[ Page 2385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) HON. Mr. McGeer. Introduction and first reading –– 2385

Oral questions

Cost-of-living supplement to handicapped and senior citizens. Ms. Brown –– 2385

Certification of teachers. MR. Wallace –– 2388

Increase in good prices. Mr. Gibson –– 2388

Payment of Joseph Broadbent's legal fees by government. Mr. King –– 2388

Guidelines for use of lie-detector equipment. Mr. Wallace –– 2389

Ferry rates. Mrs. Dailly –– 2389

Distribution of criminal justice reports. Mr. Nicolson –– 2389

Plans for new pulp mill. Mr. Gibson –– 2389

Negotiations on Duke Point with MacMillan Bloedel. Mr. Stupich –– 2390

Status of maintenance workers re B.C. Buildings Corporation. Mr. Barnes –– 2390

Matter of urgent public importance

Cost-of-living supplement to handicapped and senior citizens. Ms. Brown –– 2390

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: interim supply motion. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2391

Committee of Ways and Means. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2391

Supply Act No. 1, 19 7 7 (Bill 3 6) Hon. Mr. Wolfe. Introduction and first reading –– 2392

Second reading.

Mr. Stupich –– 2392

Mr. Gibson –– 2392

Division on second reading –– 2392

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2393

Division on the motion that Mr. Chairman leave the chair –– 2395

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2395

Report and third reading –– 2397

Succession Duty Repeal Act (Bill 12) Second reading.

Mr. Stupich –– 2397

Ms. Sanford –– 2401

Mr. Gibson –– 2403

Mr. Levi –– 2406

Mr. Strongman –– 2410

Mr. Macdonald –– 2413

Mr. Wallace –– 2414

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2417

Division on second reading –– 2418

Matter of urgent public importance

Cost-of-living supplement to handicapped and senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker rules –– 2421

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to welcome two residents of Vancouver to the gallery today, Bob and Marge Murdoch, who are enjoying a day of their vacation in Victoria. Mr. Murdoch is the very capable manager of the University Endowment Lands.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we see in the gallery today a very well-known figure, Mr. William Clancy, who is recuperating after being in hospital. We all wish him good health.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery today are three individuals from my home town of Houston in the constituency of Omineca, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Groot. Norm is a former alderman of the district of Houston, and one who has given many years of his life to the service of that community in many capacities. With him today is His Worship Mayor Bas Studer. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me today in welcoming two members of the Nelson City Police Association, Corporal Nelson Umphress and Constable Derek Price.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery this afternoon are two people very near and dear to me - my dear wife, Sheila, and my young son Gregory. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a very close friend of mine from Coquitlam, along with a guest of hers from Scotland - Mrs. Walters and Mr. Elston. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon we have the acting mayor of Delta, Alderman Bill Reid, and Alderman Tony Schmand. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are some representatives of 150 students from Vancouver Community College accompanied by their instructor, Barbara Caulfield. These students are new immigrants to Canada and are on an English language course, and part of their curriculum includes visiting the Legislature. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Independent Schools Support Act.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'd ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw resolution 8 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

COST-OF-LIVING SUPPLEMENT

TO HANDICAPPED AND SENIOR CITIZENS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Did the minister issue instructions that the $22.50 to the handicapped and the $35 to the senior citizens cost-of-living increase should not be passed on to these two groups?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARNES: Ohhh!

MS. BROWN: I'd like to repeat my question to be sure that I got the answer, that the minister has not issued....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Human Resources issue instructions that the $22.50 cost-of-living to the handicapped and the $35 t o people between the ages of 60 to 64, cost-of-living, should not be passed on to them?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's a repetition of the same question previously asked, only in different terminology.

[ Page 2386 ]

MS. BROWN: It's a clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister gave an answer to your question.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member asked a different question as a supplemental. It's a different question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure the hon. member is referring to the amount of money which was due the province from the federal government as part of their 50 per cent sharing in the payment of assistance to handicapped people. We, as was explained previously, had seen British Columbia fall behind in receiving the moneys due from the federal government through bad negotiations or lack of negotiations by the previous administration. On behalf of the handicapped people of British Columbia, we went to work to negotiate with the federal government to reinstitute once more a 50-50 sharing programme which sees each level of government pick up its rightful responsibility in providing for the handicapped of British Columbia.

We managed to receive those funds, and as of October we are now in receipt of the moneys due us. Despite the fact that of all of the money only $1.3 million has been received so far, we have already passed on considerably more than that amount. We now have a sound and credible programme which will provide for people in need in British Columbia and which will not allow the type of neglect which had crept into the system because of poor administration by that particular government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to draw to the hon. minister's attention that replying to the question is in order, but editorializing to the extent of reflecting on the previous administration is not really part of the answer.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand, then, that the minister is admitting that he has issued instructions that the handicapped are not to have their basic allowances increased despite the fact that the $22.50 is a cost-of-living increase that's been sent to this government from Ottawa? Specifically, is he admitting that he has issued these instructions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the only instruction I have given to staff is that following our negotiations.... Certainly we devise better ways and means of assisting those in need within that particular category of people requiring our assistance. They in turn developed a system which has been extremely well received by people in British Columbia and which is continually being criticized by some of the people in the opposition who apparently don't understand it because possibly they haven't studied it sufficiently.

MR. BARRETT: I would like to ask the Minister of Human Resources if he has authorized a written instruction to his department, ordering that the $22.50 increase allowed by the federal government not be passed on to the handicapped or the people between ages of 60 and 64? The question is: did the minister authorize or is he aware that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister: did he authorize a written instruction ordering that that money not be passed on? Yes or no. That's a fair question.

MR. SPEAKER: May I observe, hon. member, that it is a repetitious ...

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The answer is no! Well, you're a liar, sir. You are a liar.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, hon. members, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was a repetition, in substance, of the same question already asked by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) . I would further say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the accusation that the minister lied must be withdrawn.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question clearly and the minister said he did not issue an instruction. I say the minister is lying to this House and I will not withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is completely improper....

MR. BARRETT: For him to lie.

MR. SPEAKER: It is completely improper, hon. member, for one hon. member of this House to accuse another hon. member of lying.

[ Page 2387 ]

MR. BARRETT: Then he should withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I am now suggesting to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that if he's interested in preserving the traditions of parliament and this Legislature, then he will get up and, in an honourable manner, withdraw the charge against the minister that he lied. It's completely unparliamentary, hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I must ask you to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw a statement of truth. The minister has just lied to this House and I can prove it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no point of order at the present time, hon. member. I am dealing with the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has indicated to the House that another hon. member lied to this House.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

MR. SPEAKER: That's completely unparliamentary and must be withdrawn immediately and unequivocally, hon. member. It cannot be permitted under the standing orders and the rules of this House or any parliament anywhere. For that reason I must ask you again to withdraw the imputation that the minister lied.

MR. BARRETT: Sir, I cannot in conscience withdraw because in the evidence that I have, the minister has just, in the last few moments, lied to this House and I cannot to myself be untrue. I will not withdraw. The minister has lied. That is my statement.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm already dealing with a point of order that was originally arranged by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Hon. member, I'm dealing with a matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, initially on a point of order. I'm dealing with a matter of unparliamentary conduct, and I must deal with that now, hon. member.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has accused the hon. Minister of Human Resources of lying.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an unparliamentary term which must be withdrawn unequivocally. I must say to you, in all fairness to you, sir, as a member of this House, I would respectfully request you, for a final time, to withdraw the imputation that the minister lied to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not an imputation; it is a statement of fact. The minister has lied and in good conscience I will not withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, I must at this point order you to withdraw that phrase - unconditionally.

MR. BARRETT: I will not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, I have no other alternative but to demand that you now withdraw from this chamber for the remainder of today's sitting.

MR. BARRETT: I will, Mr. Speaker, but I'd ask that member to admit that he's been lying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: According to British parliamentary practice, when a minister of the Crown is accused of lying and another member who refuses to withdraw that accusation is asked to withdraw from the House, the minister must withdraw also until the issue of whether or not he has been lying has been settled. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make that ruling now, pending a substantive motion being placed on the floor of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you quote your source of reference?

MR. LAUK: I didn't know this matter was going to arise, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we're dealing with a very serious matter. An hon. member of this House has had his reputation impugned by the accusation of lying. Another hon. member has been asked to withdraw and he has done so. Now if the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has something to offer in the way of a point of order, I'd ask for his reference now.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, if you have something to offer at a time more convenient to yourself, and you can find it, I'd be pleased to look at it. In the meantime, we'll proceed with question period, which was on the floor at this point of interruption.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to refer

[ Page 2388 ]

to the 17th edition of Sir Erskine May, pages 466 through 470.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be taken into consideration, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Education. With regard to a report prepared by the Ministry of Education recommending a provincial government commission to take over responsibility for the certification of teachers and teacher training, can the minister assure the House that this report will be made available to the members of this House prior to the debate on the estimates of his ministry?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I've never seen this report, and I can assure you that it was not a report that was prepared for me. I give no undertaking to release it to the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm depending on information which appeared both in written word and on the television media yesterday. I would like the minister to tell us then whether, regardless of the report, he has had consultations with teachers and other interested groups or individuals with a view to discussing the possibility of the Ministry of Education assuming the responsibility for the certification of teachers and for teacher training by way of a commission.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Education, as I'm sure the member realizes, now has the responsibility for certifying and decertifying teachers. That is a provincial responsibility. I want to assure the member that I've not yet had an opportunity to turn my own attention to the matter of teacher education in this province.

It is something which will be reviewed as we're reviewing all aspects of the Ministry of Education. At such time as I am able to turn my attention to this particular matter we will be developing policy, but at the present time we have no new policy in this regard.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that there is already certification carried out by his department, but when he mentions that he is developing policy, can I ask him then if any specific steps are being taken towards a creation of a different kind of commission with the multi-representation from teachers elected by the BCTF and members appointed by the government to set up such a new type of certification through the vehicle of such a commission?

HON. MR. McGEER: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I have not had an opportunity yet even to consider the question of teacher certification, much less any mechanisms at all for change. So it's not a question of: "Is this a policy?" It's a question that we have not yet had a chance even to begin considering policy.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano was just intercepted by the bell.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the extensive time taken up with questions of order during the question period, I wonder if it might not properly be extended to account for that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on your point of order, the only way it could really be accommodated is not for the Speaker to rule on it, but for the House to decide on an additional....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Eight minutes?

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The government would agree to that time being added to additional question period.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, is it agreed that we extend the question period by eight minutes?

Leave granted.

INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A survey of food prices in Victoria by the Victoria Times shows that food prices have jumped by 6.4 per cent in one month. Can the minister inform the House as to what explanation he's been given by his officials as to this almost incredible surge in the price of food in the last month?

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

PAYMENT OF JOE BROADBENT'S

LEGAL FEES BY GOVERNMENT

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Counsel for the McKenzie commission

[ Page 2389 ]

has said that many employees and former employees of B.C. Rail are afraid to testify for fear they may be made to suffer.

As the minister is aware, the NDP government agreed to pay all legal expenses for Mr. Joe Broadbent in the MEL Paving case, based on Mr. Broadbent's written assurance that all of his actions were taken under orders from the B.C. Rail board of directors. The question is: will the present government agree to pay all legal costs on the same basis to enable Mr. Broadbent to give evidence before the McKenzie commission on B.C. Rail?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry. It was taken as notice, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development.

I'm sorry - I can't recall the question. I'll have to take it as notice, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

GUIDELINES FOR USE OF

LIE-DETECTOR EQUIPMENT

MR. WALLACE: This is a question to the Attorney-General. With regard to the increasing use of lie-detector equipment both in the police forces and in the private sector, and because of the inherent risks in this technique, can the Attorney-General tell the House if his ministry has issued any set of guidelines or directions to police departments regarding the practices and procedures with respect to the use of lie-detector equipment?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'll take it as notice.

FERRY RATES

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): My question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. My question is: is the minister planning to join the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who is now, as we know, touring the province trying to promote tourism, to assist her in answering the question which is asked her at every meeting on her promotional tour - that is, relative to a possible decrease in ferry rates? I think she needs your help. The question is, if it wasn't clear: is he going to join her to assist her?

MR. SPEAKER: It's slightly hypothetical, hon. member, but....

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to join the hon. member, but I don't think she needs any assistance.

DISTRIBUTION OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REPORTS

MR. NICOLSON: Could the Attorney-General inform the House as to the distribution of the criminal justice monthly and yearly reports? Specifically, to whom are they distributed? I want to know in a general way. Are they available only to police forces, to the court administrators? Are they available to members of the Legislative Assembly? I'd like to know particularly for the report which has the breakdown by Criminal Code offence and shows the type of crimes being committed by police jurisdiction.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I hope to be able to file some of those documents in the House within the next few days, Mr. Member.

PLANS FOR NEW

PULP MILL

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Forests. There was, I thought, some good news at the B.C. forest industry planning conference, which perhaps the minister was attending for a bit over in Vancouver, when a foreign expert predicted that from 1980 on B.C.'s pulp prospects would be looking much better. Since it takes about that length of time to build a pulp mill, I would ask if the government would now be prepared to show some financial leadership in bringing together the people who are unemployed and the chips that are rotting on the ground in a new pulp mill situation in British Columbia.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: I'm obviously intrigued by the minister's answer, and I wonder if he could expand a little bit as to exactly how the province is going to show that kind of financial leadership. That's encouraging.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when plans have been fully formulated by the government, they will be announced.

[ Page 2390 ]

NEGOTIATIONS ON DUKE POINT

WITH MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Development. Some five or six weeks ago, during consideration of his estimates, I asked him about the Duke Point area near Nanaimo. I was told then that they hoped there would be an announcement within two weeks, and I was wondering whether the minister has anything further to report on his negotiations with MacMillan Bloedel.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, the answer is no.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I've got another question. Is that okay, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. STUPICH: Can I ask the minister as to just approximately what acreage is being considered in the negotiations with MacMillan Bloedel?.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it, I would say it's about 760 acres, but it could be more. I'd be happy to get the exact acreage for you.

STATUS OF MAINTENANCE WORKERS

RE B.C. BUILDINGS CORPORATION

MR. BARNES: To the Minister of Highways and Public Works: could you tell the House the level of communication that has occurred with the maintenance workers in regard to the opening of the new B.C. Buildings Corporation in terms of their status? What assurances have they?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: State the matter, hon. member.

COST-OF-LIVING SUPPLEMENT TO

HANDICAPPED AND SENIOR CITIZENS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the matter is the release today from the Department of Human Resources of serial letter 544-448 of the decision by the government not to pass on the cost-of-living increase due April I to the handicapped and senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 65. This letter went out under the direction of the minister, and was signed by his deputy minister, John Noble. I'd like to table this.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of urgent importance at this time because the House is presently considering legislation that will return to the wealthy of this province some $35 million in succession duties at the same time that the minister is issuing instructions to withhold from the disabled and from senior citizens their cost-of-living increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It's not, at this moment, a time for you to debate the motion, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: No, I was only explaining why I thought it was urgent.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to listen to a short statement as to why the motion should be accepted -but it must be short and it must be brief - lending support to your reason for rising under standing order 35, and it cannot be a debate on the matter. I think you understand that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the reason why this is urgent, first of all, is because the serial letter was just issued on March 22. We received it in our boxes today. This is the first time that it's come to our attention that the minister has issued a very clear directive that the $22.50 cost-of-living increase to the handicapped and the $35 cost-of-living increase to those seniors between the age of 60 and 64 should not be passed on to them. That is the reason why I'm raising the issue today. It's the first time that I've had an opportunity to raise it.

Coincidentally, it also comes at a time when the House is debating the question of succession duties which will, in fact, pull $35 million out of the public coffers and return it to people who are not in need and who certainly could not be considered to be in the same kind of need as disabled people and as senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 64.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'll take the matter before me under consideration and reserve my decision until I've had an opportunity to fully investigate both your request for the motion and the reasons why it should be accepted, and it's without prejudicing your position should the motion be held in order.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate that. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[ Page 2391 ]

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,276, 000,000 toward defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on the 30th day of March, 1977, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: That from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,276, 000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such time as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council m ay determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.276 billion towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 30th day of March, 1977, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such time as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.276 billion toward defraying the several charges and expenses of the public Service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1,1977

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 36, intituled Supply Act No. 1,1977.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred

[ Page 2392 ]

to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would it not be usual that around this time there would be a recess so we could have a look at this bill?

MR. SPEAKER: That's certainly agreeable with the Speaker.

Hon. members, I declare a five-minute recess so that the attendants may distribute copies of the bill to each of the members. Please return at the division bell.

The House took recess at 2:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:02 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the beginning of the short recess the hon. minister had presented the bill. Would the hon. minister move the motion again with reference to referring it to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith,

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1,1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Wolfe, Bill 36, Supply Act, No. 1,1977, introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the Speaker and the House that t he official opposition certainly has no intention of holding up interim supply. We recognize that in past years -particularly when the NDP formed the government -the official opposition took this as an opportunity for a rehash of the debate of the whole budget.

There was the cry raised then of not a dollar without debate, not a dime without debate, with reference to all of the estimates that had not been dealt with up to that point. Discussion of second reading of interim supply extended over several hours of time.

We recognize that we have had the opportunity to discuss certain estimates. We recognize that the remaining estimates to be discussed will be presented to the House and that there will be ample opportunity to discuss them at what we feel would be the proper time. For that reason, we are quite prepared to be co-operative. The official opposition is always co-operative when it's presented with a reasonable proposition. The official opposition supports second reading of this bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Nanaimo, I will preface my remarks by saying that I do not wish to delay this legislation, but I will add the caveat "unduly."

There are one or two questions that I want to ask members of the ministry when we get to committee stage. Therefore I will just serve advance notice that I'll be calling a division on second reading in order to bring them back into the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 36, Supply Act, No. 1,1977 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Supply Act, No. 1,1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1,1977

The House in Committee on Bill 36; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

[ Page 2393 ]

MR. GIBSON: This is a traditional time for the opposition to air a few grievances and ask a few questions, and I want to ask some of the ministers who have taken questions on notice why they haven't replied back to this House about those questions.

I want to first of all ask the Hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who back on January 27 of this year....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. GIBSON: What are those mutterings over there? Back on January 27 of this year....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the member could allay the fears of the other members of the House if he could show how his remarks are related to section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think probably the best way to do that is to point to the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) back in the days when we were debating a supply bill when Speaker Dowding was in the chair. The now minister, then opposition member, argued very forcefully and Speaker Dowding upheld the fact that under a general supply vote, the propriety of a general field of discussion, as long as it did not enter into too extended and detailed a field, was perfectly in order, That is exactly what I was doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Education.

MR. WALLACE: Have you changed your mind, Pat? Come on back.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to congratulate the member of his thorough research in recalling what I am sure was an excellent speech. But the concern, Mr. Chairman, on the part of members on this side was that you don't deal even in a general debate with something that can be dealt with in a specific instance. Of course, question period is set aside for the answering of questions. and therefore it would be inappropriate even in a general debate.

MR. GIBSON: On the same point of order, I would agree with the hon. member that the question period is set aside for the asking of questions, but the supply vote is set aside for debating the general performance of ministers. The non-answering of questions, clearly, is not something for the question period. That's something that has to do with the general performance of ministers, and that's what I am raising at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think that perhaps the time for general questioning of each and every minister for the department for which he is responsible would best take place under the individual estimates of that minister. Since this is rather a general supply, it would be difficult for the Chair to ascertain whether or not the debate was relevant when a general debate was being directed to individual ministers.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I might just read the bill to you, although I am sure you have perused it yourself. We are under section 1 now, and section I suggests that:

"From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1 billion 276 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, as laid down before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session."

In other words, Mr. Chairman, we are being asked here to approve a sum of money, a vote on account, interim supply - in whatever way you might want to word it - which deals, in particular, with the activities of all of the ministers. I want briefly to canvass the activities of some of those ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. To conclude the point of order, unless there are other suggestions, perhaps if the member has the reference of the previous decision which established the precedent in this House, the Chair will be very happy to have it so that we can peruse it. But aside from that, perhaps the member could proceed. If he has the reference, I would appreciate having it.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think if you would consult the Journals for 1974, or just possibly 1975 - but I think it was 1974, around about the end of March - there was considerable discussion on this. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly, it was an occasion for a considerable reviving of a debate that had taken place in estimates prior to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Then perhaps without prejudicing any decision before or after, we would proceed, and give a few moments to peruse the decision and perhaps come up with another decision.

[ Page 2394 ]

On the same point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member wasn't present, I think that maybe it would do to have memory refreshed by people who were there for this particular decision on the part of the Speaker of the day. It was quite clearly pointed out and properly accepted, Mr. Chairman, that the individual supply votes of ministers or the individual accountability of ministers during question period were not part of a general debate. Clearly, if they were, we could spend the rest of the afternoon answering oral questions by the opposition, placed as they might be during orders of the day each day, or individual questions put by opposition members, as we would individually account for these under votes in our estimates, both of which are quite clearly inappropriate in a general debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your point is well taken. With the permission of the House then, we will take a few minutes to review the previous decision and we will report to the House later. In the m e a n t i m e , t h e member f or North Vancouver-Capilano proceeds.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly on that same point of order, as a matter of fact, to the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , I was there on that occasion and I do not recollect such a direction having been given with respect to question period questions. I would agreeably receive a citation from him if he would be kind enough to send that over.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): That's because it was one of the few times you were here.

MR. GIBSON: Good shot! Now first of all, to the Minister of Economic Development, as I started out some time ago, on January 27 the Minister of Economic Development promised that he would file with this House a list of all of the contracts on the Dease Lake extension, the signing date, and any amendments to those contracts. Mr. Chairman, that minister has not as yet done that, and I would like to know from him today when he is about to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must caution the member that the matters that are presently being considered by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano are questions that were asked either in committee or, perhaps, some of them in question period which we have no knowledge of in committee. I must also remind the member that we cannot insist on answers to those questions, either under individual votes or in the general interim supply.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that that is parliamentary law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can I just consult for a moment?

If I might address again the member for North Vancouver-Capilano who has his chair, if indeed the Chair permitted that kind of questioning and the kind of re-debate, if I could form a new word, that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is suggesting, then that same permission would have to be given to every member of the House. If that would be the case, we would, under this interim supply, be re-opening the debate already canvassed, already covered. It would appear, to the Chair at least - and the Chair is open to the wishes of the House, of course - to be not good utilization of the time of committee. Therefore, if the hon. member would again give us the opportunity to review the previous decision, in the light of not having that decision before me, I cannot cite it as a precedent.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might bring to your attention page. 724 of May, 18th edition, where - this is the debate on a vote on account - May notes:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an advance is sought may be discussed in anticipation upon the motion for the grant on account, though the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail and I readily admit this

". . . is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House. A general debate on the vote on account for civil estimates and the Defence central estimate 1968-1969 took place on March 18,1968."

That's one citation.

Equally I would draw to the attention of Your Honour the usual practice in Ottawa, which I agree is not governing, but at least instructive to this House.... Of course they work under Beauchesne rather than May. In that particular chamber, interim supply is the occasion for a very wide debate indeed, which I'm not seeking to enter into now. I'm seeking simply to bring before the Crown certain grievances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May the Chair just take a moment to remind the member that in his own citation it refers to a general debate rather than a specific debate. As a result, the general debate is, again, limited to the matter before us - section I of Bill 36. In order to become specific and to re-open the debate again to those areas already covered, or perhaps "anticipated, " as the word appears in the same citation the member has just drawn to the

[ Page 2395 ]

attention of the House, it would not be in order to open the debate to that scope. So I have to rule in that matter and that is my ruling.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, by the term "general debate, " I suppose you mean it's something like a plum pudding that has a few raisins in it. Raisins are brought before the plum pudding, in the way of an occasional illustration. That's all I'm doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not being a connoisseur of plum puddings I might suggest....

MR. WALLACE: There's got to be a reason.

MR. GIBSON: There's got to be a raisin and there's got to be a reason, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. member appreciates what the Chair is trying to say - that we cannot again permit a debate which has already been provided for in another form in this same House. I must ask the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the section before us.

MR. GIBSON: What page were we at there? I have the Journals here for 1974, I think it was page 149 -yes, here we have it, on page 149, Journals, April 9,1974. You'll see quite clearly, in this case on the motion for second reading of Bill 108, that on the Supply Act of that year - Supply Act No. 1,1974 -a debate arose. The debate was really quite extensive.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It did, Mr. Member. Look it up in Hansard! It set a very important and proper precedent for this House. I think that was the year of the chicken-and-egg war, wasn't it, Mr. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may we bring the matter to the conclusion? I must remind the member again that it is not the practice of this House - and has not been the practice of this House - to open this debate to a wide and specific scope. Only general reference has been allowed. Therefore I must draw to the member's attention again that this is the ruling of the Chair at this time. There is the opportunity for the member to appeal the ruling if he so desires.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, goodness, Mr. Chairman, no! I just made a general reference to the performance of the Minister of Economic Development. I said it was inadequate. There was a question of January 27 he hasn't answered yet.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's coming.

MR. WALLACE: So's Christmas!

MR. GIBSON: Well, when's it coming? Will the minister stand up and take his general part in this debate?

I see that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not in the chamber. I wanted to say something generally to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask the member if he is embarking again on the kind of debate that we have just ruled out of order?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say something generally which should be of enormous interest to the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish I could comply with your wishes, hon. member, but it is not in order.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, how do you know it's not in order, since I haven't even said it yet?

I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 28

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides for payment of roughly one-third of the vote on account, wherever the bill is here. Thank you, Mr. Member.

Of that amount, being about a third of each department, my calculation of the Ministry of Human

[ Page 2396 ]

Resources is that there's about $196,554, 113 there. The question I want to pose to the House is whether that amount is adequate and whether the minister has done his sums correctly. He told us earlier on today, Mr. Chairman, that on behalf of the handicapped people of this province he'd already received $1.3 million. I've got his words here: "We've already passed on considerably more than that amount." Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure it was not deliberate but the minister in so doing misled the House, and that's why I wish that he had been here to hear this and to comment on it. He hasn't passed on a bean -not a bean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, I have just reviewed what the member has said. He said that the minister misled the House.

MR. GIBSON: Yes. I said I'm sure it wasn't deliberate.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he was sure it wasn't deliberate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member knows that it's not permissible. Therefore I must ask him to withdraw.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, of course I'll withdraw anything that's offensive, but I said I'm sure it wasn't deliberate.

Nevertheless the fact of the matter is that of that $1.3 million the minister admitted had been received - and I wonder how he does the sums in his department - he said that considerably more than that had been passed on to the handicapped people of this province. They haven't passed on one bean, and that's my point. So how's he doing his sums to get this $196 million?

I'm just wondering if he's going to considerably under spend that one again, this $196 million being about one-third of his total budget. He doesn't even start his extra supplement for the handicapped people of this province until July 1, and out of that $57 a month that's going to the single handicapped person for a shelter allowance, perhaps on July 1, all but $6 of that comes out of Ottawa. He has received $1.3 million more on behalf of those people already and not passed it on ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. GIBSON: .. . and he claims that considerably more than that has been passed on. I claim that that minister should be here in this chamber right now to substantiate that shameful statement, because it's not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, it appears to the Chair that the same caution which was passed to the member previous to the division is in order again. I must ask the member to keep his remarks relevant to section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been trying to do that and I shall try again.

Another one of the questions that relates to section I and the amounts that are required and the amounts to be raised, indeed, in sufficiency to pay for those that are required have to do with how well the travel industry is working in this province. The hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) promised me on March 9,1977, that she would table certain research, and she hasn't done it, about her industry....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his chair?

The member appears to be embarking on the kind of debate that has been called out of order. I must caution the member again. Furthermore, I'd like to remind the hon. member that we have reviewed those Journals of the House to which he referred, both of the years 1974 and 1975, and are not able to find any ruling of a previous Speaker in this House, certainly not any ruling that pertains to this particular section or the question before us. Therefore unless the member can give a more specific reference, the Chair is at a loss to find a precedent. Therefore the Chair's ruling must stand.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for searching. I would refer you again to page 149 of the Journals of 1974 where it is very clearly reported that a debate arose during the second reading. My recollection may or may not be correct on the committee stage, but it seems to me there was a debate at committee stage too. I have sent out for a copy of Hansard; I regret that it hasn't come back in.

But in any event, I do not intend to speak much longer in any case. I look upon this opportunity as one to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please recognize the position of the Chair in this matter. It's not a matter of how long the member wishes to speak, it's whether or not the member is in order when he speaks. Regardless of how long or how short the member wishes to speak, the Chair cannot permit it if it's out of order. Please proceed.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try very hard not to be out of order but I do want to suggest to you.... Not having anticipated these difficulties, I perhaps should have done a little more research in Hansard, but I will get that research and

[ Page 2397 ]

get it to you later on. It's rather an important point of order, because interim supply is an important occasion in our House from time to time.

So I mention briefly that department. I might mention briefly that the Premier, who is sitting in the House today, promised to check in and say if he'd ever read the Pemberton Securities report. We never heard about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's out of order.

MR. GIBSON: All in all, the performance of the ministry has not been such that it would give confidence to this House that the affairs of this province are being well run. As a practical matter, we have no alternative but to support the request to the government for interim supply, because the public service has to be paid. They're doing a good job. The suppliers must be paid. The business of the province has to go on.

But we do not necessarily do it as a sign that we are pleased with the performance of this government. 1, for one, am not pleased with the performance of this government. I do not think that they are accomplishing anything like the necessary openness of information that they promised in their own Speech from the Throne earlier on this year - and there's nothing more general that one can do than quote from the opening speech, I'm sure - when they promised to improve the flow of information to the citizens of British Columbia, In fact, the opposite has been the case. This House hasn't been getting the kind of information it needs to judge the validity of this kind of bill that's before us today.

So, Mr. Chairman, I simply have to express my considerable disappointment with the government, and my hope is that they will mend their ways in the weeks to come.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Supply Act, No. 1,1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

SUCCESSION DUTY REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. STUPICH: I hope this isn't coming out of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday evening we were talking about Saskatchewan. The members opposite were very interested in what's happening in Saskatchewan....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just bring to your attention that you have 28 minutes from the time that you started.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the members opposite - the government - would pay some attention to some of the positive things that are coming out of Saskatchewan as well. For example, although they have relieved a few of the wealthy estates in Saskatchewan, as I said yesterday, it doesn't amount to much money in total. I did use a figure of $4 million as a sort of average figure over a number of years. The actual revenue from succession duties for 1975 was $5.7 million. Although they have relieved the wealthy of this particular impost against their estates, they have done something else, Mr. Speaker. They have increased the income tax on the high-income earners in order to make up for some of that loss in revenue or to make up for other losses in revenue. Saskatchewan has taken that move of increasing the tax on the high-income earners, and has gone one step further by eliminating the tax from the low-income earners. So they have improved the distribution - the allocation, if you like - of the taxing authority that they have. They have, admittedly, relieved estates; but they have increased income tax against the high-income earners. So, in effect, they're getting at the same people but getting at them in a different way.

I said yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker, that I would move across the country from west to east. Manitoba still has succession duties. To the best of my knowledge, it has no plans for doing away with succession duties. But even if they did, it's not a very large item in the province of Manitoba - somewhat larger than Saskatchewan, but not large. In the year 1976, the total was $6.9 million.

Now let's look at some of the other provinces -the ones with which we are competing, if you like. We're trying to persuade people that rather than dying in these other provinces, they should come to B.C. to die. Let's look at some of these provinces

[ Page 2398 ]

which don't have any succession duty. Because they don't, we shouldn't. The first one that we come to, in moving from east to west, is the province of New Brunswick. Are we really concerned about attracting rich people from New Brunswick to die here rather than dying in New Brunswick? Is that one of the "have" provinces in the country?

The next one is Nova Scotia - no succession duty. Is it Nova Scotia we're competing with?

Prince Edward Island - no succession duty. Is that the province with which we are competing?

Newfoundland has the highest unemployment in the whole country. Are we trying seriously, Mr. Speaker, to persuade the wealthy, if there are any in Newfoundland, that when they're about to die they should come to B.C. first because there are no succession duties in B.C. either? If there were any impediment for their moving from Newfoundland to B.C., we have removed that last restriction. They should now come to B.C. and die because it's just as cheap to die in B.C. as it is to die in Newfoundland. Seriously, is that where we are hoping to attract capital from, Mr. Speaker?

The picture is not complete, Mr. Speaker, until we look at two of the provinces that still levy succession duties. The first one is Quebec. I was asked yesterday evening: "What about Quebec?" That kept being thrown up. Quebec has been over a period of years reducing its rate of succession duty. Apparently, the plans of the government that was thrown out of office, possibly, in part, because of this - their plans to relieve the wealthy estates of paying succession duty.... But even after proceeding with that programme, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec in 1975 was still collecting in excess of $43 million in succession duties. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no announcement from the new government as to whether or not they intend to proceed to progressively reduce income from succession duties or whether, indeed, they will turn the clock around and start increasing collections from succession duties. We just don't know; we can speculate only.

But let's look at Ontario. There is nothing from Ontario, where they collected in the year 1975 almost $64 million in succession duties, and Ontario apparently with no plans to reduce succession duties. One would think, Mr. Speaker, if one were to follow the arguments of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and some of the people opposite, that, since it is one province still levying a significant succession duty, things are tough in Ontario. There is no development in Ontario; the people with estates with money are moving out of Ontario. But the facts don't back that up, Mr. Speaker.

I have a little story here dated as recently as March 1,1977, clipped from one of the newspapers. The headline is "Half of the Rich Live in Ontario." Of the whole of Canada, slightly over half of the high-income people, people whose total taxable income exceeded $100,000 in 1974 - these are the federal government figures - live in the one province that has given absolutely no indication that it intends to relieve those wealthy people of sharing with the government their estates when they do become estates.

In the other province that still collects a significant amount of succession duties, roughly a quarter of all of the people with incomes of over $100,000 still, as of 1974 - there has been an election since; we don't know what's happened since - lived in the province of Quebec although there were tax havens. There were other provinces where they could have gone and taken their money with them if they had chosen to do so to avoid or to evade - whatever you like -succession duties. There are other countries where they could have gone. Yet for whatever the reason, one-half of the wealthy people in Canada lived in the province where they are given absolutely no indication of relieving those estates of paying succession duties. One-half of the remainder lives in the province of Quebec. Again we don't know what's happening to succession duties there but we know they are still being levied.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) , I believe it was, said that the rate of succession duties levied in the province of British Columbia has the effect of virtually wiping out some estates. Well, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that's ridiculous. We know how the rate of tax.... We know that it's a relatively low impost on the small estates, and we know that when it's levied even on large estates, a lot of money is still left to be shared with the beneficiaries, whether they be direct or not.

The same member argued that we have to do this because the people with large estates, with sizeable estates could move to another jurisdiction, could move to Alberta. Well, Mr. Speaker, they could have been doing that over the years. They didn't do it in 1972 when B.C. imposed succession duties; they didn't do it in 1973; they didn't do it in 1974; they didn't do it in 1975. But, Mr. Speaker, they did start doing it in 1976, and there was an election in December, 1975. The flow of people, the flow of capital out of the province of British Columbia, the 29 companies that were looking, according to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , at moving to Washington state.... All of that happened after the election of the Social Credit coalition government in December, 1975. It wasn't anything at all to do with succession duties, Mr. Speaker-, it was the economic climate in the province quite apart from levying or otherwise of succession duties that induced these people to start moving after the government was elected that promised to relieve these people of having succession duties levied against their estates.

[ Page 2399 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Quebec?

MR. STUPICH: I think Quebec is still a question mark. We don't know. We do know that the latest available figures show a significant amount of revenue being raised from succession duties.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard several members - the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , who spoke yesterday evening, and several other members -shedding crocodile tears about the effect on the farmers. Well, that's very interesting coming from a government made up in part - I think at least a third of them - of members of the Social Credit Party. That is, they were members of the Social Credit Party before, a group that for 20 years did nothing to help the farmers in the province of British Columbia, a group that did nothing to help the agricultural industry. They proceeded to govern while the amount of land being farmed in this province decreased at the rate of 20,000 acres a year. They did nothing to stop that loss of agricultural land. They did nothing to stop the actual decrease of people on farms. They did nothing to stop the movement away from farms of young people. It wasn't until after the NDP administration had been in office for a year and a half that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was able to report that there Was a reversal of that trend away from the farm and that young people were starting to move back to the farms or to stay on the farms. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture couldn't report that until after the NDP had been in office for a year and a half, and yet these people weep crocodile tears about the effect of this particular tax on farmers.

Mr. Speaker, we admitted - we've always admitted - we made some changes in succession duty legislation and in gift tax legislation. We promised that there would be further changes in that legislation. There could well have been the sort of changes that would have looked after the individual problems that have been raised by the members. But it was not necessary to absolve the large estates, the large accumulations of capital in this province, from sharing with the people of the province a relatively small portion of those estates when the people who accumulated them, or had them passed on to them, were to pass them on to someone else - nothing to stop that at all. But there was certainly no need to throw away the whole legislation, to throw away $32 million, in order to do something for the farmers of this province. Crocodile tears was the best they could do with respect to the farmers of this province.

The big investments, Mr. Speaker, are not made by these individuals - the individuals for whom you've heard so much concern expressed. The big investments are made by the corporations. Corporations, Mr. Speaker, don't pay any succession duties; the shareholders, yes, but not the corporations. The investments that are needed in this province, the investments that were being made in this province prior to December, 1975 - and not just for three years but all the time prior to that - were, and still are, being made by corporations in this province. The removal of succession duties will have little impact on those investments that are being made.

This particular legislation - and I think, Mr. Speaker, you would agree - has probably less impact on business decisions than any other tax that is levied against business. Perhaps if the government really wanted to do something to encourage businesses to invest in B.C., they might want to do something about the corporation capital tax rather than succession duties. That would certainly have much more influence on corporate decisions than would the removal of the succession duty.

I would find it very hard to make the same arguments against that kind of legislation as I find so easy to make against removal of the succession duties. Now if the government is going to advance that legislation, then I'll certainly tell them at that time what I'm going to say. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a hypothetical situation. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is asking me if I would support that. I say, well, you bring it forward and then we'll find out. We'll find out when we see the written form of the legislation.

It is certainly very easy for us to oppose the particular legislation that is before us right now. Even the Employers Council denies that this is going to have any important effect on business decisions in the province. I quote from their letter released immediately after the budget came out, January 24,1977: "While we are pleased to see the removal of the succession duty and gift tax. . . ." Well, of course, everybody's pleased when they are relieved of paying some tax and it's passed on to someone else. That's great. They go on to say: "This will have little effect on investment. If the government intends to encourage private investment, this is a first step, but a minor one." They know that it's not going to have any real effect on private investment in the province.

Mr. Speaker, we've established before, during this session, that while there was some research going on in the succession duties branch in the Ministry of Finance, that research was stopped. There was research going on to try to produce evidence to show that this would have some beneficial effect or that the retention of succession duties was having some bad effect on the economic development of the province. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that research was dropped because the wrong evidence was coming forward. I think there can be no doubt about that. Certainly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , in his opening remarks with respect to this legislation, gave us absolutely no evidence of any instances where people have declined to invest in the province of

[ Page 2400 ]

British Columbia because they knew there was a succession duty being levied here. There's absolutely no evidence where people have moved out of the province simply and explicitly because there was a succession duty being levied here and they were going somewhere else where that would not be the case.

We're talking about a significant amount of money in the province of British Columbia - $32 million -that could be well spent, roughly equivalent to the amount of money that the previous NDP administration invested in some 10 Crown corporations that, I have said earlier, will produce a net income in 1976 of some $269 million.

I showed yesterday evening how this government has cut back on social services to the extent of almost the amount of money that has been previously levied in succession duties, cut back on aid to children, cut back on aid to the handicapped, cut back in real terms on his Pharmacare programme so that it could make this millionaires' budget donation to the wealthy.

That's what's done in this, Mr. Speaker. I gave those figures yesterday evening. I do not intend to give them again.

I could quote. There is a book that some of us have been looking at that probably everyone is familiar with: The Rich and the Super-rich. It refers to J. Paul Getty, people like that.

"The Mellon family, already astronomically rich, was nationally unknown until Andrew Mellon, his name never before printed by The New York Times, was made Secretary of the Treasury by President Warren G. Harding. (This was much like making Casanova headmaster of a school for young ladies, as the sequel showed, for Mellon dished out with a lavish hand huge, unexpected tax rebates to the surprised rich, and, as a distiller himself, did not prevent distiller stocks from inundating the Volstead Act, which was under his official jurisdiction.) "

Well, I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker. I've hinted at it before; the question has been raised. One can't help but wonder whether the reason for this legislation is that there are so many people on the government side of the House who have a personal interest in this kind of legislation being approved in this House. Why else relieve from taxation the people in our community who least need that kind of relief?

There's a forward in this same book that will be well worth reading, a forward written by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them. It makes them soft where we are hard and cynical where we are trustful in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is difficult to understand.

"They think deep in their hearts that they are better than we are, because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world, or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."

I can't help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, that because there are so many people over there who have a personal interest in this legislation, that is the reason we are being offered the legislation at this time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a rather macabre aspect to this legislation before us now. I think perhaps it's revealing of the rather ghoulish mentality of this government. Only a government that has overburdened the poor and middle-income citizens of this province with enormous increases in taxes, in premiums, in levies, in user rates for almost everything over which the government has control.... Enormous increases in the cost of living in short. Certainly the cost of living has gone up dramatically and drastically during their relatively short term of office - yet much too long a term so far for the people of British Columbia. Only that kind of government would dream of stimulating the economy by removing death taxes from the rich. This is the nightmarish type of economic-development strategy that only a coalition of millionaires and opportunists would come up with. Who else would come up with that kind of legislation? Opportunists. Millionaires.

Earlier, during the course of the budget debate, I said that the whole budget reminded me of Machiavelli. Well, this bill, I suppose, is the Dracula of this government's legislative programme.

Just think about the government's behaviour since it came to power, Mr. Speaker, and recall some of the things that this particular government has done. With all of its exorbitant tax increases, it has made it much more expensive for most British Columbians. just to say alive in our province. All of the tax increases, all of the direct charges, all of the increases in ICBC, the increase in ferry rates. Mr. Speaker, their whole programme has been one - calculated, it would seem - to make it much more difficult to afford to live in the province of British Columbia.

Now it proposes to make it cheaper for the millionaires from anywhere to die in this province. Much more expensive to live, but cheaper to die. That is sound government, Mr. Speaker? What this legislation does, according to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , is to invite wealthy people to come to B.C. Why? To invest? Well, Mr. Speaker, to die! So their scions will inherit more riches no matter where they live, because they have to pay that tax even though they don't live in B.C. Inviting people to come to B.C. - not to live, not to work, not to invest, not to promote economic opportunities here

[ Page 2401 ]

- but to come here to die so that somebody will inherit more. . . .

This legislation does nothing to require them to invest their windfall savings in a development in B.C., nothing at all. It simply invites them here to die. It does nothing, absolutely nothing, to create more job opportunities in the province. Neither the Minister of Finance, or any of the members on the government side of the House supporting this, or anybody in the community supporting this have offered one shred of evidence to show that there would be one more job created by the wiping out of some $32 million in income.

Perhaps one way in which there will be some job opportunities, Mr. Speaker - something positive that may come out of this. . . . The construction of palatial morgues for the super-rich is about the only conceivable investment benefit to this province from this particular legislation.

You've heard, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, of the tax-dodging flags of convenience among merchant fleets - not only tax dodges but other reasons as well. Well, this is crypt-of-convenience legislation, Mr. Speaker, nothing better. How utterly morbid! Yet it is this government's major new policy thrust in the economic field this year. The only thing, really, in the millionaires' Monday budget was the promise to relieve the rich estates of sharing a portion of that estate with the government. Isn't this legislation something we could expect from a Minister of Finance in the world of the walking dead? They're being invited to come here and to escape paying taxes in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, this will go down as this government's grisly Grizzly session. The people will remember this as the coalition which brought them the Grizzly Valley scandal and now this grisly bill. Mr. Speaker, it's a grisly bill from a gruesome government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: Inviting people to come here and die - that's the only invitation in this bill, Mr. Speaker. There's not one shred of evidence that it's going to do anything positive for the people of British Columbia, but there's lots of evidence that we're giving $32 million back to the people who need it least and taking it from the people being served by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , the people who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, there is no problem at all in opposing this legislation. Bring on the other legislation and we'll discuss it when you bring it in.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): When I'm traveling in the riding or traveling throughout the province and talking to people either on the street or at social events or at meetings, the one word that is used most often to describe this government is "heartless." I've used it many times myself in the House: a heartless government. But I'm going to have to go back, Mr. Speaker, and say to the people that they're wrong, because this government does have a heart. They do have a concern and they do feel pangs of conscience for the people that they represent, for the people that they govern for - the rich people of this province.

MR. KEMPF: The little people.

MS. SANFORD: That's where their heart lies. They do have a heart.

Mr. Speaker, all along I have been wrong. They have shown no heart for the children with emotional problems, no heart for the people who are handicapped, no heart for the senior citizens who, as reported in various parts of the province, are back to the stage they were before 1972 where they have to supplement their diet with dog food. They have no heart for women who are on low income who are attempting to get their children into day-care centres. They have no heart for the chronically ill. I would like to illustrate that, Mr. Speaker.

I have a clipping from one of our local papers in the Comox constituency. The headline, Mr. Speaker, says: "Elderly Lose on Cuts." This story refers to the fact that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has cut back the hospital programme at St. Joseph's General Hospital in Comox by almost half, which shows, Mr. Speaker, that they don't have much heart for those people who need the facilities and extended care.

I would like to quote just one sentence, Mr. Speaker. I'm quoting the chairman of the hospital board of St. Joseph's, who says: "Blame for the cut-back rests squarely on the shoulders of the Social Credit government." And here we have a bill before us today which is going to give away $30 million to those people who don't need it, while the elderly lose on cuts.

What about intermediate-care units? We don't see too many of those being constructed or provided in this province. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has spoken on this subject time and time again. But there are many areas where this government could be spending that $30 million, if in fact they don't have the heart to give it to the chronically ill, the emotionally disturbed children, the handicapped, the senior citizens and the women who are on low incomes looking for day-care for their children. If they don't want to spend it on that, Mr. Speaker, they could use that $30 million for other purposes. If they have no heart for all those people there are other projects that they could use this $30 million for. I think they should withdraw this bill and consider using that $30 million especially for the people who

[ Page 2402 ]

need it in this province. But if they can't do that, then there are other projects, Mr. Speaker, that they could be using that money for.

Why couldn't they give $30 million to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and have the rates on the ferries lowered instead of leaving them where they are and, in the process, crippling the economy of Vancouver Island? No? Don't they accept that suggestion? Well, perhaps they could then apply the money to a coastal transportation system for those people on the north coast and the mid coast who have been neglected by both Ottawa and Victoria? No? Maybe they could go back to using the money as the former Social Credit government did, and apply it to roads and bridges all over the province if they can't see fit to keeping that $30 million and applying it to people who need it. I can make some suggestions as to where that money could be used for roads and bridges in my own riding, if in fact they are not going to use the money for people.

Mr. Speaker, one of the subjects that this government talks about again and again is incentives. One of the reasons they are keeping money from the handicapped is that it provides an incentive for them to get out and get some work. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? When we hear about people begging on the streets in Victoria they call it initiative. But what sort of incentive exists for a son or a daughter who inherits $1 million or $2 million or $4 million and who doesn't have to do anything to achieve it, to earn it. All they have to do is go to the bank and collect the money. Where is the incentive for those people? This government is the one that is forever talking about incentive, even for the handicapped.

Yesterday we heard various members an the government side trying to justify the removal of this $30 million from the government treasury - a gift to the rich. One of the things that the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said when she was attempting to defend this bill was this, and, Mr. Speaker, I think this is quite significant. One of the justifications that she gave for this piece of legislation is as follows: if you are very wealthy or if you are a private company, obviously you can afford high-priced lawyers, very experienced people and tax experts to tell you how to avoid succession duties. Now that's some justification, Mr. Speaker, for removing the succession duties in this province. People can go out and hire high-priced lawyers to figure out how to avoid the taxes. Well, if there's a problem there, and if there are loopholes in the legislation, surely they can be plugged. Is that not what happens now with wealthy people all across this country who hire high-priced lawyers every year in order to avoid paying their fair share of income taxes?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Accountants.

MS. SANFORD: The accountants, You're right, Mr. Attorney -General. Lawyers, accountants, experienced people, as the member for North Okanagan says. The best thing this government could do is to go back to Ottawa and fight for some fair income tax in this country. If we change the income tax laws of the country so that everyone pays a fair share, then we'd be in a much better position in this province to develop economically and provide the work and all the other things that the government says that the removal of this bill will do. That's the kind of action they should be taking, not protecting the rich by removing the succession duties.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a report done not too long ago by the National Council of Welfare. There was an article in the paper and a headline that said: "Hidden Welfare for Big Incomes." It reported that in 1974, $6.4 billion was lost to the federal government because of the various income tax exemptions that now exist.

What the government should be doing instead of giving this gift to the rich is to go down there to ensure that those exemptions, those loopholes are plugged in the income tax system as it now exists in Canada. Or, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out, Saskatchewan has changed its own income tax policy so that those who are wealthy pay more. That's the kind of thing this government should be doing.

One of the other justifications that's been given for removing succession duties is that it costs too much to administrate it. I wonder what it costs. The Minister of Finance has not told us. Would it cost $60,000 a year to collect the $32 million or the $30 million? Or would it be $80,000? I wonder if the minister when he winds up debate on this can give us exactly what it costs to the province to collect the money? My guess is that it's around $60,000 or $80,000 in administrative costs. That's not too bad to collect some $30 million. We heard last night about the administrative costs for about seven bills and the total cost was around $955,000 to administer all of those Acts including the Succession Duty Act. So I would thin~ the cost of administering the Succession Duty Act alone would be somewhere around $60,000, maybe $80,000.

Mr. Speaker, there is already more than $300,000 exemptions before any estate has to pay succession duties. That's number one. Number two - the family farm, if it is used as the family home, is exempt, no matter what the size of the farm. By the passage of this bill, we are losing $30 million to the Treasury which we need for people, I submit. There will be no new investment as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has tried to tell us. There'll be no new investment as a result of giving this $30 million to those who don't need it. There'll be no new jobs and no new investment. Even Bill Hamilton of the

[ Page 2403 ]

Employers' Council has told us that. What evidence does he have that this money is going to result in a spurt in the economy and the creation of new jobs? It just isn't going to happen. The administrative costs are minimal.

Mr. Speaker, the repeal of this Act is a payment to the people whom this government represents. It's a $30 million gift to those who don't need it, and I say, Mr. Speaker, this government knows how to take care, of its own.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I have a great respect for the views of all hon. members who have spoken in this debate. It is, at least as far as we can see so far, probably the most emotional bill of the session. I think the statements that have been made come out of a genuine feeling and belief. I believe that all the hon. members who have spoken in this debate do speak out of that sense of feeling and belief. While it's impossible for any one member to agree with everyone, you can at least pay tribute to the depth of their feeling.

I've been listening carefully to the NDP and I tried to sum up their philosophy in one sentence, which I have found. It is, if I read it right: "No transmogrification without taxation." Sorry about that. Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, Hansard's very erudite, Mr. Minister.

Later in this debate, I'm going to suggest that that's the case even without the application of the Succession Duty Act.

I'd like to review some of the tremendously complex question around this issue as I see it. It's easy to discuss this in terms of expenditures and in terms of where the $30 million, or whatever it is, could be better spent. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is not the right way to attack the problem. You set your expenditure budget in one way and then you examine the taxation needed to raise it. They are distinct questions and that is how I'm going to examine it.

The British Columbia Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, has a very clear and historic position on the question of succession duties. It has been opposed to such duties and its responsibilities in the Legislature have called for abolition for many years.

MR. KING: They all joined the Socreds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Member, they didn't all Join the Socreds. The former leader of the party and I stayed with the party at the time of the last election and stayed with its principles. If some of those who left carried some Liberal policies to the government, I don't mind that. I think that's probably a good thing.

You know, I have carefully reviewed the position of my party because of the emotional content and the importance of this issue in the public mind, and I want to go through that review now. I think it has to be looked at on at least three levels: as a symbolic issue, as a practical issue, and as a question of equity.

On the symbolic level, Mr. Speaker, given the current state of opinion, I think there is no doubt whatsoever but that the issue is a political loser. Most likely, anyone who votes affirmatively for this bill will lose a certain number of votes thereby. That does not make it good or bad-, it is simply a fact of life to be reckoned with. It will be successfully described by its opponents as restraint for everyone but the rich, or welfare for the rich, or rich-a-care, and so on.

The undoubted fact that it will redound in a direct sense more to the benefit of one sector of society than another will be exploited without a balanced appreciation that this is the case with respect to almost every government act. In reality, the desirable result is that the sum total of all of the individual government actions should be such as to provide an overall climate of equity in the province. This legislation may be but one building block in that climate.

In addition, I would suggest that in the general debate the indirect effects in terms of economic development will be overlooked because they are very difficult to prove. At least I assume they are difficult to prove because, as opposition speakers have said in this debate, the government has adduced very little in the way of proof or studies that removal of the succession duty in British Columbia would add to economic activity in this province.

On the positive side on the symbolic level, I think the move will be seen as a symbol that capital is welcome in British Columbia; that private investment is preferred over public investment, because this Act, if adopted, will leave more capital in private hands; and as a reaffirmation of the principle that persons are possessed of the right to dispose of property as they see fit, subject to any necessary qualification of law. If you consider human motivation on that last point, Mr. Speaker, we want people to work in our province and in our world. Improvement in the condition of one's family is one of the important motivating forces in the world. Whether we might wish it to be otherwise or not it remains an important motivating force that must be recognized in our taxation law.

On balance on the symbolic level, the measure is a political loser for sure. I have no doubt about that. I say that in spite of the fact that the Saskatchewan NDP has just moved in that direction. What their motives may have been, I am uncertain. I have not

[ Page 2404 ]

had a chance to read the legislation or the budgetary statements that went along with it. But the fact that it's a political loser does not make it wrong. There may be reasons for its abolition, on balance. I want to give what I see as some of those reasons. This becomes clearer when we examine the practical level.

First of all, succession duties represent under I per cent of budgetary revenue. In an economy that the government believes will be growing at something like, I think, 12 per cent in nominal terms this year, that is not too important a loss.

Secondly, the current system is full of tremendous loopholes, both for the legal avoidance of succession duty or even the illegal evasion.

Thirdly, the current system unquestionably is an incentive for the removal of capital from British Columbia. There are other reasons why capital may be removed from British Columbia. This one may only be one factor, and may only be determining from time to time, but it unquestionably is a part of the mix that has seen the actual withdrawal of a good deal of capital, some jobs, and many potential jobs from the province of British Columbia in recent years.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): How much capital?

MR. GIBSON: Impossible to measure, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: Then how do we know that?

MR. GIBSON: It's impossible to measure. I have to go, as all members of this do, on an impression.

MR. LAUK: No.

MR. GIBSON: That is my impression.

MR. LAUK: The evidence is against it.

MR. LEA: Legislation by impression.

MR. GIBSON: I might say, Mr. Member, that now that Saskatchewan has changed its law this flight of capital, such as it is, as a result of our Act standing along in the western three provinces, will more than ever be the case if we do not move to change in that regard.

AN HON. MEMBER: You move to Saskatchewan.

MR. GIBSON: Be kind to your Prairie brethren, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're wrong.

MR. GIBSON: Fourthly, under the practical section in terms of control of British Columbia enterprise, the impact of succession duties is unquestionably one of the reasons for the sometimes forced sale of British Columbia assets to outsiders upon the death of the owner of a small business, or even of a share portfolio, in order to provide funds for the payment of succession duties. I do not think that that case can be reasonably argued. It's obvious.

It's a system of taxation, Mr. Speaker, that is inherently very difficult for uniform enforcement. It is, in a sense, a voluntary tax if the assets are moveable or the beneficiaries and the testator are moveable, and choose to leave British Columbia. In addition, for those - I hope those few - who choose to go the route of not obeying the law, the tax may be easily and illegally evaded by the concealment of assets in other jurisdictions.

So in a sense this ends up being a tax that is paid only by those who are honest or, for one circumstance or another in their asset position, are geographically trapped in British Columbia. Even in these circumstances, as the learned members skilled in the law in this House will know, the tax may be largely and legally avoided by the establishment of trusts under which the assets are in the hands of a corporation controlled by the testator but largely owned by the beneficiaries. It may be that my colleague to my right may on occasion have set up such a corporation for the legal avoidance of succession duties.

All of these reasons, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, give rise to a strong, practical balance of advantage at the practical level for abolition.

MR. LAUK: That remind me, you haven't paid my fee yet.

MR. GIBSON: The third line of argument, which is the level of equity, is to me perhaps the most important of all.

Most classes of assets are already subject to high levels of taxation at death, quite independently of the B.C. Succession Duty Act, through a tax administered by the federal government and shared with the provinces. Some of the revenue comes back to British Columbia in the form of a deemed capital gain. In other words, when someone dies, their assets are deemed to have been disposed of at market value at the time of death, and any capital gains tax that would be payable were they actually disposed of is due and payable at that time. With no indexation in the capital valuation - the base-line valuation - the impact of this system can be very onerous indeed.

If one takes, for example, an asset in a relatively large estate that might have been worth, say, $100,000 at valuation day in 1972, which had appreciated more or less in line with inflation to a

[ Page 2405 ]

value of $200,000 seven years later - without being worth a penny more in real terms, I would draw to your attention - this asset would nevertheless be subject to a taxation rate of about 25 per cent at the time of death on the so-called capital gain, even though it had no real worth. So in inflationary times, it is clear that large estates will be subject to considerable attrition purely through the operation of the capital gains tax.

Further under the heading of equity, one must consider the uneven bearing of the tax. A tax to be equitable should bear evenly on the same class of persons, and it should have some equity as between classes of persons, however you choose to define them. The succession duty tax does not have an even bearing within the same class of persons - and I refer members back to the opportunities I outlined for avoidance or even evasion of payment of that tax.

Perhaps even more importantly - and here I know that some members will disagree with me - it hits only about 15 per cent of our society, according to some calculations. I think that was the calculation of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , and his numbers are generally pretty good so I'll use it. It's specifically targeted against one sector of the population, and to me, Mr. Speaker, that is not a good type of tax. The type of tax that bears upon a particular sector of the population that is a distinct minority inevitably becomes administered and expanded through the operation of what you might call the tyranny-of-the-majority principle when an unpopular minority is under consideration. The graduated income tax is not at all like that. The graduated income tax, because it bears on such a very large proportion of society, even though it hits some harder than others, is administered with a relative sensitivity for the impact of that particular mode of taxation. It is the exclusive nature of the succession duty tax which is one of its greatest problems in equity.

For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the succession duty should be abolished.

At the same time, I think that this House should take note of the intuitive concept that is widely shared in our society - that those who have more should pay more, just, as in terms of income tax, those who now produce more or earn more, also pay more. Indeed, in theoretical terms, I think that there is a greater justification for a tax on wealth than for a tax on income because, after all, we do not want to discourage people from production. In a sense, that's what a tax on income does.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Exactly, Mr. Minister.

So in the field of income and in recognition of the intuitive concept in that area, namely that the distribution of income is not fair in our society, and I think it is not, we have gone extensively towards social programmes. We will one day move towards some kind of negative income tax, which I happen to think is an even better method.

By analogy, in the field of wealth it is seriously worth giving some consideration - and I commend this to the Minister of Finance - and some study to a kind of wealth tax. At the moment we have it only in one area essentially, and that is in the area of property taxation. Perhaps we should look over the whole range of assets, the whole range of wealth, with certain exclusions determined by the practicalities of enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted - and I admit at once that this is a far more revolutionary proposal in social terms than is the Succession Duty Act and the removal thereof that we are speaking on today - that it has some significant advantages over the Succession duty. If a person were under the obligation of paying a wealth tax on assets, let us say, above some certain deductible value that was determined as the assets that an ordinary person or family requires to lead an ordinary life, then they would have a definite incentive to maintain a productive style of asset use. If a person wished to be a conspicuous consumer with a large estate or big cars, whatever it might be, they could, of course, still do it. But they would be paying a tax based on the wealth employed in those essentially conspicuous consumption-type pursuits.

There would therefore be an incentive, and I think there should be, Mr. Attorney-General, to employ your wealth in the kind of activity in our society that creates more wealth and income for others, to invest in productive plant and equipment rather than $100,000 paintings. I don't want to take away from anybody the right to invest in a $100,000 painting, but I also want to say that wealth and capital in our society should be looked on as a trust. It has been generated in the first instance by the activities not just of the holder, though perhaps in greater measure by the holder, but by the activities of the whole society, and it therefore is a trust. Our taxation system should be such as to encourage these pools of capital for productive use.

The concept definitely deserves examination. It's something that has to be looked at, in my opinion, at a national level. Now that we've gotten to the stage where I think - what? - there are only four provinces left with a succession duty after B.C. moves, the succession duty is clearly on its way out. But we cannot and we must not lose sight of the concept of the ordinary person in our society as to the unequal distribution of income and the unequal distribution of wealth. We must insist that ways be found to encourage the productive use of wealth

[ Page 2406 ]

when it is in the hands of individuals or in corporations, as far as that goes. Sometimes we should debate in this House the corporate deductions which are available for completely non-productive expenditures, like some of the fatter types of expense accounts, the finer kinds of corporate furnishings and offices, and so on. We put far too much into office buildings and too little into housing, but that's the occasion for another debate.

The point is that our taxation system, insofar as it pertains to wealth, should encourage productivity. If your wealth is being taxed, then you're going to look for productive ways to use it. It's just as simple as that, and that has to be looked at. We have no right to tell people what they can do with their wealth, or to confiscate it, but I do think that society as a whole has a right to expect a certain amount of productivity out of accumulated wealth, or else, through taxation of that wealth, a gradual erosion of it.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, while looking forward to possible alternatives for the future, I myself consider that the current form of wealth taxation we are debating today, namely succession duties, fails the test in the practice in terms of enforcement. It fails in terms of the test of equity and in the overall works against the public interest. Wealth accumulations are already taxed at death through capital gains and, in a limited way, during life through property taxation. Reforms in these structures should be examined, but the succession duty route is not a good one. The bill for its abolition therefore has my support.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting watching the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pick his way through the minefield. He was really careful; he didn't step on one. He was able, in the most incredible fashion, to justify the removal of the succession duties. One of the last things he said was that we have no right to tell people what they should do with their wealth. But, Mr. Speaker, we do as governments, especially the federal government, take that right in our hand and tell people who do not have wealth what is going to happen to their money. They become taxed; they are subject to taxation.

MR. GIBSON: That's what I'm suggesting, Norman - tax wealth.

MR. LEVI: Well, the point is that the member also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that because the Act in itself and the method of application is not all that good, the people are able to wriggle out of the impact of the Act.... Because they're able to hire specialists who can set up the right kind of trust arrangements so that they can get out of this kind of thing, it is hardly a reason to suggest that we have to do away with it. Obviously the answer to that is that the law has to be enforced in a much better way in terms of equity with the whole population.

We do know in this country the incredible size of wealth that is in the hands of a very few people as opposed to the lack of wealth in the very large number of people. So we cannot accept - I cannot accept, Mr. Speaker - the argument that because the Act isn't working all that well, we should do away with it.

Then that member talks about a tax on wealth. People on this side of the House have been talking about a tax on wealth for years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why now?

MR. LEVI: Exactly - why now? You know, it's interesting that the gulf that exists between this side of the House and the other side and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is very much basically on the control of wealth, what people who have wealth do with it as opposed to what happens to people who do not have wealth. Wealth is power, and the majority of people in this country are powerless.

Those are the origins of the political party that I represent. People got together in order to be able to get some kind of power, power to be able to speak against people who felt they had a God-given right to run everything because they were wealthy.

You know, it's interesting in terms of the standard of living, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this country -and it's high; not everybody is able to get it, but it is high - that it did not come by the good graces of the people who are powerful, who are wealthy. It came as a result of a group of people coming together both in political parties and in trade union movements and demanding and continuing to demand a fair share of access to the power and the wealth of this country. It's been a continuing uphill battle for people to be able to get a share. There has been no responsibility by the wealthy in terms of the people who are not wealthy and who are not powerful. It had to be grabbed at every possible opportunity to create some kind of equity. The equity in this country, as it is in other countries, has been achieved by grabbing upwards, not by somebody handing something down from the top.

But you know, in terms of the party across the way, what I've been interested in are some of the arguments that some of their members have been using to rationalize the removal of the Succession Duty Act. I want to refer to an article that's under the signature of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , who on February 16 in the Merritt Herald and several other places in his riding, wrote an article. I just want to quote and give you the idea, Mr. Speaker, about how he goes about rationalizing the removal of the succession duty. He says: "A few of the things the government has been doing lately may

[ Page 2407 ]

need a little clarification in your mind, especially considering some of the screaming and misleading headlines we have seen in the big-city daily newspapers. Don't believe everything you read.

Then he goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: "For instance, the elimination of the Succession Duty Act is not for rich people." I should repeat that.

"For instance, the elimination of the Succession Duty Act is not for rich people. It will benefit almost everybody. Under the old law we got rid of, if your estate was worth over $150,000 and you wanted to leave it to your husband or wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, great-grandchild . . ."

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. LEVI:

... son-in-law and daughter in law. . .

"Garbage!" he says, Mr. Speaker. My God, the kamikaze fringe has wakened up. This is your own minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, stating exactly what happened. "They would have to pay succession duties, " he says. "Now they won't have to." This is what he tells them.

I read this to nearly a hundred people who were at a meeting in Merritt. I said to them: "Now pay careful attention because your MLA has strongly suggested that you pay attention." This is what I read to the people in the meeting.

The MLA goes on to say:

"Take stock of your estate, your home and other things that you own. If you've been working over the years, bought a home, bought a farm or other business, have recreation property and other investments, chances are pretty good that it's all worth at least $150,000, or will be by the time you die. So you see, what the government did is not for the rich."

Now that is the most incredible piece of reasoning by a member of the Crown who, in his capacity as the MLA, is telling people: "Go out, count up all your assets, and you probably have $150,000. You won't have to pay any succession duties because the government has removed it." That's the argument that that side of the House has going around the province. They're not saying that the succession duty was brought in to get at the rich, because we heard from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , who says it was inequitable. Why? Because you can't apply the Act properly.

But this MLA - this cabinet minister - is telling his constituents: "You are all going to suffer if there is a Succession Duty Act. You all have $150,000 that's going to be subject to tax, but we're going to relieve you of that." That's what he said.

Well, who are the specialists? The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is not a specialist. He can't tell us anything. He hasn't produced any reports. So I suppose what we have to do is to go to a former member of his ministry, Mr. Stow, who points out that the average property values that have been subject to that kind of taxation were more than $200,000 - not $150,000, but more than $200,000.

He also suggests that in 1975, more than 96 per cent of the direct-line estates - some 12,000 - were not liable to succession duties. Now that's the kind of story that they're telling out there - that somehow this government has done something not just for the rich, but for the less rich people. That really is, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said, absolute garbage. That's not the case at all. It's just simply not the case.

We heard from the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) yesterday, and three or four members on that side have trotted out two or three cases. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) had a case. I think the member for Omineca has a case. They all pointed out that somehow people were hard done by because they own property.

Now on the individual case, I don't know. But I have in front of me the Finance department's statement regarding succession duties - I'm'sure all the members can get it - which explains in some detail exactly who is eligible, who is not, and what exemptions you can get. But I don't know. It may satisfy the members over there to be able to tell the story that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has told - that you're now going to all be okay because we've removed the succession duties.

I want to talk for a minute about the whole question - which was covered to some extent by the member for North Vancouver - of wealth, and what, in fact, is going to happen in terms of the equity of taxation, now that we do not have the question of succession duties. Without the succession duties - the $30-odd million that has been very adequately explained in this House - there is a direct loss of revenue.

But it doesn't seem to concern the government, because, basically, there has been such a turnaround in that party - by that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and some of his colleagues - in respect to what went on previously. We have heard over the past 15 months statements from the members across the way about dedication to supporting the life of the province, dedication that everybody must work hard and make the economy grow so that we can be successful.

Injected into all of this is the strong suggestion by, I think, the Minister, of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) who said yesterday that to lose $30 million is really not terribly significant when in fact what you're going to get is $300 million to $400 million in

[ Page 2408 ]

investment capital. Well, the Minister of Finance nods his head. He knows for sure that this $300 million or $400 million in investment capital is in the province at the moment. If it's not in the province, it's going to come from outside of the province. Yes, I can recall that when the previous government brought in the Mincome programme, there was a strong suggestion that people would come rushing to the province to take advantage of the Mincome programme.

At that time, we pointed out that these people who would benefit from a Mincome programme like that would not have a great deal of money and were somewhat mobile. But if the minister is trying to suggest to us that the removal of this taxation will suddenly bring in a great influx of people who will want to come here, bring their assets, and live here.... Well, I don't know. He has produced no information on this.

He was on a TV programme with Dr. Helliwell from the Department of Economics at UBC. He disagreed with you. He was a very capable economist who said that you can't make those kinds of arguments because you have not one shred of evidence that would substantiate anything that you're talking about. That's exactly what he said. You were so flummoxed at the time that you didn't know what he was saying. But he was saying to you that you cannot make statements that it's going to improve the investment capital situation in this province simply by removing the succession duty. There's no basis for that.

But it goes beyond that. Certainly it has to go back to the argument that was used by your former leader and the arguments that you used when you were a backbencher in the previous Social Credit government. It has to go in some way to some kind of loyalty and understanding about people who live in this province, who have wealth and what they're prepared to do with that wealth in terms of the development of this province.

We heard from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , who was concerned that people should make available these large pools of capital, this wealth that is sitting there, and not be so concerned about investing it in the luxuries of life but rather to put it more into the development and the economic lifestream of the province. But that hasn't happened. It hasn't happened here, and it hasn't happened anywhere in the country.

After all, what do we have to look at? In this province we can look at 103,000 people who are unemployed; in the rest of the country we look at a million people that are unemployed. And now we have a suggestion from the government that the ultimate solution to the regeneration of the economy is to relieve the rich of the need to pay taxes on money which is already astronomical and that in some way is going to translate itself into generating the economy. It has not proved that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's going to help the poor.

MR. LEVI: Well, it's going to help the poor rich.

MR. LEA: When the rich don't pay taxes they help the poor. That's their philosophy.

MR. LEVI: With the rich you have categories: the wealthy, the near wealthy, the rich and the super-rich.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind waiting, but I've got the floor. If the Minister of Finance wants to debate the issue, I hope he takes more than five or 10 minutes to close the debate.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: If the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) won't come to order, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to throw my glass at him.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: The minister, when he closes the debate, perhaps might just wax a little eloquent and talk a little bit about the philosophy of some kind of commitment that people have to have to this province - people in the province who have wealth, large corporations - and their social responsibilities regarding the development of the province, regarding their role in respect to people in this province who are the so-called have-nots. There has to be that kind of commitment.

As I said, the previous leader of the Social Credit Party, W.A.C. Bennett, said it; he indicated in his statements in 1972, before he changed his mind when he got to Kelowna and talked about the Kelowna Charter, that we only want people in this province who are prepared to be responsible, who are prepared to do something for British Columbia. We haven't heard any of that kind of thing.

The only people right now who are being asked to do something for British Columbia that we know of on the part of what that government is doing are the poor people. They have to give up things through taxation. The handicapped have to give up things. We were told this afternoon, after that great debacle that we had in the question period. We know that since January, 1976, the handicapped of this province have not received any increase at all in the kind of assistance that they get - not since January, 1976.

[ Page 2409 ]

We know that the people who are 60 to 64 have not received any assistance - no increase. That's all it is; they're the people who are doing something for the province.

Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said that we wouldn't tell people what to do with their wealth. Well, we sure tell people what to do with the little money that they have. What we do is we tax them and we take some of it away, and then when we have large pools of money we don't make it available to them. We don't make their lives easier; we make them even harder. Now we know that the government over there is committed to the bottom-line budget, Mr. Speaker. If they have to break a lot of hearts in this province they are going to do it, but they're simply going to create large surpluses.

You have to talk about responsibility, because you can't on the one hand relieve the rich people from ... a burden? It's not a burden. Is it a burden for a man who leaves $25 million or $30 million? H.R. MacMillan left and paid what - $5 million or $6 million? Is that a burden? Is that a burden for his heirs and successors? Is that such a burden? It's not going to be a burden any more, because since January 24 that law is no longer in. From now on they can be freeloaders, and that's what they are. Having removed the succession duties, you've created a new class, a unique class of rich freeloaders. They're going to freeload on the backs of people who have to work for a living, who have to pay inordinately large taxes, considering the kind of incomes that they have.

Again the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) said: "But the Act is inequitable in terms of the rich because some rich people pay it and some rich people don't pay it." But the one thing we know about, in terms of equity with the tax laws for the poor people and even the middle-income people, is that it is not inequitable without it. Everybody pays. But what we have created is this unique class, a unique class of freeloaders. And that's a terrible thing, because it was the former leader of your party ... and the Minister of Finance supported him in 1972. He doesn't support him now. Well, it's a different thing. You've got to deliver your political promises.

You've got to deliver your political promises. "We will take away the succession duties. We will take away the gift tax. We will improve the Mincome and the Pharmacare. We will do great things." Well, the one thing they've delivered and the election promise that they've kept specifically is that they're removing the succession duties. They haven't kept the promises in terms of Mincome or Pharmacare or for the handicapped or the ambulance services - none of that. Services to children and to old people - that's all gone by the board. That's all gone by the board. Only for the freeloaders is there a break.

You know, earlier when my colleague from Nanaimo was speaking, he made mention of the ghoulishness of the legislation. He mentioned Machiavelli and I was interested because one time I had read that Machiavelli had said - and this is about 400 years ago....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mac who?

MR. LEVI: Machiavelli. You know who Machiavelli was, I am sure, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Second base for the Chicago Cubs.

MR. LEVI: That's right, yes. Well, that's the level we're at.

He said that men will forget the death of their fathers before they forget the loss of their assets. There's something very, very cynical about the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it cynical but yesterday or the day before we got into the terrible ghoulishness where we had the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) worrying about the status of people in afterlife, and that's very difficult. I don't want to get into that. That confounds me that she should be one to worry about that kind of thing. The minister nods his head; I am sure it confounds him too. Well, what doesn't confound him?

Is it that there is a complete absence of any kind of concern on the part of the government about the fact that to remove $30 million from the economy... ? Somehow there's the suggestion that it's something we can do without. It's not something we can do without. It's not something we can do without, because in this House, continually since the session started, and no doubt until the session ends, we will have continuing running battles with the government, Mr. Speaker, on that side about its failure to do things for the people in this province who are least able to take care of themselves.

It's slowly becoming quite evident that the arguments that are being advanced by the Minister of Human Resources, in his response to the questions that are coming from this side, are becoming less and less believable, that more people are becoming very cynical about the kind of answers that we keep getting which are in contradiction to the facts. When we hear him stand up and say that we are funding more programmes now than ever before in the history of this province - that's absolute garbage. When he tells us that people are better off now under this government than the previous government, that's absolute garbage.

No facts. We're still waiting, Mr. Speaker, to find out what the status is of that department, how much money they will under spend, what people are benefiting and what people are not benefiting. We don't have any facts. We just have some

[ Page 2410 ]

loud-mouthed proclamations by the minister that things are better; and like a lot of robots, everybody pounds their desks because they believe that it's true. Yet they know that it's not true. You can't take $30 million out of the revenue. You can't take a budget in a department like Human Resources and under spend it by $50 million and $70 million and then have the gall to come into the House and tell us that people are better off now than they were a year or two years ago.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense! But that group over there is prepared to believe it. They are prepared to pound their desks and they're prepared to agree, Mr. Speaker, that it's okay, that the succession duties is a good, positive move regardless of the fact that it tramples completely on the needs of people who need some help - who need help. After all, if you're paying somebody $265 in January, 1976, and then you're prepared to brag, as we heard today, that as of April 1,1977, people who are handicapped and people who are 60 to 64 will still get $265.... That's the situation. Seventeen months by the time that particular thing comes into operation - not one increase, not a cent for those people, no concern whatsoever. But in one fell swoop, there's $30 million off the rich people.

I'm sure, because he's now looking very intelligently.... I'm talking now about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who is about to make some comment. You can usually tell when he's going to make a comment. He hunches up his shoulders, puts his hand on his mouth, and away he goes. He hasn't spoken in this debate. I'm sure that he will. He's indicating that if I wind up, he'll get up. Mr. Speaker, he's going to have to speak from the point of view of an individual who has worked for a living all his life. He's not rich and he's not going to leave -at least I don't think he is - any great estate.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I'm a millionaire.

MR. LEVI: Well, it's only because you sit with them you think you are.

MS. SANFORD: You won't be voting on this bill then?

MR. LEVI: You have to be careful about that because that's paranoia.

MR. WALLACE: Is it infectious, Jim?

MR. LEVI: Yes, it sure is. He touches fingers with the Premier, and he says: "I'm a millionaire."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rich in thought.

MR. LEVI: The next thing we've got to do is take him into Riverview if he keeps standing up and telling us that he's a millionaire.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rich in thought.

MR. LEVI: A rigid thought?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rich in thought!

MR. LEVI: Oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I trust you're taking advantage of the neophyte in the chair. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MR. LEVI: No, that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. That is not the case at all. We certainly wouldn't take advantage of you as a neophyte. You're not a neophyte in the chair. You sit there just like you're flying a 707. (Laughter.) I'm sorry, it's not a 707.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance gets up, now that this debate has stretched over so many days - over a period of almost a month now - he's going to have to do a pretty vigorous kind of defence regarding this kind of legislation. He's got to be able to tell us, I think ... well, tell the public, not us, because we know where we stand on this. We certainly can't vote for this kind of legislation. He's going to have to whip up the troops because some of the troops at the back are perhaps becoming a little sceptical now that they've got a lot of the facts. Just where is the money coming from? After all, they're going to have to go back to their ridings and people are going to ask them: "When are you going to do something about the old people, and the people on welfare, and the people on pensions? When are you going to do something about Pharmacare?" I presume that what they're going to say is: "We have the best programmes in the world - far better than anything else." If somebody says to them, "yes, you just gave the rich people $30 million and yet you just underspent the Ministry of Human Resources budget by $50 million, $60 million or $70 million - who knows? - we don't know yet, " then I think people are going to worry about what the facts are.

We're given a lot of the facts, Mr. Speaker. It's up to the minister to be able to convince the public out there that the move he's making is in the interests of the province. We suggest to you that it's not; it's only in the interests of the rich.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I listened to the last speaker with some interest. I do take exception to one of the statements that he made, and that is, to me, an insult to most of the

[ Page 2411 ]

people in this province who work hard to make the place a better spot to live. He called all of the people who have acquired some wealth "freeloaders."

MR. LEVI: No, he didn't.

MR. STRONGMAN: Freeloaders - anybody who happens to have worked hard, created an estate of any value at all, because of this legislation is a freeloader. That is an insult to any hard-working individual in this province and one that member should retract.

MR. LEVI: If that's the strongest argument you've got, my, my!

MR. STRONGMAN: Well, I hear an echo in the background but, as usual, it's a product of little thought - a mouth moving faster than the brain can keep up with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STRONGMAN: Succession duties. It's my opinion, and that of our party, that they tax the wrong people. If you look at the charts, and I'll go over that a little later on, you'll find that I can substantiate my remarks. I would like to indicate that because of federal tax legislation, provincial tax legislation, the wealthy are able to sidestep succession duties, and have been able to do so for years. There's very little tax collected from the wealthy if you look at the total amount of wealth that is moved across from one generation to another. It's almost an insignificant amount of money - to the tune of something like $8 million in the province for 1975 paid by 22 families.

MR. LAUK: Are you a millionaire?

MR. STRONGMAN: No, I'm not, Mr. Member. Therefore I feel I can stand in my place today and defend a position of people whom I envy in many ways. I answered your question.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Come on!

MR. STRONGMAN: I happen to be a shareholder in a public company.

MR. LAUK: You stand to inherit a million dollars.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver South has the floor.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue. I keep getting interrupted by the first member for Vancouver Centre who is making accusations that are again unfounded in fact and concern something about which he knows nothing. I do not wish even to discuss it with him.

MR. LAUK: Why did you ask me to do your taxes?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps if you addressed the Chair the first member for Vancouver Centre will be courteous enough to allow you to continue.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm certain he will.

The wealthy, and people with estates of any significant size, generally have enough time to provide themselves with tax shelters - estate freezing by incorporating holding companies; they can move capital from one spot to another. They usually insure themselves to a point where they can cover their succession duties in any case, so there is no real hardship. I can't think of an example where there has been a major estate that's been taxed by succession duties that has forced a distress sale of their assets. I cannot think of one in British Columbia. I don't think it has occur-red at all. But I think you could very easily argue the point that there are hundreds and hundreds of small businesses that have been forced into distress sale because of this type of taxation. I must say that, as a government, we are showing a great deal of responsibility, not for the wealthy of the province as the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has indicated, but for the small businessman - the small individual who happens to have worked hard all his life and created an estate.

MR. LAUK: Well, exempt him. Why do away with the law altogether?

MR. STRONGMAN: I can give you an example of a small businessman who started up as a job printer. Over 40 years he has continued to work hard. He is totally unsophisticated on tax and estate planning.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone's listening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps if we would carry on our other conversations.... Perhaps the ministers of Mines and Forests could conduct their business elsewhere.

MR. STRONGMAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to give an example: a small job printer, starting some 40 years ago as a young man with a small printing press, after a 40-year span finds himself in a position where he might have accumulated an estate with assets well in excess of, say, $400,000. Because he's

[ Page 2412 ]

an unsophisticated businessman in a financial sense -he happens to be a good working man, and also a very successful man in his own business, but he doesn't understand the need for insurance, for tax freezing, for tax shelters, for estate planning - his wife, on his death, finds herself in the position where she has a $400,000 asset that she must partially sell to pay for succession, duties.

MR. MACDONALD: To pay how much?

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the most difficult things to sell is a business that has been run by one person - where one person has been the heart of the operation. It's almost impossible to sell it at it's true asset value. You find that these businesses are sold at distress prices, and I think of many instances where ...

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Come on, Gerry.

MR. STRONGMAN: ... the actual asset has been distressed sold at something less than 50 per cent of its actual value. This type of thing occurs when we have succession duties which are applicable to all segments of society.

I can give you an example of a carpenter who, through investing in a home, in a summer property, an insurance group plan, and some small investments, could very easily accumulate an estate of $250,000 to $300,000. His widow, faced with succession duties, on his death, again, has to start selling assets or has to borrow money to pay succession duties. It's a stupid tax. It's one which our party is committed to get rid of, and our party campaigned on this. It was very much a visible part of our platform. No one who supported us in the last election is going to be surprised at this legislation. We told people we were going to bring it in.

MS. SANFORD: You said there'd be no tax increases, too.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'll give you some examples. In 1975, there was a total of 1,900 estates in the province of British Columbia that were taxed with succession duties. Twenty-two estates were of $1 million or more, but that is likely not the most significant figure. There were 73 estates of more than $500,000 taxed. Seventy-three families of so-called wealth were affected - out of 1,900. The interesting statistic in my mind is that there are something in the order of 1,833 families - let's take it out of the context of money and dollars and cents, but how it affects people - affected by a tax that, in many cases I'm sure, hurt those families badly.

MR. LAUK: How much did they pay?

MR. STRONGMAN: I happen to have an example in Vancouver South.

Interjection.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Most of those farmers' wives.

MR. LAUK: You have no idea what you're talking about.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Member, if you would listen you might learn something yourself. It seems that you have that distinct problem - when your mouth's open your brain stops; and your mouth's always open.

MR. LAUK: Those statistics aren't correlated. I'm telling the truth.

MR. STRONGMAN: In Vancouver South, a widow contacted my office some months ago, and gave me a very, very sad story, one that, because of a unique set of circumstances, caused her a great deal of financial difficulty. I think it's worthwhile outlining this particular lady's case.

Some years ago she divorced her husband. Almost immediately after the divorce, the gentleman took ill and moved back into the home. She nursed him for approximately five years until his death. During that time - or prior to that time, I suppose - he had made changes in his will and left the house to his ex-wife and the balance of his estate to his children. She was taxed with succession duties to the tune of $4,000 because she really wasn't his wife. She went to her credit union to borrow it at 13 per cent. The lady is unable to work; she's in her late 60s. I say that this is the type of succession duty tax legislation that this party is going to get rid of once and for all.

MR. LAUK: How much was the estate worth?

AN HON. MEMBER: About 30,000 bucks.

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the interesting statements was raised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yesterday. He indicated....

MR. LAUK: What's wrong with that?

MR. STRONGMAN: Because her assets were non-liquid, Mr. Member. She could not liquefy her assets because she had a house totally paid for.

MR. LAUK: Was it a house?

[ Page 2413 ]

MR. STRONGMAN: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, could you kindly address the Chair?

MR. STRONGMAN: If you'd listen, you'd know what I was talking about.

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: Yesterday in the House, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) indicated that lifting succession duties resulted in lifting succession duties from the wealthy of the province only. Eighteen hundred and thirty-three families out of 1,906 families will be relieved of succession duties next year. Of the numbers I've given you, 1,833 people - families, estates - are not, in my estimation, what you would call wealthy, wealthy millionaires. They are estates of $300,000 and less. These are the people that the succession duties are taking money from. They're not taking money from the wealthy of the province. I believe the opposition is totally irresponsible, trying to make political points on things that they will not accept.

I take my chair again and would like to sum up by saying that I support this legislation. I wouldn't have any difficulty when the next election comes around defending this government's position with regard to the cancelling of succession duties in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very short. I'm not going to go into the economic debate that has taken place to any great extent. It seems to me that it's very obvious that the $32 million or $35 million that could be in government coffers could be poured back and circulate through the economy and create jobs in much better fashion than if it were left to the heirs of wealthy families. It's directly circulated back into the economy.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) talks about hardship cases. You can go into these cases one by one, and there are some anomalies, Mr. Speaker - that's true - particularly the last one he mentioned where the woman divorced her husband and didn't remarry, so that she had single status. I always used to believe, and I've seen cases, that that was an anomaly in the law that should have been corrected because we have common-law situations where the tax applies after $10,000, and it is onerous. But these estates of $250,000 that might pay $3,000 or $4,000 back to the people, back to the province that enabled that wealth to be accumulated.... I see nothing wrong in that. I would like to think that I could leave a dutiable estate of that size and pay something back into the public treasury for the benefit of the province where I've spent my life and made whatever money I left behind. I think people should be rather proud to do that.

Here's an estate here of $242,000 that's analysed in detail, an average family. The widow pays an estate tax at 9.78 per cent of $705. Why not? I mean is that hardship? Is that hardship beside the other kinds of personal calamities and hard circumstances of the great majority of the people of British Columbia, the vast majority of the people of British Columbia who did not have a fair start in life?

It's a tragedy, you know, that Ottawa began the movement out of this field, because it used to be universal across Canada and the revenue was shared 50-50 between the province and the federal government. Then the federal government retreated and took 25 per cent and then finally stepped out of the field. Then Premier Lougheed stepped up under a Conservative administration and abolished succession duties in Alberta, which made it more difficult for the rest of the provinces to maintain this tax to produce some social equality in our society.

There are loopholes, of course, but what this House should be doing is closing the loopholes. We all know of people who have made their wealth in this province of British Columbia - from its labour and resources - and have then taken their money to the Bahamas or to a tax shelter, and then they've severed their relationships with their private clubs, and they've said they've turned their backs upon British Columbia, and said that "the province that made me a fortune for my grandchildren after me, and their grandchildren after that, I owe nothing."

You know, those people should be despised, and we should nationally, provincially and internationally be closing that kind of loophole, because, you know, if there's any one thing that can be said about the western world and western democracy....

HON' MR. PHILLIPS: That's Russia! You want Russia!

MR. MACDONALD: If there's anything that can be said about our western society, it is that there are great inequalities of wealth and opportunity in our society.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm going to wait until these two are finished.

We have crass inequalities of wealth and opportunity which affect the children who are growing up in our society. We have children who come into the world with their life laid out for them - sons or daughters of wealthy families, whether they're millionaires or double millionaires, and some of them are many more than that - who have an

[ Page 2414 ]

unfair advantage over the ordinary children who are growing up in the province of British Columbia - an unfair advantage.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They have a disadvantage.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, they don't!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Economic Development doesn't.... I'm just telling you what I believe about this thing. You don't need to agree with it, Mr. Member, but I'm just telling you what I believe.

I think there's a lot of unfairness in our society. I think the thing that may sink western democracy is the growing inequalities of wealth, the accumulation of fortunes that go on from generation to generation, so that instead of a democracy of which we can be proud, we will be living in what you could call a plutocracy.

Democracy cannot stand over the long period of time that kind of a stress and strain upon it. You know, the inequalities of wealth in North American society, including Canada, are so marked and so unfair that they would be considered shameful in many of the other democratic societies in the western world. In the countries of northern Europe, in the Scandinavian countries, that kind of gross inequality in terms of opportunity is simply not present and would not be tolerated.

There they believe - and they are the real democrats of the world, the social democrats of the world - that children starting out in the race of life should have a reasonably fair start.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Yet we turn our backs upon that kind of a situation. Here in this House with this debate - which is a turning point, you know, and it's a real turning point; it's been an important debate -it's the kind of direction in which we want to go.

The difficulties of collecting and producing some social equality are very great, but the government is saying that we should relinquish all attempts to bring some sense of fairness and fair play into our economy. I don't care whether Saskatchewan has special problems of its own, and I don't care who else may be in favour of this kind of legislation.

To me legislation that allows a capital fortune of, say, even as low as $2 million to be passed on from generation to generation.... What's the interest rate on that in the bank? About $160,000 a year if you have $2 million in capital. Passed on down through from children to grandchildren.... I say that is creating inequalities and unfairness in our society which we should not tolerate.

If I have to stand up alone and vote for some kind of fairness in this - and fortunately I don't in this House - I would certainly take the path of saying that we do not believe in the kind of democracy that creates the hereditary aristocracy of wealth and power and privilege. We don't believe either that it is good for the.... We think it is contrary to the kind of values we should have.

Mr. Speaker, some people talk about welfare bums. You know, somebody can work and can make a contribution to their society but they lie back and they try to get on welfare; they work out the UIC or live off somebody else, or live on the beach. I say that person isn't carrying their load in terms of a contribution to make to society. But there are also silver-spoon bums.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. MACDONALD: Is it good for them or good for society? How can we appeal to people to go out and produce a society of high productivity, of hard work, of saving and prudent investment when at the same time somebody has had that given to them for nothing - something for nothing? That's what the case of this bill is all about. The kind of values that are behind this bill are not the kind of values I believe in.

That's why I'm opposed to it. I believe we should be moving with every year, and with all the measures that are brought before this House - just as we are in Health.... We say let's extend equal health opportunities to all of the people of the province. In education, although we're far from achieving that, we say at least let there be some educational equality of opportunity.

But when we come to the financial matters, where the real power lies, where the real unfairness in our society lies, when we see the gap getting worse rather than better between rich and poor, when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the gap widens and places stresses and strains on our democracy, I say it is time to call a halt and come back to the period where there's a fairly equal start in life for the children who are coming after us in a kind of a democracy of which we could be proud, because it's not only political democracy; it's social and economic democracy as well.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I've listened very carefully to this debate. I've found this the most difficult bill to study and evaluate this session. I make no apologies for that. I think it would be fair to say that both the government and the official opposition have overstated their cases. I don't think this bill is either the answer to British Columbia's problem of investment capital for job creation, nor is it simply a

[ Page 2415 ]

permit for millionaires to pass on their wealth at death. The issue is not black and white, nor is it even the conflict between the ideologies of the right and left which we see so often in this chamber. As with many contentious issues, the truth lies somewhere between the two rather extreme points of view which have been presented with some passion by members both of the government and the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it is the very essence of this debate which is directed towards polarizing the issue which I find difficult to accept. I believe that if things were hot quite so polarized, both government and official opposition would recognize a great deal of validity in each other's point of view. Unfortunately, this House seldom functions on the basis of being willing to consider the other person's point of view.

A former member of this House said that politics is war. When you're in a war, you're only interested in winning. When people try to win, they frequently indulge in overkill. I would suggest that both the government and the official opposition have indulged in overkill.

I recognize that each of us, as a member, has to vote for or against this bill. But I do believe that a more moderate compromise amendment to Bill 12 would have been much more appropriate. But then, moderate, down-the-middle legislation which is usually fairer to the majority of people holds little attractiveness for the polarized political adversaries in British Columbia. I'm not about to fudge on this bill, but I do think there are very clear pros and cons which are worth mentioning.

In the March 13,1972, debate there is a very interesting quotation where one of the government members said: "We found out today the reason why the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) left our grassroots movement. Because he doesn't believe in the principles of Social Credit, which is for the ordinary people, my friend. That's the difference." And that was the statement of former Premier W.A.C. Bennett in trying to decipher the reason why I had left the Social Credit Party.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, how times and circumstances change political positions, and it's always particularly interesting, now that we have Hansard, that we can in fact document the changing nature of political positions.

Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, several of the reasons which have been put forward to justify this bill are that succession duties constitute double taxation ever since the Carter commission recommended the introduction of capital gains tax. I think there is some merit in that argument, although capital gains is imposed on the increased value of an asset. I see an analogy that as you increase more income in your earned income, you pay more tax. If you have assets which increase in value, there seems quite a reasonable principle that you would pay more on an asset which has an increased value.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. ]

It has been said by the government that the abolition of succession duties would encourage investment capital, and thus jobs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, t hat is the main thrust of this government's position. I've tried very hard to find out how you measure that, and yet there is a surprising lack of any kind of solid information to determine what kind of dollar impact we're talking about and how many jobs we're talking about. It's certainly very difficult to assess the increased annual revenue that might flow to the province in the form of capital investment solely due to the abolition of succession duties.

Another point has been made and quoted by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when he introduced second reading. He referred to Mayor Mike Young of Victoria, who said that the persistence of succession duties discourages people from coming to British Columbia and encourages people to leave British Columbia.

I've tried very hard, in discussions with people like Mike Young, to find out what measure of dollar amounts and what kind of employment impact we could calculate if succession duties were abolished. It's a very vague and uncertain reason, Mr. Speaker, for justifying this bill - that there will be large inflows of investment capital. But I accept the fact that there would be some. I just find it difficult to be enthusiastic about this bill when the uncertainty as to its real impact seems impossible to measure.

Another reason the bill has some merit is that it can be unfair to direct family heirs where moderate estates have been built up over the years, especially family businesses, and in some cases farms.

It is not just millionaires who pay succession duties. There are moderate estates which in times of inflation can present a very unfair penalty. I know the minister quoted a widow of 43, and I took the trouble to find out just exactly how that estate is valued. I find that a widow of 43 would have a life expectancy of 30.4 years, so that a pension, let us say, of $500 a month when her husband dies at age 43 would indicate a value of $182,000.

It would seem to me, as I said in my opening remarks, that there are more moderate amendments and compromises which could have been made to this bill to make it realistic in meeting the needs of moderate estates where individuals such as the widow of 43 indeed are harshly penalized. It would be very simple, Mr. Speaker, to increase exemptions by perhaps twice or three times or by some very realistic formula which takes inflation into account.

That widow is calculated to be receiving $500 a month in what would be constant dollars, and yet one year, two years, three years from now the $500

[ Page 2416 ]

would be worth a great deal less. To calculate the value of an estate here today on the premise that the value of the pension will still be the same amount two, three, five or 10 years down the road is really quite unrealistic. But on the other hand, should you abolish duties altogether just because certain persons and certain estates are harshly penalized? I say no.

Another point in favour of abolition that we have heard in the debate is that we see the tax being abolished in other provinces and we have to compete for capital which citizens might choose to leave in other provinces, or citizens might choose not to come to British Columbia. I accept the merit of that.

One of the most central reasons why I have reached the conclusion I have on this bill relates to the central thrust of the government that abolition of succession duties will generate a great deal of investment capital and new jobs. In talking to one accountant in Vancouver who has been in the field for many years, he tells me that he is not aware of any decision not to invest in a job-creating proposition where the decision was based on succession duties.

I think one of the points, Mr. Speaker, which surprises me that has not been mentioned in this debate is many of the very powerful other reasons why it is difficult to obtain capital investment for British Columbia. We know that there is a great fear of the return of the NDP party to governing this province.

MR. LEA: I'm not afraid of it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we've had admissions from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . The first one I mentioned was that companies are leaving British Columbia for a variety of reasons. We've heard the Minister of Mines state that private investment can't sit back for three years and wait to see who wins the next election. I have made the point as clearly as I can that since we only have two parties in British Columbia that are of great strength, the polarized nature of politics means that if this government does not maintain public confidence, then indeed there is a very real chance that the NDP will be returned to governing this province at a future election.

MR. KEMPF: Never again!

MR. WALLACE: Labour unrest is a very powerful influence for discouraging investment capital. It's a very timely moment that I speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because in the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is an uproar that is interrupting not only the hon. member who has the floor of the House but the Speaker, who can hardly hear him, so would you please refrain?

MR. WALLACE: In this morning's Mid-week Report of the Vancouver Province, there is a headline that says: "Big Pulp Project Lost." I just want quickly to quote, Mr. Speaker, the statement by Mr. Knudsen, who's the president of MacMillan Bloedel:

"Knudsen, who was speaking to a conference on forest industry planning organized by the North American Society for Corporate Planning, said U.S. publishers pressed for the Longview plant because they were worried about labour volatility in B.C., and the reliability of newsprint supplies from this province.

"Knudsen said the B.C. forest industry faces serious problems, and labour strife, which has given British Columbia the reputation of being an unreliable supplier, is only one among them."

We're talking in this case, Mr. Speaker, about a capital investment of $165 million in a pulp plant, so I think we should also keep in context and perspective the kind of sums of money which are required for the capital investment which Will really produce a substantial number of new jobs..

There are other reasons why capital investment is discouraged from British Columbia. There are the high costs of doing business, low productivity, freight rates and the distance from markets. Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that if we were government tomorrow we could solve some of these problems. What I am saying is that to present this bill before the House as being some very strong and powerful means of attracting a large amount of investment capital, when these other reasons of very considerable moment do exist to discourage investment capital, is, I think, an unbalanced argument by the government.

I think we would expect some boosts to investment capital as a result of this bill. But in view of the many other reasons why investment capital is slow to come to British Columbia - the ones I've outlined - I think that the abolition of succession duties as a boost to any significant job-creating investment has all the clout of a five-year old punching Muhammad Ali.

Unemployment is at a dangerously high level and new investment capital is needed. But after looking at the subject very closely and listening to all the debate, Mr. Speaker, I've come to the conclusion that if the government believes that abolishing succession duties is a major way to acquire investment capital, then the outlet for fighting unemployment in British Columbia is bleak.

I think it's regrettable that Mr. Stow, intending to

[ Page 2417 ]

show a relationship between the use of succession duties and a lack of investment capital, did not complete his study; and there is no evidence of hard data as a result of factual studies.

In trying to pull this all together, I would just like to say that in any debate on taxation, whatever specific measure is involved - succession duties or otherwise - the primary issue must be the justness of the proposed changes as they would affect all taxpayers. However, advantageous in one respect a tax measure might be in relation to any one group or individual, it cannot be viewed or evaluated in isolation from all the taxpayers or the economy as a whole. Fundamentally, any policy regarding taxation should be based on ability to pay, thus ensuring the equitable sharing of the total tax burden among all taxpayers in as fair and just a manner as possible.

The government's main thrust favouring this bill was based on the claim that abolition of succession duties would greatly enhance the flow of investment capital into British Columbia. If that premise were accurate and resulted in government revenue far in excess of the succession duties being abolished through new jobs and more income earners, then this bill would be justified. But I have carefully considered the pros and the cons, and I've listened to the arguments of the members. But I am not convinced that the main government argument -namely the capital investment employment argument - is valid. This being so, and since the basic financial policy of this government is restraint, it is my view that the $30 million in revenue just cannot be foregone at this time.

I say that for the reasons I've mentioned, but also because I believe that, above and beyond the specific argument in this bill, there is the crucial argument of justness in the total taxation programme as it applies to the whole body of taxpayers. The role of this proposed specific measure, in relation to the justness of the other taxes applied to all other taxpayers -particularly those on low and modest incomes - has not been proven, in my opinion.

There has been in recent months - 16 or 17 months - some very substantial increases in taxation applied to people of low and moderate incomes who have a hard enough time just to survive, never mind having problems on how they should manipulate their investments.

The crucial challenge, Mr. Speaker, to any objective member in this House relates to two words: balance and justness. The balance that I'm referring to is the kind of rate which is paid under this bill as at present. I just pick a figure at random, Mr. Speaker -the figure of $200,000 assessable net estate would pay a tax of $24,000. 1 can't get more recent than 1974 income tax figures, but let us look at the balance of a person in 1974 earning a gross income of $5,000 who paid 5 per cent of that income in income tax. Somebody dies and leaves $200,000 and has to pay $24,000. This is the balance which I think already exists, with the exception of the cases we've already referred to which could very readily be corrected by increasing appropriate exemptions in appropriate ways.

The other element and the other word is justness. I feel that is a philosophy which has been missing from this debate. That is why I think both government and official opposition have indulged in overkill. Each has taken an extreme position when in point of fact what we should try to do with any changes in our taxation measures is to look at all types of taxation, each in relation to the other and each one in relation to the whole taxation programme as it applies to all taxpayers.

When I look at this bill in that context, Mr. Speaker, it does not convince me that the bill establishes either of these two main goals: that it is a balanced bill in relation to all taxpayers nor that it achieves the measure of justness which I think should be the primary goal of any tax measure or any amendment to a taxation bill.

Now I only have one real problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the last time the Progressive Conservative Party debated this issue in 1972, we went to the polls in favour of abolishing succession duties. On this occasion, I insisted that at our caucus meeting we hold a free vote on this bill. (Laughter.) For the reasons I've mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I've come to the conclusion that I cannot support this bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I've been waiting quite a while here because I've been dying to speak to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful how you put that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've been listening to a complete succession of speakers. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I could respond to many comments made but I've listened very carefully to many of the arguments and I think the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) stated the truth when he said that there have been various rigid positions stated which are not about to change in terms of attitudes towards this type of legislation.

You have to face one simple fact: if you have a deterrent to economic development at a time like this in British Columbia, we would be completely irresponsible not to remove it. It isn't a case of where the $25 million or $30 million would be spent but what psychological deterrent this represents to people who live here, or to people who don't live here, and might want to invest here. This is the crunch. On top of this, Mr. Speaker, since the advent of capital gains tax in 1972, we have a completely different scene in

[ Page 2418 ]

terms of taxation. There will hardly be an estate which is not probated in British Columbia which won't have substantial capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, I'd like to refer the House on this matter to the fact that statistics prove that of the estates probated in British Columbia, over 51 per cent of the assets were subject to capital gains tax. This was a new feature introduced just three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the fact that he would rather we remove corporation capital tax than succession duties. He wasn't sure about this, but he made this suggestion: "It would make more sense." I suggest to him that this really is beside the point, attached to the deterrent which succession duty represents. People make an emotional decision as well as a practical one to come and invest in British Columbia. It's not made by a corporation-, it's made by a person with a view to his future, with a view to what he's going to do with his family and his estate. These are the things that affect decisions surrounding the succession duties. For that reason I say it does not relate to a deterrent associated with corporation capital tax.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed repeal of the Succession Duty Act once again is a part of this government's announced policy of encouraging investment in British Columbia. This repeal will assist in the success of this policy in two ways: it will encourage British Columbia residents to remain here, to invest their funds in this province; and it will encourage potential residents or investors to invest their money in British Columbia in a way that will assist economic development and job creation.

In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 18

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

Bill 12, Succession Duty Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 18, which says: "No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest . .

Interjections.

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

MR. LAUK: and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed."

I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the following motion paper, which I'll put on the table pending the point of order.

It's moved by myself, that, pursuant to standing order 18, the vote of....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before proceeding, hon. member, you've brought to the attention of the Speaker a particular standing order of the House. It is not for you to assume that there is a point of order, or a correct point of order, or a correct interpretation under standing order 18.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if you'd allow me to continue I could point out to you what I'm getting at.

The standing order, although it's there - it's indicated in Beauchesne and May - must be by substantive motion. I'm about to read the substantive motion, which everybody's entitled to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member ....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Moved by myself ....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. LAUK: Well, if I could only....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker....

[ Page 2419 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on his point of order, I think you're entitled to indicate to the House the type of motion that you are prepared to move, provided that your point of order is, in fact, in order, and that there is some reason to believe we should proceed under standing order 18. So could you do it just very quickly?

MR. LAUK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I bring to the Speaker's attention the fact that the following persons who voted on the division should have their votes disallowed: W.R. Bennett, George Mussallem, William Vander Zalm, Evan Wolfe, W. Gerald Strongman, C.S. Rogers, R.S. Bawlf, K.R. Mair, D.M. Phillips, G. Haddad and G.F. Gibson, the reason being that either these persons' estates will be affected by the passage of this bill or they stand to benefit from the estates in direct line as beneficiaries.

MR. SPEAKER: You are now embarking, hon. member, into a debate on this issue.

MR. LAUK: How can Mr. Speaker rule on my standing order unless Mr. Speaker knows why I'm taking the standing order?

MR. SPEAKER: And that, hon. member, is why I listened to you so far: to let you clarify what you exactly had in mind. But it would be improper to enter into the debate at this point. I think that I have listened long enough to get an indication from you as to what you base your point of order on.

MR. LAUK: I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, and it states at page 398:

"In the Commons it is a rule that no member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it ... On 17 July, 1811. . . ."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Go on and read the next words. Come on, read the next words,

MR. LAUK: All right. but, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: All right, I'll continue. If you laughing hyenas would listen for a moment, you would realize what you have done in this House.

Mr. Speaker Abbot said:

"This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, . . "

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It is not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects.

All of the persons that I have named to you, Mr. Speaker, have a direct pecuniary interest in the vote of that statute.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm listening to the hon. member's point of order. It's not a matter of interrupting at this stage of proceedings.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if this standing order means anything at all or has any respect at all as far as enforceability, it should operate to exclude those people who have a direct pecuniary interest in the matter they just voted upon. They didn't have the intestinal fortitude to withdraw from the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you vote for the big salary increase when you were in government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. I have as much time as the rest of the members of the House have. I'm quite prepared to wait until you're prepared to listen.

Speaking to the point of order of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, he's raised a matter which is important in debate, and that is the matter of the right of a duly elected member of this House to vote on an issue that's before the House, or a bill that 's before the House, or any matter of that nature.

In listening to your line of argument, hon. member, thinking about the matter as you were stating it and looking at standing order 18, I do not believe initially that your point of order is well taken. However, I think it's important enough that I should consult with the authorities, including what you have given as an authority, and the Clerks of the House and determine the matter immediately, not at a future sitting of the House, because we're presently discussing a bill that has already passed second reading by a majority vote of all of the members here assembled.

For that reason, I declare a very short recess of not longer than 10 minutes, when I will return to the chamber and deliver a decision on your point of order.

[ Page 2420 ]

The House took recess at 6:14 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:23 p.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you render your decision, I have some information that I think should be relevant to the House. I think the point made by the member for Vancouver Centre contemplates certain 'acts taking place and that members of this House may be beneficiaries.

I wish to advise the House that for some time I have considered that many members opposite have made a great contribution to British Columbia, and I have contemplated in my will making bequests to Gary Vernon Lauk, Lorne Nicolson, Graham Lea, Dennis Cocke, Eileen Dailly, David Stupich, Bill King, David Barrett, Alex Macdonald, Norman Levi, Karen Sanford, Bob Skelly, Chris D'Arcy, Cyril Black, Don Lockstead, Emery Barnes, Rosemary Brown, Charles Barber, Barbara Wallace, Walter Davidson and Elwood Veitch.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon. Premier would wish to quit while he's ahead.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to know what makes the hon. Premier think that I am going to outlive him.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter for another debate, hon. members. A point of order?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to the attention of the House that the Premier did not leave anything to the Hon. Emery Barnes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So no member will be left out, anyone who wasn't mentioned and who feels they are worthy, I would be pleased to consider.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, hon. members, I have listened to the point made by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. As I said before I declared a recess, I consider it a very important issue to the extent that any time a member's right to vote on a matter is challenged, then it is either a valid challenge or invalid. That was why I think that it's well that we take the time of the House and allow me the opportunity to consult the authorities. It is an important privilege to sit in this House as members. We shouldn't take lightly the idea of challenge to the right of the member to vote.

I would like to read, if I might, from Sir Erskine May, 17th edition. I have reviewed these authorities in the time that was available to me. I am quoting from Sir Erskine May, 17th edition, page 435:

"In the Commons it is a rule that no member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it. But in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character. On July 17,1811, the rule was thus explained by Mr. Speaker Abbot: 'This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questions, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy.' This opinion was given upon a motion for disallowing the votes of the bank directors upon the Gold Coin Bill, which was afterwards negatived without a division.

"On occasions when the objection of personal interest in a vote has been raised, which came obviously within the exemption from the application of the rule defined by Mr. Speaker Abbot, the Chairman or the Speaker has overruled the objection, or has decided that a motion to disallow the vote would be out of order."

While I don't intend to quote them, if you refer to the 17th edition, pages 435 and 436, you will note a number of occasions that the Speaker has ruled that it was certainly not beyond the scope of the member to vote on a matter.

Referring also to procedures in the Canadian House of Commons, as written by Dawson:

"There is no doubt that the interest that is objected to must be strictly personal, and not an interest which is shared by the rest of the country. Otherwise, few items of government policy would be unaffected. Western farmers vote to guarantee bank loans to themselves, eastern manufacturers vote themselves protective tariffs, and all members vote for increased pay for parliamentarians, "

And so it goes.

In reviewing the matter, it is my opinion that it is abundantly clear from the authorities and the numerous examples cited that the point of order taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is not well founded, and I so rule.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for taking the time to deliberate upon my point of order, and I would ask you to.... Well, I just thank you for taking that time to recess and bring back your decision. It had occurred to me that even if technically these individuals did not come within standing order 18 ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2421 ]

MR. LAUK: ... these members, out of a sense of honour, would have excluded themselves ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That's completely improper, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: completely from the vote on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: That's completely improper.

MR. KING: Yes, I wish to raise a separate point of order, very briefly. I accept the word of members in this House in good faith, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has made a very kind gesture to the opposition, and named me specifically, among other members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Contemplated.

MR. KING: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that 1, on behalf of all of the opposition - the official opposition - decline his offer. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Premier feels he has excess wealth, we would far sooner he leave some of it in fair distribution, through taxation, to the people of B.C.

MS. BROWN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today you took an emergency debate motion which I raised on the floor, and you said that you would be bringing a ruling back. I wonder if you've had an opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for bringing this to my attention. In the matter of the proceedings that just took place, I did omit to bring this back to the House. I have a ruling.

Hon. members, I have now considered the matter raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard under standing order 35, and I cannot find that the matter is so urgent that the proceedings of the House should be halted so that it may be discussed. Furthermore, by its very terms, the statement of the hon. member refers to consideration of legislation by the House, and quite clearly, the opportunity for discussion is thereby afforded.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was not allowed the courtesy of thanking you for bringing down this ruling. I wonder if I may be permitted to do just that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much for taking the time to deliberate on this important matter. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the disabled people in this province have not received an increase since January, 1976....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That type of action, hon. member, is an abuse of the rules of the House and you should know that.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.