in the succession duty and the gift tax field. When the federal government abandoned the national taxation of wealth through estate and gift taxes in 1972, Saskatchewan introduced a succession duty and gift tax because we believe that tax on wealth is a fair tax

"The decision by the federal government to stop collecting these taxes on behalf of the provinces at the end of 1974 led the Atlantic provinces to eliminate these taxes. In January of this year, the government of I British Columbia . . ."

Well, isn't that interesting that in their budget speech the NDP in Saskatchewan should be making reference to the government of British Columbia?

". . . announced its decision to discontinue its succession duty and gift tax, leaving only four provinces that continue to levy these taxes, and among these four, Quebec has been phasing out its tax, which leaves three. Succession duties and gift taxes have been a source of great concern to farmers."

Now we listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) the other day ramble on and on at great length about what he did for the farms in the province of British Columbia when he was in power, and we heard the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) tell us this evening that he did something for them all right. He did it to them; there's no getting out of that. It goes on to say: of great concern to the farmers and the small businesses in Saskatchewan."

Now when the Leader of the Opposition spoke the other day he led us to believe that it wouldn't benefit the small businesses at all. "Only the farms, " he said.

Everybody in Saskatchewan is a farmer. It wouldn't benefit the small businessman at all - that's what he said. In spite of the fact that less than 3 per cent of estates in Saskatchewan are subject to tax, there is widespread opinion that the successors of the average citizen will be subject to the tax. I want to say that, frankly, that's why I'm speaking on this evening.

I listened to the hon. member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) earlier on talk about the hard-working people in this province. He made reference to the member for Esquimalt, myself, who is working hard to look after his family and care for them. I want to ell you that yes, I'm doing that. I want to make sure hat when I leave - if I should leave this world when , in a fairly young man - my wife and children are coked after. This is one way that I can do that - by voting for this bill.

The people in Saskatchewan in the budget speech aid: "There is a widespread opinion" - and I'm a believer of that opinion - "that the successors of the average citizen will be subject to this tax." That's why I support this bill, Mr. Speaker. "Therefore, " the Minister of Finance in Saskatchewan said, "I wish to inform you that succession duties and gift taxes will be eliminated in Saskatchewan effective January 1,1977."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that retroactive?

MR. KAHL: Well, that's retroactive. Can you imagine an NDP jurisdiction making an Act retroactive? It happened in Saskatchewan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. KAHL: Back to January, 1977, from March 10,1977.

AN HON. MEMBER: A millionaires' budget, that's what it is.

MR. KAHL: I want to make reference to another article, Mr. Speaker. It says: "The B.C. businessman is our prime type of immigrant, " says Gordor Wyatt, chief administrator of the Alberta Estate Tax Rebate Act. "We'll accept them from anywhere, but we'll take all we can get from B.C." He goes on to say: "We've been very pleased with the result of the situation. About 65 to 70 per cent of the B.C. immigrants still alive are in their business prime and have contributed substantially to the Alberta economy with new enterprises and new jobs." Now these are people who are leaving the province of British Columbia.

He went on to say: "We appreciate their special knowledge of the U.S. west coast and U.S. markets, their experience in lumbering and mining and their other investified skills." These are the people from the province of British Columbia who are investing and moving to the province of Alberta because the financial climate here was not as good as it could have been. Certainly from the results that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) gave us the other day in the House of the number of businesses that started to go broke in 1975 under the NDP administration, we can appreciate the fact that many people were dissatisfied with the investment climate in British Columbia.

March 14,1972, in The Province, page 5, it says:

[ Page 2370 ]

- 'Provincial death taxes are a complicated, unnecessary form of double taxation that could drive investment capital out of British Columbia' ", a Liberal MLA said in the Legislature on Monday." It went on to say: "Dr. Scott Wallace said the province should abolish succession duties for those with money to invest who would have more incentive to invest in the province of British Columbia." I agree with what he said. I'm sure that Dr. Scott Wallace, or the member for Oak Bay, will stand in his place in this chamber ...

MR. LAUK: Either one.

MR. KAHL: ... and reiterate those words that the said in 1972.

Another quote from The Vancouver Sun, January 20,1972, says: "When any country levies taxes at high rates and becomes uncompetitive with other jurisdictions, it risks losing its entrepreneurs to the other area." There is no magic in this; it just simply happens. It happened in the province of British Columbia when the NDP was administrating this province. Many people left this province to invest in other areas.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Who , brought in the Succession Duty Act?

MR. KAHL: You know, Mr. Speaker, we hear lots of verbal garbage from the other side of the House about: "Who brought in succession duties?" They continually make quotations from W.A.C. Bennett, the finest Premier this province has ever had. They stand up and say that "in 1967 he said this" and "in 1968 he said this" and so on. But they don't go to 1972 when there were many....

Interjections.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. KAHL: In the Kelowna Charter he said that we should abolish succession duties for investment in the province of British Columbia. That's what he said! They like to ignore that.

I want to close, Mr. Speaker, with a quotation. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is always very appreciative when I close my remarks. I want to assure the ex-minister that I am very appreciative when he closes his remarks too. I think one reason that he is very appreciative of that is that when he was Minister of Health he didn't do much for the health services in the greater Victoria area. Our new Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has planned a 300-bed hospital in my constituency and the ex-Minister of Health doesn't like that very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you should relate this to Bill 12.

MR. KAHL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd be the last to ...

AN HON. MEMBER: ... deviate!

MR. KAHL: Thank you. deviate from Bill 12.

I want to close with this statement. This is from the Canadian Tax Journal, volume 2,1954:

"It is one of the paradoxes of our society that death has become a misdemeanor, if not a felony, punishable by a substantial fine. What is more, though the felony would seem to be the same in each case, the fine is extremely variable, as if it were more wicked for a rich man to die than it is for a poor man to do so."

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members over there don't really mean, or even believe, most of the stuff that they've been saying tonight. We heard the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) accuse his own government of overgoverning, overcontrolling and overtaxing the people of British Columbia. We hear the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) telling the opposition not to quote from that greatest of all Social Crediters, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. I don't know what to believe, Mr. Speaker. Here they are speaking against their own doctrine, against their own philosophy.

This afternoon we heard the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) telling us how all of these people, after they die, lie there in sadness and dismay as they watch their estates being eroded. I don't really know what's going on over there. They have dying people who worry after they die, they have backbenchers who accuse the government of overtaxing and overcontrolling. At the same time, all of this, Mr. Speaker, is ended up with a quote from the member who is now leaving us, telling us that there should be no concern over the death of the rich, or certainly not any more than there is over the death of the poor, which is all irrelevant. Because all of the heartaches and all of the bleating about what succession duty is going to do to the farmer could very easily have been dealt with simply by excluding all farms, regardless of their size or their shape or their form, from succession duties. It's as simple as that. If they are that concerned about the farmers, just exclude them.

But in fact, all of the arguments that we've heard from the back bench about the farmers are just so much smokescreen. Because in fact, it's not the farmers that you're concerned about. They are concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the vultures who sit and wait for their mothers to die and their

[ Page 2371 ]

grandmothers to die and their mothers-in-law to die and their great-grandma others to die, and the odd father or grandfather or father-in-law who happens to leave something.

This is vulture legislation; that's what it's all about. Despite what the member for North Okanagan says, no dead person lies around watching their estate erode. Once they're gone, they're gone. As much as we may be concerned about how they go or why they go or when they go, at least we can stop worrying once they're gone because we know they're not going to see all of the fighting and squabbling that goes on between the sons and the daughters and the relatives left behind who have been waiting to see them go so that they can inherit their estates. I'm not concerned about all of the people who die, and lie around in sadness and dismay watching their estate dissipate, Mr. Speaker.

But what I really want to talk about is the reason why I'm not supporting this legislation. Quite frankly, the province can't afford it. The province cannot afford to exempt people from duties in excess of $30 million. How can a province, Mr. Speaker, that is withholding from the handicapped people of this province $22.50 a month because they say it's needed in general revenues afford the luxury of wiping out $30 million in taxes? How can a province that is withholding $35 a month from the senior citizens afford to wipe out more than $30 million in taxes?

Pharmacare. The senior citizens of this province have been served notice that from now on they're going to have to cut back on their use of laxatives, vitamins and antacids because the province cannot afford the cost.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Order. Discuss the bill.

MS. BROWN: I am discussing the bill. I am talking about a bill that is going to wipe out, Mr. Minister of Health, more than $30 million in revenue, and at the same time say to senior citizens: "You're going to have to use bran instead of laxatives; you're going to use sherry." That's what the minister said: a nip of sherry before going to bed is much more useful than Valium. In any event, his research has shown that people who drink sherry before going to bed look forward to going to bed, and people who have to depend on Valium don't look forward to going to bed.

His argument was the cost, because in fact the Pharmacare programme, Mr. Speaker, in 1975-1976 cost the province $23 million. In 1976-1977, it cost the province $24 million. This year it is going to cost the province $25 million. How can we afford to introduce legislation that's going to wipe out revenue to the province of over $30 million, when we're trying to get senior citizens to switch to sherry rather than Valium, to switch to bran rather than laxatives. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has gone into the most incredible research to show the benefits that accrue to a senior citizen by using bran rather than by using laxatives, Mr. Speaker, simply to save cost. The province can't afford it. So in one breath we're introducing legislation....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: For the benefit of the member for Vancouver South who has some difficulty making the connection, we have legislation that is going to wipe out more than $30 million in revenue, and at the same time, in order to save money, we're trying to turn all of our senior citizens into alcoholics. This is what we're trying to do. We're trying to say to them: drink sherry rather than use tranquilizers. The Minister of Human Resources issued a six-page release telling them that they'll feel happier going to bed, and the province is going to save money, if they drink sherry. Mr. Speaker, I have it in black and white: drink sherry and eat bran, and don't have any antacids regardless of the state of your digestive system, because that way we're going to be able'to save on Pharmacare.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I can see your correlation, but relate it back to Bill 12.

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the rest of the House, then, I'll make my correlation.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 12 is a piece of legislation which is going to cost the province more than $30 million. Out of revenue we're going to lose, wipe out, write off $30 million to $35 million, give or take a couple of million dollars here and there. We're doing this at the same time that the Minister of Human Resources is redrafting through regulations or whatever a programme to the senior citizens of this province that is, first of all, going to force them to use booze instead of tranquilizers. He's pushing sherry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member ...

MS. BROWN: Yes he is, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... I'm sure you can relate this to the bill, but that is not relating it to the bill.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to show you, and I know it is difficult to understand the thinking of that government. Most people have problems trying to understand the thinking of that government. It doesn't make sense for a government to be saying to us that there is no money and

[ Page 2372 ]

therefore sales tax has to go up, personal income taxes have to go up, ferry rates have to be increased, ICBC has to be increased, Hydro has to be increased and, ~t the same time introduce a piece of legislation that wipes out $30 million to $35 million to the public coffers. Now does that make any sense to you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, it does, and you have canvassed that point quite thoroughly.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to start all over again because I have obviously failed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member, you have canvassed your point very well. Could you move on to some other topic?

MS. BROWN: And it still makes sense to you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have canvassed your point quite well and it relates to the bill.

MS. BROWN: I don't think I've done a good job of canvassing my point because if I had then you would have been able to share with me the feeling that it doesn't make sense in one breath to say that the province needs money, and in the next breath introduce legislation that is going to cost us more than $30 million to $35 million. Let me move on to another point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please do.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, last week a teenager committed suicide. It was a very tragic case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this has really gone on long enough. The Minister of Human Resources' estimates are over. We are supposed to be speaking to the principle of Bill 12. That member has not once related her speech to the principle of Bill 12. She is deliberately attempting to bring the Minister of Human Resources' estimates back to the floor and she is disrupting the order of this House in so doing. She must be stopped, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken. Will the hon. member kindly... ?

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I don't see how the Minister of Health can make that statement, because there is absolutely no principle involved in Bill 12.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is showing where the money could more usefully be used. That is a perfectly acceptable argument and the Minister of Health knows it! What's he doing? Disrupting the business of the House!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have made your point of order, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Clerk was about to whisper something to you. Would you like to listen to his aside now? I am trying to show that the $30 million to $35 million which this province is going to lose if the government persists in carrying through this legislation is money that the province needs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have canvassed that on, I think, 10 occasions now.

MS. BROWN: I am not canvassing, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to talk about the principle....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have canvassed that point really well and I wish you would move on to some new topic.

MS. BROWN: This is the whole point of why I am against this piece of legislation. The province cannot afford it. The province needs that $30 million to $35 million. I am trying to show you a number of ways in which the province needs that $30 million to $35 million. I am not canvassing; I am stating a point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, less than a week ago a teenager in this province committed suicide. At that time it was pointed out that there are no resources in this province for young people, for juveniles with psychiatric or other problems. Wouldn't it make sense to you, Mr. Speaker, that the money that could accrue if the succession duties remained in this province could better be spent in developing those kinds of resources than in wiping out the succession duties so that the 800 people who are millionaires in this province, or whatever, can have some kind of tax break? Doesn't that make sense to you? That is all I am trying to say: if we have to establish priorities, let us not get mixed up in terms of what our priorities should be.

This province has very desperate needs. This province needs facilities for children with psychiatric problems. This province needs to be able to continue to say to its senior citizens: "The drugs that you need you will be able to have without having to worry about a $25 poll tax or some other convoluted way of getting that $25 out of you." This province needs

[ Page 2373 ]

the money so that it can pass on the $22.50 to the handicapped people of this province. This province needs the money so that it can pass on the $35 a month to the senior citizens of this province. What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the senior citizens, the handicapped, the children with psychiatric problems, with learning disabilities, those kinds of people are the ones who are really paying so that the millionaires can pass on their estates, without paying any taxes, to the vultures who are waiting for them to die. That's all I am trying to say. I am trying to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we can't afford them. How, then, can we afford to wipe out $30 million to $ 3 5 million in succession duties?

I am saying to you - and I hope the Minister of Health is listening - that we need funding for rape relief centres in this province. We need funding for transition houses. When I was speaking to the Minister of Human Resources, I itemized for him S5 different services that were going to have their funding cut or totally abolished, simply because he says there is no money. Now does it make any sense to'you that services which people need are going to be cut or wiped out at the same time as the government is introducing legislation that is going to wipe out of general revenue $30 million to $35 million?

I'm saying, regardless of what one's philosophy is and regardless of what one's politics are, that we should have some sense of priority. There may be a time in the future when this province will be able to afford the abolition of succession duties, but the time is not now. This province cannot afford to wipe out that particular tax at this time, because we need the money. That is all that I'm trying to illustrate to you.

I'm dealing specifically with the Minister of Human Resources. But if that upsets the Minister of Health, I can deal with the Minister of Health, too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would rather you just dealt with Bill 12, rather than with any specific minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with Bill 12. Bill 12 is going to deprive this province of $30 million or $35 million in revenue, at the same time as the Minister of Human Resources - pardon me, a minister who shall remain nameless; I will not call his name - is cutting $5 million out of his budget in terms of services to children. A minister who shall remain nameless is cutting $20 million out of his budget in services to senior citizens and the handicapped. A minister who shall remain nameless is cutting $3 million out of his budget to community programmes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MS. BROWN: A minister who shall remain nameless is cutting $42 million out of his. . .

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member! Order, please! Would you take your seat for a moment, please? Hon. member, you have covered this information quite well. You can call it canvassing or call it what you may, but you have covered it very well in your speech and you've made your point quite well. Now you're bordering on standing order 43, which is tedious and repetitious debate. Would you please continue with some new information?

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very difficult to understand how one can be accused of violating the standing orders of tedious and repetitious debate when one has been speaking for 25 or 30 minutes in this debate. I would point out to Mr. Speaker that perhaps, if you attempted to bring some order to the noisy government benches rather than harassing our speakers continuously, this House would be more orderly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Your point of order with noise is well taken. I would ask the hon. members to please observe the member who is speaking - the first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: First of all, I'd like to say thank you for your very kind comments about my speech. I appreciate the fact that you're enjoying it.

But really, after listening all afternoon to the members of the government benches talking about the great hardship that the failure to remove this piece of legislation is going to cause to farmers, I think it's only fair that you should listen to the other side of the story.

I'm speaking on behalf of all the people who are unable to come here and speak for themselves. I'm talking about the handicapped who are being ripped off and the senior citizens and others. I'll probably not use my entire 40 minutes, but if you wouldn't mind just giving me a few more minutes so that I can speak on their behalf, I'd very much like to do so.

As I pointed out at the very beginning, it's very easy, in fact, to deal with the government's concern about the farms simply by exempting them from any form of succession duty whatsoever, as the previous government did. But if this present government is not satisfied with the extent to which it was done, then certainly they can carry this to a further extent.

I am not dealing with all of the discussions about people fleeing the province and going to Alberta and

[ Page 2374 ]

all the great quotes about all the other things that they're doing. Mr. Speaker, I'm dealing specifically with priorities in terms of what the government's priority should be. I'm talking about the people who have to live here and who can't flee to Alberta or to Washington state or Oregon or anywhere else, either because they're very old, they're senior citizens, because they're handicapped or because they're very young. In particular, aside from just being very young, they have a disability of one sort of another.

I'm saying that in terms of the government's priorities it makes sense to deal with those people first, rather than to deal with people who are going to die and leave estates of $250,000 or more. That's all I'm saying.

Now I realize there is some concern, as voiced by the member for Okanagan, that after these people die they might be very upset about what's happening to their estate. I'm willing to accept that this may be possible. I didn't know it was before, but maybe it is possible. But I still maintain that in terms of establishing one's priorities surely we have some kind of responsibility to the living, especially those who are not able to fight on their own behalf or to take care of themselves.

I'm saying that it is grossly unfair for the government to continue to withhold from the handicapped people in this province the $22.50 which is rightfully theirs, and from the senior citizens the $35 which is rightfully theirs, to introduce a poll tax under a new Pharmacare programme which is being designed, to fail to develop the kind of resources needed by children with social or emotional problems in this province, while at the same time giving this tax write-off to people, really, who are not going to benefit themselves. Their vultures will benefit, but they themselves won't benefit from it. And that is the gist of my argument.

I'm saying moreover, Mr. Speaker, that the very fact that it is necessary for the department which shall remain nameless to cut back on funding or to wipe out services to people in need because it doesn't have enough money to meet those people's needs is clear proof that the province cannot afford this piece of legislation.

What I'm trying to demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, is that it is possible that in the future, maybe in the near future, maybe not in the very distant future, the province will be financially able to meet its obligations to the wealthy and to the people who leave estates of a quarter of a million dollars or more. I don't care if that's right or wrong - that's not what I'm discussing. I'm talking about timing and priorities, Mr. Speaker.

I'm saying that now is not the time, not when we're forcing senior citizens and handicapped people and poor peuple to tighten their belts. Now is not the time for their government to be giving these kinds of tax concessions to people who are not in need. That really is the gist of what I'm saying. I'm saying that my opposition to this piece of legislation has nothing to do with philosophy; it has nothing to do with politics. I don't think that we are in a position financially in the province now to have a philosophical discussion or even a political discussion. It's straight economics. We can't afford it.

Everybody lives on a budget - right? We all decide in terms of our budget what our priorities should be. I think the government's priorities are wrong. The government is asking through this legislation that senior citizens and the handicapped and the young people who are disabled emotionally, physically or in other ways subsidize people in this province who are not in need. In fact, that $30 million or $35 million is coming out of the pockets of this particular group. That is the reason why I am against it. I am totally opposed to demanding that handicapped people should have to subsidize the wealthy or, if they're not wealthy, middle income. We keep hearing that it's not the wealthy who benefit; it's the middle income. That doesn't excuse it.

The handicapped and senior citizens and young people and people in need should not be called upon to subsidize people who can take care of themselves, people who are not taking care and not concerned about their own existence, but about passing stuff on, passing estates on, passing fortunes on, no matter how small, to their children and to their children's children - two generations. This is what this piece of legislation is going to do.

I think it's grossly unfair, when there are community grants that need funding, when there are people in this province who desperately need that money, for the government to make a decision at this time to soak $30 million to $35 million out of the economy and give it to people who are not in need. It's obscene. It really is obscene, Mr. Speaker, and I am totally opposed to it.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some corrections on the statements made by the hon. member.

First, the hon. member said she directed her remarks specifically to me. She gave a number of reasons, and I would like to answer those particular charges since they were completely erroneous! I'd like to correct it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon, first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Excuse me. I'm on a point of order now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

[ Page 2375 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Human Resources, if you wish to make a correction it is not a point of order. You must only correct something that I was made in a speech you made in this House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll speak in the debate.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer some of the charges made by the hon. member who just spoke, and specifically with regard to her comments s about the handicapped.

She suggested that the handicapped were being r ripped off by this ministry and this government. I would like to suggest to the hon. member and to the House that it's the type of statements which were made by the previous speaker which are a complete injustice and disservice to the handicapped, because certainly these people, when they hear....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, one moment, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will relate it to Bill 12.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wish you would relate this to Bill 12. Do you have a point of order, hon... ?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Not exactly, if he'll relate it to Bill 12. He's having a heck of a time doing it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take your seat, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will relate it to Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The suggestion by the hon. member was that we were bringing in this legislation at the expense of the handicapped - that we were, in effect, removing $22.50 from the handicapped and that this was partly because of the legislation now before us. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is an erroneous statement and a disservice to the handicapped, because not only are the handicapped receiving more than they received during the term in which that member was a part of government . . .

MR. LEVI: That is not correct.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... but they have seen an increase in the last year which was not equaled during the three years previous.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not correct.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Therefore, Mr. speaker, this bill, which will help to bring greater prosperity to British Columbia, will in turn provide further moneys to again assist the handicapped and to make our programme for the handicapped better still. Because it is only if we have prosperity in this province, it is only if we have a growing economy, it is only if we have people who will invest in British Columbia that we can afford or make possible greater services and greater benefits still to the handicapped.

The member mentioned that we were, in effect, removing some benefits from the Pharmacare programme once more at the expense of this particular bill, or the bill was at the expense of those particular items which she suggested might be removed from the Pharmacare programme. This is completely erroneous again, Mr. Speaker, because certainly we would, as has been stated many times, recognize that there are chronically ill children and people in this province who previously had no assistance and who should be in receipt of assistance when required. By returning prosperity to the province again, we can provide this type of benefit.

The hon. member mentioned that we had discontinued 55 grants, that she had read 55 grants from a sheet and the answer was that these had been discontinued. My answer during the debate on my estimates, Mr. Speaker, was that most of these were Vancouver grants which were being dealt with by the Vancouver Resources Board.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I must ask that you relate this back directly to Bill 12, if you will, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly as the economy improves in British Columbia, we will provide further money still in the grant vote of my ministry. I can see where this bill will once again accomplish that end to a greater degree than what has been talked about by the previous member. Because we did not cut off the grants; we did not reduce the grants. As a matter of fact, there are more organizations receiving assistance now than were receiving assistance two years ago, Mr. Speaker. We have expanded on the programme; we have expanded all of our programmes.

MR. LEVI: You're saving all this money.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The suggestion by the hon. member was that again because of this legislation, somehow this ministry was cutting back in various votes and various programmes. If there were cutbacks, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't, as the previous member said, because of this legislation. It was simply

[ Page 2376 ]

because in certain areas of administration during the previous government, the money was being shovelled off the back of a truck.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was being wasted; it was being wasted like never before. Because we have eliminated the waste, we are making more benefits available to people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to Bill 12, please, hon. minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm very appreciative of the legislation which is brought before the House which will return greater prosperity to British Columbia. I'm grateful because I know that from this will flow further benefits to the handicapped, to people on welfare, to the elderly, to the chronically ill - those who require our help and who can receive that help and more of it as the economy prospers. We will do all we can to build a stronger British Columbia. Only through having a healthier economy can we do this.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Human Resources just stated that more organizations are getting grants than ever before this year. I wonder if the minister will indicate whether he will resign if that's not a true statement. Will the minister resign or are you just going to make irresponsible statements in this House and every place else as you've done around this province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member!

MR. LAUK: You're an absolutely disgraceful member of this House!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member!

MR. LAUK: You don't care what you say; you have no respect for the truth!

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I will have to ask you to withdraw that last statement.

[ Deputy Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. LAUK: The minister has stated that more organizations are getting grants than they were before. That is not true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw the statement.

MR. LAUK; I will stand behind that. I will ask that minister to withdraw that statement or resign.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I ask you to withdraw!

MR. LAUK: You resign if that's not true!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take your seat, hon. member, please.

MR. LAUK: You don't care what you say!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the word "disgraceful member" is unparliamentary and I would ask you to kindly withdraw that.

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. That member's statements aren't worthy of comment, in any event.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 12, as I look over the benches of the government party - and I won't name the party because, Mr. Speaker, you're not officially to take cognizance of political parties in the Legislature - I'm reminded of a very old, albeit equivocal, homily. You can tell what God thinks of money by the people he gives it to.

I think that in considering Bill 12, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow to go unanswered a remark made in the speech made by the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . She said, among other things, that she was upset that there were deceased persons who noticed their estates being eroded. I have no objection to an abiding belief in the life hereafter ...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Good old Mackenzie King!

MR. LAUK: . . . but for her to suggest that she has been in some form of communication with these departed has caused me to be somewhat alarmed. I have not heard that kind of suggestion since W.A.C. Bennett was the Premier of this province, when he said he was plugged in to a certain being who gave him guidance - guidance that, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, brought about the introduction of the Succession Duty Act in the first place. It was an Act that was very vigorously and articulately supported by the now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the very minister who has conduct of this repeal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to have government of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy, let's deal with some of the contrasting actions of this government in relation to Bill 12. On the one hand, we have the government - in particular the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and, I

[ Page 2377 ]

suppose, his cabinet colleagues - which has struggled over the past several months since the throne speech to develop some kind of a universal Pharmacare programme. We heard in the throne speech that it would cover everyone in British Columbia; it's absolutely universal. I'm not one of those who necessarily believes in absolutes, but I did accept the throne speech at face value. When someone says to me "universal, " I, being rather simple-minded, immediately assumed that universal is what was meant. I now find, Mr. Speaker, that after considerable research and renting of garments, the hon. minister in charge of Pharmacare has decided that universal means all those people who are chronically ill ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Could I ask you to relate this to Bill 12?

MR. LAUK; ... and preferentially over 65.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Bill, you're touchy tonight. You said there was no bill, just regulations.

MR. LAUK: The hon. members in the front benches are very, very sensitive this evening.

MR. WALLACE: They're very touchy on that one.

MR. LAUK: But they were struggling with Pharmacare, Mr. Speaker, and I'll relate it to Bill 12.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. LAUK: It's late in coming to this Legislature, not like the succession duty bill which was tabled rather early on. The Pharmacare bill is late in coming . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: There's no Pharmacare bill - it's regulations.

MR. LAUK: as was the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) when he was struggling for the Social Credit leadership a few years ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The old crocodile ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Swimming upstream.

MR. LAUK: ... slowly waddling behind the Premier, waiting for his opportunity.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, what I mean to say is this: the Succession Duty Act was tabled rather early on in the session, and they struggled with Pharmacare. They were looking for evidence. They were making tests. They were carrying on research. All we got from the Minister of Finance when he introduced the succession duties bill was: "We have been making inquiries. We've conducted research and it proves, or it indicates, that if we remove the succession duties it will increase investment in the province. That investment will, in turn, create jobs."

Well, we have since found that that was incorrect. The minister was mistaken. There were no such inquiries into succession duties and into their effect on investment. The only research that was carried out was by Bill Stow, late of the Minister of Finance's department, who produced a brochure outlining the inquiry that he made. Rather than show that it would increase investment - that is to say, the removal of succession duties - he said it showed nothing of the kind and proved nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, the only thing that it would do, Mr. Speaker, is decrease the revenues of the province.

Now this government seems to have no trouble in raising taxes for the ordinary working families of this province - ferry rates, sales tax, ICBC premiums, medicare payments. They have no trouble at all. The Minister of Health has no trouble in tripling ambulance fees - doesn't trouble him. He says it's good for the ordinary people of this province to suffer. It does them a great deal of good. It's good for their souls and it makes them more responsible because, you know, they're frivolous. They take the $10 they save on the ambulance fee, and they rush off to Acapulco with it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: These old people all over the province on Mincome frivolously waste their money on pet food and other extravagant luxuries. How quickly, Mr. Speaker, they brought in the succession duties repeal legislation - how quickly, indeed. They forget so much.

Oh, we're promised economic development because of the lowering of succession duties and estate taxes in this province - the elimination of them. We've found in the past 15 months the nerve centre of this government, the so-called Ministry of Economic Development, literally kill by atrophy the major economic development programmes of the previous administration. He is reeling under inquiries and scandals, but I had faith in that minister, Mr.

[ Page 2378 ]

Speaker. I didn't believe for a moment that the only measure for economic development would be elimination of succession duties, which Mr. Stow said doesn't work. It doesn't work anywhere. There's no evidence that that works anywhere to increase investment in any jurisdiction.

But I knew that the Minister of Economic Development would come up with his big plan. I waited and, sure enough, I checked with the Ministry of Economic Development in Vancouver when I was there recently. I saw a person who looked like the Minister of Economic Development wandering in the hall, and I said: "Don, do you recognize me? It's me, Gary." He looked at me and he said: "I don't recall." (Laughter.) Well, in any event, I poked my head in the door of the Ministry of Economic Development -I was inquiring about where to send the wreath - and I noticed the latest edition of a publication of the Department of Economic Development called B.C. Market News.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, now back to Bill 12.

MR. LAUK: Yes. I knew that the measure that was going to be brought about to create economic development had finally come off the planning board. Don had done it again because the headline says: "Giant Raspberry Blitz Launched." (Laughter.) There it is! We can sleep comfortably in our beds now. We are in competent hands.

If this bill is the only measure to create jobs in this province, this government is the most bankrupt of ideas of any government in the history of this province. There is no evidence anywhere in North America, anywhere in the world, that indicates that relieving the wealthy from taxation on succession creates jobs or investment. That is a fallacy; that is false; it is not true. If you want to create jobs, Mr. Speaker, you relieve the taxation of the greatest mass base - that is, the working families of this province. You relieve the taxation there. You relieve them of sales taxes, of income taxes, of medicare payments and of ICBC payments.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of baloney!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Oh, it's a lot of baloney!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: The last person who said that to relieve the poor and the working families of taxation will create jobs was a lot of baloney was a man by the name of Herbert Hoover. Do you know what happened to him? The same year that Tolmie was in government here, there was another businessmen's government with the Malkins and the Walkems and everybody else in government - very distinguished businessmen who said: "Relieve the rich and somehow the crumbs will fall to the poor." They certainly did. There are a few in this country who still remember the relief lines; there are those who remember the 30 per cent unemployment, the hundreds of thousands of people who starved through policies such as that. You never consider that relieving the rich will create investment. It doesn't happen.

Now I understand that the hon. Liberal Leader is going to speak in this debate. He is meeting with his back bench now to decide strategy.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be a free vote.

MR. LAUK: In anticipation of his comments, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind him of something his father said. Gordon Gibson, Sr., said....

MR. BARRETT: A good man!

MR. LAUK: Wait until I tell you what he said. (Laughter.) He said: "The rich don't spend their money."

MS. BROWN: That's true.

MR. LAUK: I read an article recently.... Gordon Gibson, Sr., built this luxury hotel in Maui for rich people. He had to lower the rates because the people who came there were working families. The rich don't go to those places; the rich are too busy sewing up their mattresses.

The capital required for economic development in this province anywhere in this system is not capital that is accumulated in individuals' hands. It is institutional capital; it is capital invested by ordinary people who are not wealthy, big capitalists, millionaires. Otherwise, have we been deceived all these years? You've seen the CPR advertising on television when they have that little old lady walking into the bank with her $4.22 to buy a share in the CPR. They say that ordinary people have shares in BC Tel and in CPR and MacMillan Bloedel. They advertise that they were owned by little people.

Ordinary people invest, not the very rich. I should say they both invest, Mr. Speaker, but what people comprise the bulk of investment in capital projects in this country? Institutionalized capital - that is insurance companies and banks. And who are the depositors? The working families are the people of Canada and of British Columbia. It's absolute

[ Page 2379 ]

nonsense to suggest that somebody with a mattress full of money is the one who invests in the economy of British Columbia. It doesn't happen. Psychologists will tell you that; economists will tell you that; and most chartered accountants will tell you that, if you ever meet one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one!

MR. LAUK: Name one! The first chartered accountant - I think his name was Genghis Khan. (Laughter.)

I was interested in hearing the comments from the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , Mr. Speaker. I know you're not a chartered accountant. I emphasize the "chartered;" certified general, and industrial, and management, and whatever else accountants are floating around these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: All right.

MR. LAUK: All accepted. The member for Shuswap indicated that the family farm, under particular circumstances, did not escape this great axe blow of succession duties and he created an example.

It occurred to me that the axe blow was that if the family farm was left to a number of individuals, all of whom could not work the farm, either the interests of the others had to be bought out of the estate or the farm had to be sold to buy them all out. Well, what difference does it make whether there are succession duties or not? You're going to have to do that anyway. It's no point in giving examples of estates where beneficiaries are hard pressed to pay succession duties.

There was an exemption for farmland, and the direct line in the family was exempted. If succession duties are payable, it has to be based on a sizable estate valued in a fair manner, Mr. Speaker. If exemptions are too low, raise them. If those beneficiary categories that are exempted are too few, increase them. But don't eliminate a fair and just tax on the rich.

I was interested in the prayer of the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) this afternoon, and I am sure he needs no reminding. Nor do the front benches of the Social Credit need reminding. "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

I disagree with this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a bill that is highly cynical. It is based on crass self-interest on the part of the government. It's the first time in the history of this Legislature where that has been so clear. The millionaire government ...

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You're insulting your friends in Saskatchewan.

MR. LAUK: ... has put forward a bill in their own pecuniary interests at the same time as they have raised substantial taxes on the ordinary working families of this province, at the same time that a very callous and contemptuous minister has gone around this. province socking it to the voiceless and the powerless, the disabled and the old to save a few pennies and shovel money out of the back of the truck to his millionaire friends, including himself.

It is a callous, mean and cruel Act - an Act that no other government in the history of this province has been capable of. If this government wanted to be hard, if they wanted to have people pull in their belts, if they wanted to save pennies on the disabled, if they wanted the working families to pay higher taxes -after all, folks, it's bad times and we all have to suffer together - then what's the meaning of Bill 12? Why should the rich escape taxation when the rest of us have to pull in our belts?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Academy Awards were last night.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Finance says the Academy Awards were last night. He cannot possibly justify this very cruel Act, this inconsistent Act.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You lost!

MR. LAUK: Yes, we did lose; we lost the election. Your arrogance and your contempt for the opposition notwithstanding, yes, we did lose. But let me ask this of the Minister of Finance: did that justify you raising the taxes by hundreds of per cent and rates to ordinary working families in this province in bad economic times, while on the other hand you give yourselves a tax break - the millionaires of this province? That is cynicism. If you expect the people of British Columbia to buy that, well, you're naive. They're not.

MR. KAHL: Only to pay your bills!

MR. LAUK: Oh, it's one thing to say that everybody pays taxes. If you're going to lower taxes for ordinary working families to create employment, then you may lower taxes on the rich as well. That's one thing. But when you sock it to the mass and the ordinary people of this province and give a tax break to the handful of millionaires, that is the most callous, contemptuous and cynical attitude towards the democratic process in this province. That's what that issue is, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please address the Chair?

[ Page 2380 ]

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's what that issue is and that's what the people of British Columbia must understand. You are inconsistent.

MR. KAHL: Pay your bills!

MR. LAUK: The member for Esquimalt says, "Pay your bills." That's what we're asking the millionaires of this province to do. Is it fair taxation to say the rich go off without taxation and the working families bear a greater burden?

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with one final statement. In the middle of 1975, the last NDP fiscal year, the resource taxation burden on resource companies in this province was 30 per cent; 70 per cent was borne by ordinary people of this province. In the middle of 1976, the first fiscal year of the new Social Credit government, 25 per cent was borne by the resource companies; 75 per cent was borne by ordinary people. This year the proposed budget is 20 per cent resource companies, 80 per cent on the ordinary working families of this province. Five per cent a year was relieved from resource companies back onto the ordinary folk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. LAUK: That's the policy of this government - 5 per cent a year. Four more years and the total budget of this province will be on the backs of working families. Is that the way it's going? Look at the figures. The member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) thinks it's amusing.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Not you -what you're saying.

MR. LAUK: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this increased burden on ordinary working families indicates the philosophy of this government: tax ordinary people and give the breaks to the rich.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I will say that this bill should be voted against, and that no explanation can possibly be made by this minister to explain the inconsistency in his portfolio in terms of taxation on the people of this province.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we have heard some members put forward some arguments in regard to the millionaires' tax that is going to be relieved at this particular point in time. But what they haven't disclosed is the fact that the succession duties, in their time, were placed there for a reason. But since that time, and times have changed, we have in effect double taxation with capital gains tax in this country. So that's one thing that hasn't really been brought forward.

The member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , and I think other members on this side of the House, have made mention regarding the effect on farmland and the farming community. I, as Minister of Agriculture, of course, am concerned. I was not going to speak because I thought they covered the subject very well.

But I have a letter, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I'd just read it for the benefit of the members in the House.

This is a letter from a widow on a farm. It's a small farm, but I'd like to read some paragraphs from it.

"The land I am on was not purchased for an investment or for a real estate enterprise. This property has been a farm, a dairy, an orchard and a share-cropping farm in one family since Grandpa Reid purchased it and cleared it in 1903.

"It is being forced to sell against one's will that is so unfair. If one can sell, who says there is a buyer with $351,000? This is in a land freeze and would be sold as a parcel or parcels. I cannot sell one or two acres to make my payments on succession duties. The succession duties placed on this farm family are $25, 53 L" And the woman goes on to say....

MR. MACDONALD: Who's it being left to?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I'll read that to you, Mr. Member.

"I am 56 years old and have had a part-time job and earn approximately $5,000 a year gross. You state that the financial burden will not be unduly onerous. Do you really believe that? Would you be able to handle it on my salary? What do the widows do who do not have jobs?

"I know of two ladies who have had to sell for a very unfair amount to make their payments, and they are now on welfare. So what she paid the government they are now paying back to her, and she has lost her dignity."

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the problems that face the farming community.

I would just like to read the last paragraph. It's a plea, really.

"I do not want to sell. My son does not want to sell. Keeping this as farmland in the third and, I hope, fourth generation is all we ask. We do not want to make a land sale for profit. Hard as that may seem, we are happy as we are. Please reconsider my case. I'll be at least 66 years old before I have paid this off."

And that, Mr. Speaker, is over the I 0-year term, as it was done so fairly by that former government in giving the son 10 years to pay off the succession duties. That's the type of thing that faces the farm community. As I've said, other members on this side of the House have brought it up before this.

[ Page 2381 ]

There's another thing that the members on the other side of the House don't consider. They talk about the $25 million that will be lost in succession duties. But statements have been made by accountants, economists and lawyers, who say that without the succession duties being relieved on the average businessman in this province - not the idle rich who have accountants and experts and corporate lawyers who can move their funds across Canada in other investments to avoid income tax or succession duties - the person who has made a successful career in business, he moves his holdings into another province to avoid the succession duties. They say we're going to lose $25 million by relieving the succession duties.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should look at the opposite of that and figure out how much money may stay in this province to further develop this province; and I would suggest that $25 million is a very small amount. We'll have $100 million $200 million, $300 million, $400 million, which will come in here for the development of this province. I should say, Mr. Speaker, it would stay in this province as opposed to moving out to get a tax shelter and to get away from succession duties.

The member mentions Saskatchewan. I don't know whether it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) who made the comment: "It's only farms in Saskatchewan." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are businessmen in Saskatchewan as well as farmers, and the government of Saskatchewan, even though it is an NDP government, recognizes the need for the small and medium businessman and the small and medium farmer to get the benefit and to be able to reinvest the money - to hold that money in that province for further economic development.

Mr. Speaker, just previously the member mentioned the little people and the fact that we overtax them in sales tax and the ferry rates go up. But, Mr. Member, you must realize that that is spreading an amount of dollars across two million people. What you need is accumulated capital if you're ever going to have economic development. You can't do it with nickels and dimes and dollars. You have to have it on the basis of an amount of capital to create a plant, to start a business, to create those jobs, to get people off social assistance and get them back into the work force, where they want to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was a credit manager. Maybe I understand a little better than you, Mr. Member,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're so far removed in your Mercedes Benz, you don't understand anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister please address the Chair? And would the other hon. members please quit interrupting?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I got carried away, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that.

You need, Mr. Speaker, the accumulated dollars to create an investment in business, whether it be industrial, whether it be farmland, whether it be a commercial venture, to get a start. You need that seed capital. If you took it away and you said to those medium and small businessmen that we're going to hold down sales tax or ICBC or ferry rates, you put a greater load on that middle income mass of people in this province and in this country until you break their backs.

I suggest to you that the small businessman and the middle businessman is the backbone of this country, and that's who we're trying to protect; that's what we're trying to help develop and further economic development in this province. I'm sure that member over there fully understands that. But because he has to stand up and oppose on the basis that because this government brings it in therefore it must be bad, I can appreciate his position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: But, Mr. Speaker, he stands up and says it's a terrible thing, and yet Saskatchewan is a province that has an NDP government. He had better go back there and convince them. They're going the capitalist route, I guess. They've seen the light and they're coming our way.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is an important bill, a bill which will help the economic development of this country and province and will help in the stimulation of industry, of enterprise, of commercial enterprise, of the farming community. It will keep the dollars in this province, help create the jobs and help get B.C. on the road again.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago - it even seems like some months ago - the hon. Minister of Finance stood in this Legislature and started second reading of the bill before us now. If he was going to deal with all the questions or points that have been raised, even by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , the next speech that he makes, whenever that may be -how many weeks down the road I don't know -would be a very long one.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) did deal with some of the points raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard, and

[ Page 2382 ]

1 don't intend to deal with them at any length at all. But I do think we have to refer briefly to some of the figures. You recall when the budget was first introduced that we described this as a millionaires' Monday budget, a budget that was stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. We quoted figures from the estimates. Those figures are still before us, and contrary to what the hon. Minister of Human Resources said, the figures just can't be denied.

Look at the Pharmacare programme, for example: $24,600, 000 last year, an increase of 6 per cent for a programme that is going to cover all of the people when last year's programme covered only a relatively small number of people - a considerable reduction in this programme. It's taking money from that programme so that we can forgive something in the neighbourhood of $30 million to a few people in our community.

Another vote that we've already discussed - I won't dwell on it at all - is the one for services for seniors and handicapped that was discussed by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and mentioned by the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . But a total in this vote of $187 million for the next year is a reduction of $20 million - a reduction of 7 per cent. That programme is being reduced because we have to be in a position to give back to the millionaires of the province something in excess of $30 million - truly a millionaires' Monday budget.

Vote 186 - and this is the last one to which I'll refer, Mr. Speaker - is services for families and children. Once again we see a vote last year of $65.8 million, a reduction of 8.5 per cent, down to just over $60 million, in services for families and children. Stealing from these people to give to the rich, living up to that campaign promise, it is truly a millionaires' Monday budget, and this is the only significant piece of legislation in that whole budget.

When the Minister of Finance spoke first in second reading, he told us the reason the federal government had abandoned it was because they were concerned about the taxpayers being double-taxed. They were concerned about the wealthy in our community, because certainly it didn't apply to all of the middle-income earners. It didn't apply to the low-income people. It didn't apply to the people who didn't have any income at all. The only people in the community who are affected by this are the wealthy in the community. He's trying to convince us that the federal government was worried about this double taxation impact on the wealthy in the country. Because of that, because they were concerned about what this was doing to the wealthy, the federal government abandoned succession duties when it introduced the capital gains tax.

Mr. Speaker, what he neglected to mention was that, in effect, the federal government was acting only as a collection agency, almost. They were paying to the provinces 75 per cent of all the money they were collecting in the way of succession duties. They didn't want to stand up any longer to the criticism from the estates that were being levied this tax. The federal government legislation was levying a tax that they were collecting on behalf of the provinces. They were taking all of the criticism for it and handing the money over to the provinces. Now that's one reason the hon. Minister of Finance neglected to mention when he told us why the federal government was moving out of the field of succession duties, but a very important reason from the point of view of the federal government. No government likes to collect money from taxpayers simply to hand it over to some other people to spend. The federal government no longer wanted to continue taking the rap for this money it was raising and then find out that 75 per cent of it was being spent by another level of government - a government that was getting the credit for making these expenditures on behalf of people.

The Minister of Finance also mentioned the considerable savings in administration and led us to believe at least the implication was there, Mr. Speaker that it was costing us almost as much to raise this $32 million as we were getting out of it. Perhaps some years it was even a little bit more. Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to vote 7, again in the estimates. I know we've covered this but I feel it's important in discussing the legislation before us now. Let's look at these considerable savings. Let's look at part of vote 7. Vote 7 covers a lot of things. Taxation administration provides for the administration of all taxing statutes which are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance - all of them. These include the consumer taxation branch, which is a very healthy source of revenue for the provincial government, Mr. Speaker. It administers the Social Services Tax Act, the Gasoline Tax Act. I know this is not part of this bill, but this vote covers all these things: Coloured Gasoline Tax Act, Motive-fuel Use Tax Act, Fuel-Oil Tax Act, Pari Mutuel Betting Tax, Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Act. All of these things are covered in this vote. There is the Hotel and Motel Room Tax Act, real property taxation branch - and certainly we're not proposing to abandon that, Mr. Speaker.

But also in this description it tells us that under taxation administration, the income taxation branch administers the Mining Tax Act, the Logging Tax Act, the Corporation Capital Tax Act and the Insurance Premiums Tax Act. Included in this paragraph are the Probate Fees Act, Succession Duty Act and Gift Tax Act. The total of all of those, Mr. Speaker, from the point where I started reading - mining, logging, corporation capital tax, insurance premium, probate fees, succession duties and gift tax - and don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that only one of those items,

[ Page 2383 ]

succession duty alone, is going to raise something in the neighbourhood of $35 million this year - the total administration of that group is $955,394.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is the government that is so fond of bottom-line accounting, and they say it isn't worth spending less than $1 million to collect $35 million.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): They're leaving the probate on anyway. They still need staff.

MR. STUPICH: They still need some of the staff at least. I'm not sure what the rest of the staff are going to do.

MR. BARRETT: Somebody's got to lick the stamps. It can't be the Queen's Printer!

MR. STUPICH: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this is one tax that costs far less to administer than the tax brings in.

From that point of view, for the Minister of Finance to stand up in this House and imply in his discussion that it was costing us too much to collect it.... Mr. Speaker, I can't say he was misleading the House. I can only say that he was misinformed or that he hadn't bothered to find out and assumed that it was costing a lot of money. I think perhaps probably the latter.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance also told us that we'd better get out of it because a lot of other provinces are out of it. He said that at that time five provinces.... And I recognize that since then one more province has joined the group that does not levy a succession duty, or at least is proposing not to levy it.

Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at the provinces that we are going to be joining, the provinces that have done so well for their citizens, economically speaking, that we had better get in and join them or we'll be left behind in the economic race for prosperity in Canada. Let's take a look at them, Mr. Speaker.

Going from west to east, Alberta has so much money coming out of holes in the ground that it's looking for other holes in the ground to put the money into, for some time in the future, so they don't levy a succession duty. Mr. Speaker, not one of those holes in the ground from which they are drawing money was dug because there were no succession duties in Alberta. 'nose holes in the ground were dug there long before Alberta got away from the succession duty, or before the federal government got out of the succession duty field. They are still being dug, and they will be dug, or drilled, as long as there is an opportunity to find petroleum and natural gas there. That's where their money is coming from. They don't levy a succession duty because they can't be bothered with it. It's so small in the scheme of things in Alberta.

"What about Saskatchewan?" That's being thrown at us across the floor, mostly today. Saskatchewan is an entirely different situation. It is a province that had made no suggestion at all, Mr. Speaker, about abandoning succession duties until they saw that B.C. was abandoning it. They felt that maybe they'd better do something to compete. B.C. announced it first.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Quebec?

MR. STUPICH: I'm coming to Quebec. I told you I am moving from west to east. Saskatchewan made no move until B.C. did. In addition to that, Saskatchewan's total revenue from succession duties is in the neighborhood of $4 million. Even in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, it's a very small item.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the members can hardly wait for me to move to the east. I am dealing first with Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has been mentioned, and the Premier is now throwing in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, let me deal with Saskatchewan first. Can I simply say that it's a very small item in the scheme of things in Saskatchewan since it was bringing in something in the neighborhood of $4 million. Saskatchewan showed no 'interest at all in abandoning succession duties until they saw that B.C. was abandoning succession duties. So we're setting the bad example. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Finance. We're setting the bad example here in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Too small for them to bother with? I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that in Saskatchewan it was mainly the farmers who were paying it. Mr. Speaker, that could have been correct, as it could have been corrected here in B.C. I'll deal with farmers later on. But they certainly could have brought in the exemptions that would have left out the farmers. If we were to leave out the farmers completely, it would make little difference to our $35 million. If the Saskatchewan government were to leave out the farmers completely, then, Mr, Speaker, likely it would be costing them more to administer this tax than they would be getting, because they are getting most of that $4 million from farmers as it is. So there was no point in

[ Page 2384 ]

Saskatchewan in continuing to hang on to it. There was a real point in B.C. in continuing to hang on to it.

Mr. Stupich moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.