[ Page 2481 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42)

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2481

Succession Duty Repeal Act (Bill 12) Committee stage.

On section 1. Ms. Sanford –– 2490

Mr. Stupich –– 2481 Mrs. Dailly –– 2490

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2481 Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2490

Mr. Cocke –– 2482 Division on section I –– 2490

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2482 On section 7.

Mr. Wallace –– 2483 Mr. Levi –– 2490

Mr. Stupich –– 2484 Mr. Cocke –– 2491

Ms. Sanford –– 2484 Mr. Levi –– 2491

Mr. Skelly –– 2484 Mrs. Wallace –– 2492

Mr. Lea –– 2485 On section 8.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2486 Mr. Barrett –– 2492

Mr. Cocke –– 2486 On the title.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2487 Mr. Levi –– 2493

Mr. Levi –– 2487 Division on motion to report –– 2494

Mr. Skelly –– 2489 Division on third reading –– 2494

Matter of privilege

Communication respecting Strata Titles Act. Mr. Nicolson –– 2494

Routine proceedings

Psychologists Act (Bill 16) Second reading

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2495 Mr. Wallace –– 2499

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2496 Mr. Davidson –– 2502

Mr. Gibson –– 2498 Mr. Cocke –– 2502

Mr. Levi –– 2502

Matter of privilege

Communication respecting Strata Titles Act. Mr. Speaker rules –– 2503

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are four very good friends of mine: Mr. and Mrs. David Clark and Mr. and Mrs. Jack Pollard from Kamloops CFJC - radio, television, FM and so on -who are masking their disappointment, Mr. Speaker, in the continued ban on liquor advertising in the media in the knowledge that they take so much money off me on the golf course that they don't need the extra money. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw two proposed amendments to section 8, and the proposed amendments to section 1, section 26 (4) , section 31, and section 35 of Bill 21, intituled Travel Agents Registration Act, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'll be introducing new amendments to replace those which are being withdrawn.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 12.

SUCCESSION DUTY REPEAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, there was information earlier to the effect that a study was going on in the department as to the effect of this tax. I wonder whether the minister can tell us anything at all about that study - whether he's prepared to say there was one going on or that it was stopped for any reason. We certainly are informed the work was going on.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned several times earlier, there has been no study completed. The only information available to the ministry on this subject has already been tabled in the House, insofar as the impact of succession duties as they stand at present.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, unless I missed it, there has actually been no information presented in the House on the effect of this. There has been speculation, but I don't recall any specific information.

There was information presented by Mr. Stow in the booklet, in the first edition - I don't know if there ever was a second. There was specific information, and I wonder whether the minister is prepared to deny any of the information in this booklet or confirm it or whatever.

I'm referring in particular to the year 1975. There were 13,300 estates assessed. Of these 13,300, only 1,906 were liable for any duties at all. Twenty-two estates valued at over $1 million paid $8.6 million. That's an average of $390,000 each. Fifty estates in the range of $500,000 to $1 million paid $4.8 million for an average of $96,000 each. So any estate of $500,000, or just a little over that, paid something substantially less than $96,000, and 357 estates valued between $200,000 and $500,000 paid a total of $6.8 million, for an average of $19,000.

So the concern that was expressed in the House about estates of $200,000, or in that neighbourhood, is not very valid in that the average amount paid for this whole group was $19,000 and the ones near the $200,000 must have been paying substantially less than that. Is the minister prepared to confirm or deny these figures, or to submit any alternative figures for 1975 or any other year? Do we have any information?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the member must have been absent from the House because I did table this information before. The very information he's now referring to has been tabled in a schedule of the impact of duties in the previous year, and this is the only information which we have that would be available.

[ Page 2482 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I can beg the indulgence of the minister then, and of the House, I'd like to know whether he has any information as to any farms that had to be sold, or pieces which had to be sold in 1975 or 1976, so that the people benefiting from these farms would be able to pay the succession duties.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: This matter did come up over and over in debate - the concern that we have for farmers. I know that the minister is looking for the information. We don't intend to hold this bill up at any great length. We've done what we wanted to do in second reading, but this is our opportunity, I think, to get specific information. If any individual farms had to be sold, either in whole or in part, simply because of succession duties, then I think that's information I would like to have, at least.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Member, the department does not keep statistical information of that kind, nor would it have available what the ultimate disposal of these assets would be.

MR. STUPICH: I think that's one of the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. Although there was a great deal of concern expressed about the number of farms that were going to be broken up because of succession duties and that this is going to save them, really there isn't any specific information available at all.

I wonder whether the minister has any information as to people who have left the province in 1975 or 1976, or in any of the years between 1972 and 1976, and who in leaving said they were leaving to go to another haven, if you like, where succession duties were not being levied, or whether he has any specific information from people who would have come here to invest had it not been that they were afraid of dying here and having their estates taxed. Do you have any specific numbers or information, or just generalities?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, it is true that every member of this House knows of instances ...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Name one.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ... where people have been forced to sell. I'd say every member of this House has heard of people - I certainly have - who were forced into a situation through estate matters of this kind. So I don't think this is a matter of record within statistics; it's a matter of people who have been forced into these situations.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that's really all I wanted. I think the record will show that the minister has been unable to detail even one instance, other than to say ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: ... that in general everybody knows somebody. Well, of course, everybody knows somebody. But I don't know of a single person who has left B.C. because they were afraid of dying here and having their estates taxed. I don't know of a single instance. During the time that I was a member of Treasury for three and one-third years as Minister of Finance, I never heard of any one person, let alone half a dozen or more, who said to me that they would have come to B.C. to invest had they not been afraid of dying here and sharing their estate with the government.

I never heard of one single person who left the province - I've heard a lot of garbage - to die somewhere else so that his estate would not be shared with the people of British Columbia. I just haven't heard of one, and the minister has not given us any specific information. With that, I'm satisfied with what we've heard this morning.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister another question, and my question is: why now?

Even if one can be satisfied that succession duties are not for British Columbia, even if you can accept some of the very weak arguments raised by the government side, even if it's philosophically right as far as they're concerned that this is the direction to go - and, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I don't subscribe to that; I don't subscribe to the fact that the wealthy should be protected in this manner - Mr. Chairman, why now, particularly when there are people who are suffering unduly in a chaotic economy? I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) why he is doing it now. Why didn't he wait until he got the economy moving again, which is what they said they were going to do? So far we've had no evidence at all with that poor lame-duck Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who has difficulty finding his way to and from hearings. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get back to the minister and ask him: why now?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member asks a very good question: why now? It seems very obvious why now. We must remain competitive with other provinces in Canada....

Interjection.

[ Page 2483 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: They laugh, Mr. Chairman, they laugh. What about Saskatchewan? What about Quebec?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He is asking a question, Mr. Chairman; the member has asked me a question. That's one answer, and he doesn't want an answer to the question. We must remain competitive with the rest of Canada; we can't afford to overlook that.

Secondly, now is explicitly the time when this should be done in the interests of our programme to promote economic development in British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the one area of this debate that gave me the biggest difficulty in trying to decide whether the government's position was accurate and defensible. I agree with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that we've all heard of people who take their money elsewhere or take themselves elsewhere, to California of Florida or wherever.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, not Scotland, did somebody say? Oh, no, I wouldn't take it to Scotland; they're in worse shape than we are.

But as I mentioned in my comments in second reading, I've talked to various lawyers in different parts of the province, and they can confirm that various people retiring from other parts of Canada look around and make the decision as to where they will spend their retirement years based on, among other things, what they will leave to their widow or their family.

But I find it very difficult, first of all, to pin down just how many such examples there are and, even more importantly, what sum of money is involved. If these people do come to British Columbia, where in practice is their money invested and to what degree is the investment of that money clearly related to job-creating investment?

I spoke to four or five different lawyers, and one in particular does a great deal of work in estates. Frankly, it was his opinion that finally convinced me that what we should have been doing was modifying this legislation to protect the real cases of hardship, such as the 43-year-old widow who finishes up being told her husband's pension is worth $182,000 which she will receive over a period of 25 years at ever-depreciating dollars. There are unquestionably things wrong with the Act as it now exists, but the question that I tried to resolve is: is it justifiable, when you look at the whole picture, to get rid of it altogether? I just couldn't come to that conclusion.

To go to the second point, the minister mentions that we have to be competitive and we have to compete for investment capital. I buy that argument completely. But on the other hand, we have to compete in far more urgent ways, one of which is the example I quoted where a pulp mill costing $165 million in capital investment went to Longview, Washington. It didn't go because of anything to do with succession duties. It went there because of "labour volatility." That was the phrase that Mr. Knudsen, the president or chairman of MacMillan Bloedel, used. So there are many far more influential forces at work in determining what investment capital will come to British Columbia. One of the most pressing reasons that we are not getting investment is the very uncertain labour-management climate.

I'm not blaming this government or the last government or any other government. I am just saying it is a fact of life in British Columbia as far as large amounts of capital investment are concerned. I say large amounts, because if one pulp mill needs $165 million, you can imagine just how many billions of dollars we really need to get this economy going or expanding, or to get into new areas of employment.

So I say that labour unrest, high costs, low productivity, distance from markets, freight rates, high interest rates and a whole raft of other reasons make it very difficult for this government or the last one or the next one to really increase capital investment in British Columbia. The kind of capital that is needed is a very large amount. I have to say to myself, will the amount of capital which will be derived from 100 families moving from the prairies or eastern Canada each year into British Columbia provide the real need? I have to say that it might help a little bit, but as a percentage of the total investment that is required, as I said, it seems to have all the clout of a five-year-old punching Muhammad Ali. That's my appraisal of the amount by which this repeal would help.

I think the final point is, since that is the main thrust of the government's position and since I can't accept that argument for the reasons I've outlined, that I have to say I hope this government is not directed towards looking at one form of taxation in isolation from the total range of all the taxes that are applied. There has to be some just way of evaluating how the programme of taxation affects the great majority of people. I feel, even in that sense, that this bill and this particular measure that the government is suggesting to repeal this form of taxation is altogether a rather extreme and unjust measure in relation to the many ways in which various other forms of taxation are exerting a very substantial hardship on low income earners.

When you look at that whole picture, I really

[ Page 2484 ]

believe that the government, with great justification, could have increased exemptions and changed some of the ground rules, particularly in computing the value of a pension. Instead of that, I feel that the government has imposed a rather extreme measure. Even in committee stage today, in debating the specifics of some of the government's position, I would like to be convinced - I really would - that this will do what the government believes it will do. Unfortunately, I can't accept that. On top of that, I just believe at this particular time, when other forms of taxation have been applied with some very considerable hardship to a large number of people, that we are on very debatable grounds making it a lot easier for some very comfortable people. And I don't mean that they're all millionaires by any means, because the 43-year-old widow is an excellent example of somebody who gets caught in the present legislation. But because there are some cases where it is unfair, I don't think we should be repealing the whole bill per se.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I had conceded on this, as far as I was concerned, until the minister responded. He responded to the effect that we have to do this to compete, and he suggested in part that we are competing with Saskatchewan. I would remind him that it's pretty hard to justify that approach when Saskatchewan made no announcement about succession duties until some two months after B.C. had announced it. I don't think he had a crystal ball to look into to tell him that Saskatchewan was going to do this whether or not B.C. did.

When we talk about competing with other provinces, is he saying in this bill that we are now going to be in a better position to compete with the provinces that don't have succession duties -Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? Can we compete with those provinces better if we relieve our citizens of succession duties?

Then he said that it's going to encourage economic development. Can he give me any evidence at all, or show me in any way, how this is going to encourage MacMillan Bloedel or Crown Zellerbach or B.C. Forest Products - the companies which should be investing in British Columbia? Is this going to have any influence on any decisions that they're making, or on the CPR with all of its investments in this province, and which might be doing more? If they are going to be persuaded that they should invest more in the province of British Columbia because some people are going to be persuaded to stay here until they die or to come here to die, then I might say that he has some support for that particular argument. But he hasn't, Mr. Chairman. He has introduced no evidence.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I asked the minister during second reading about the costs of administering this particular bill. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) had already pointed out that there are a number of statutes that are administered for a total cost of $955,000. Now can the Minister give us at least a ballpark figure as to what the cost might be for administering the Succession Duty Repeal Act? Perhaps he can get some advice from some of his staff people there.

It's ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Finance to ask us to support this bill when he can give us no facts, no figures, no evidence as to either the improvement in the economic situation in the province if this bill is removed or the improvement in the employment picture in this province if the bill is removed. There is nothing in terms of how many people were leaving because the bill was there, nothing in terms of how many people decided not to come into the province because the bill was there.

He's asking us to support something about which he can give no evidence or no reasons why we should support it. Here we are, losing $30 million a year. He hasn't given us administrative costs. He hasn't given us any reason at all to support this legislation. We've pointed out all the ways in which this $30 million could be spent, how it is needed in the province today, and how ludicrous it is to give this $30 million gift to people who don't need it.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Perhaps the minister intends to answer that question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I answered it before.

MR. SKELLY: While he's thinking it over, I might say I was impressed during second reading by the arguments of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that in order for him to support a piece of legislation such as this it had to fulfil two criteria: one was justness and the other was balance. A lot of people in the House, members from the Social Credit side, mentioned people whom they knew who had estates who, because of the size of the estate and the amount of tax they would have to pay on the estate, would be forced to leave the province. The member for Oak Bay's argument is that perhaps we should leave the legislation in place and simply raise the exemption, which I thought was a good idea. Inflation has taken its toll over the years and many ordinary working people, people in professions, people in small business in the province.... As a result of inflation, the value of their estates has increased to the point where they would be subject to fairly heavy and unjust taxation.

I would think that in those cases, rather than considering a blanket repeal of the legislation, we should consider raising the exemptions or specifying additional exemptions under the legislation. So I also

[ Page 2485 ]

feel that a blanket repeal of the Succession Duty Act is unjust. As the member for Comox pointed out, it's not going to create that many jobs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It sure will!

MS. SANFORD: It will? What evidence do you have?

MR. SKELLY: The member for Comox asked: "How many?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Trust us.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You'll see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: "Trust us, " he said.

It was pointed out by the Economic Council of Canada that in order to create a single job in mining it requires a capital investment of something like $308,000 per job. How many jobs are going to be created by the amount of revenue the province will lose as a result of this legislation? Nothing.

The minister said that we have to be competitive and he has done no studies on the impact of this legislation to show how it will increase our competitive advantage with other areas.

He mentioned Saskatchewan. Well, Saskatchewan's annual revenue from succession duties, Mr. Chairman, is something like $4 million. The size of estates in Saskatchewan is quite a bit different from the size of estates in British Columbia. Also under the Saskatchewan legislation farms were included, and it was unfair. Farms had been exempted in the province of British Columbia whereas they were included in Saskatchewan. But as the member for Oak Bay pointed out, if there was some kind of justice in that large incomes were taxed at a greater rate in British Columbia, then perhaps we could accept a bill like this.

Saskatchewan has.... Maybe you can call the cabinet to attention, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: In Saskatchewan there is a surtax on large incomes and that helps to balance it out so that people with large incomes pay more than those with small incomes, so you get them during their working lives rather than getting their beneficiaries at the end of it.

Interjections.

MR SKELLY: That's called income tax. It's a surtax on large incomes, and we don't have that here in British Columbia. But they do have it in Saskatchewan so that they do get people to pay additional taxes on large incomes during their working lives. We don't have that here and, as a result, it's more just and more balanced, as the member for Oak Bay pointed out, than to simply repeal, in a blanket way, the succession duty legislation.

All through this debate we've been talking about people and the effect that this has on people, but not all estates go to people. Some estates end up going to parrots and cats and dogs, and the thing that bothers me in the blanket repeal of this legislation is that we're not simply affecting people and cats and dogs and parrots. I believe a woman who died recently in Victoria left her whole estate to a parrot. I wonder how many jobs in British Columbia that's going to create.

The thing is, a blanket repeal of the Succession Duty Act is unjust. Possibly the minister, if he's done any studies at all into this legislation, will tell me: how many estates have been turned over to parrots and cats and dogs as beneficiaries? How many jobs will be created by exempting those animals from the Succession Duty Act?

This is just a small part of the reason why I feel that blanket repeal of the Succession Duty Act is unjust.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Can I put you down as doubtful? (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: I've put you down as doubtful.

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't give us any competitive advantage over other areas. It hasn't been demonstrated. No studies have been tabled showing that British Columbia will gain any competitive advantage. A few millionaires in the province will gain a little advantage. Many of them are represented on the benches opposite, as has been pointed out, and that's the only advantage to a small group of people in this province. It would have been more just, more balanced, had the exemptions been increased, had certain specific exemptions been created within the Act, but blanket repeal of the Act is unjust.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to examine just some pure, simple facts.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. That's all I can handle. I'm just a country boy. I'm not a city-slicker, but I know B.S. when I hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[ Page 2486 ]

MR. LEA: All you have to do is find out who supports the rescinding of this bill. All of the Socreds and the only person in the opposition who's a millionaire, those are the ones supporting this bill -nobody else. I think that should speak pretty loudly for itself. One millionaire in the opposition is supporting this legislation - nobody else in opposition - but all the Socreds. That speaks pretty loudly. The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , who's going to support this legislation, said there's money leaving this province because of the succession duties.

I said: "How much?" He said: "Well, I don't know." I said: "How much?" He said: "It's just an impression I have." It's just an impression he had. He's going to support this bill on just an impression he had. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) gets up and gives us no more statistics than the Liberal leader, so we have to assume that it's just an impression he had.

Everybody says they know somebody who knows somebody else who left because of the succession duties, but nobody has named anybody specifically who's left. Nobody has done that. The Minister of Finance, who has all of the statistics available to him and all of the staff to look into it, comes in here and acts silly. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) gets up and, I think, makes a very good case. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, sits over there and says: "Can we mark you down as doubtful?" We're talking about an absolute gift to the millionaires and to themselves - that's what we're talking about.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Tell us about Saskatchewan.

MR. LEA: Saskatchewan is absolutely wrong to do what they're doing, in my opinion - absolutely wrong - and so is this government.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at all the promises they made during the election campaign about taxation, they broke every one of their promises about not raising taxes to people, not raising income tax, not raising sales tax. They broke every promise. The only promise they're keeping on taxation is to give the millionaires a gift by removing succession duties, and that speaks pretty loud and clear.

When the Minister of Finance comes in here to relieve the millionaires of taxation and doesn't have one piece of statistical evidence to back himself up, well, we're listening to flimflam and we're listening to excuses and we're listening to absolute balderdash. That government cannot put one piece of evidence in front of the people of British Columbia that would suggest that British Columbia is going to be better off for the removal of these succession duties. The only people who are going to benefit are the rich. I'll sit down and let one of them get up and speak.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to have the opportunity of answering some of the remarks that have been made by the members of the official opposition. They're quite right in one thing - and they're right in very few things in this House - and that is that the wealthy people don't need this legislation. The wealthy people don't even need to be in British Columbia or Saskatchewan. It's insight into this latter fact that has made even the comrades there in Saskatchewan realize the wisdom of a move of this kind.

I sat in opposition, Mr. Chairman, for years ...

MR. LEA: In which party?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ... listening to the spleen of the NDP who weren't interested then in building a better British Columbia but were interested in attacking those who had built this province. They're incapable of managing and developing anything in their own right. They proved that. They've proved that they are incapable of managing government when the people put them there; they mismanaged it totally. Once they got into power, Mr. Chairman, what they did was give full effect to their verbal attacks on everybody who had been successful and who had built this province.

The consequence was disaster for British Columbia and the people, in their wisdom, took corrective action. But what disappoints me is that having spoken nonsense for years as opposition, never speaking to build British Columbia but only to attack those who had been responsible for that building, then to get into power to give effect to those ridiculous statements they made for years in opposition.... They proved to the people's satisfaction they were totally incapable of assuming responsibility for management. Then they went back into opposition and showed that they had not learned one tiny bit from their experience. It should tell the people, Mr. Chairman, not only that the NDP used to be wrong in opposition, were wrong in government, and are now wrong again in opposition, but also that the NDP should never ever be trusted with power again in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of an argument from that carpetbagger. He got up, made a political speech ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: ... and said not one word in defence of this bill. He got up and tried his best, in light of his own terrible failure, to heap abuse on the

[ Page 2487 ]

former government that brought about a little ray of sunshine for three years and four months in this province. Now we're, back in the gloom of Social Credit and he had the audacity to stand up and make that kind of a statement today. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, even you didn't believe it. Nobody with a mind at all would listen to that kind of an argument.

Mr. Chairman, he talked about our spleen toward the wealthy. I saw no evidence of it. I saw no evidence of all those wealthy doctors particularly hating us while we were government making a priority out of health care. No, I didn't see it, Mr. Chairman. I see now, however, that many of them are becoming quite concerned about what's going on in this beautiful British Columbia. . .

MR. WALLACE: I'm not wealthy!

MR. COCKE: . . . with the exception of that poor doctor, that poverty-stricken doctor from Oak Bay.

Mr. Chairman, we were really talking about that very thing, to begin with, in questioning the minister about: "Why now?" You know, the Minister of Education told me why now when he stood up. He said, "we have to keep our promises to our rich benefactors who put us in here, " because he certainly made no succinct argument in favour of rescinding succession duties. The Minister of Finance certainly hasn't. I thought, well, now we're going to get something at long last. Somebody's going to stand up and justify why they're pulling this rescinding Act at the present time. He stood up and made a political speech - not one word other than telling us what a bunch of bunglers we were.

[Mr. Shelford in the chair. ]

Men I look at ICBC being bungled down the drain, when I see that the only jewels in the crown of this government now are the Crown corporations we set up, with the exception of ICBC, the only thing that makes their quarterly report look anything like good. . . . And that minister stands up and attacks in that manner!

Mr. Chairman, the disaster that occurred in British Columbia did not occur in 1972. The disaster that occurred in British Columbia occurred for the first time in 1952, and reoccurred on December 11,1975.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I have waited through long hours of debate to hear some facts and figures from the other side of the House. As I pointed out in second reading, MR. Chairman, there must have been some real solid reason that caused the Minister of Finance and other members of the cabinet to change their mind about succession duties but, for some strange reason, they're failing to tell this House what that reason is. There have been very few figures presented - nothing, in fact - except perhaps from my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who has indicated that very few or perhaps no jobs will be created as a result of any returns that may be invested in this province as a result of the repeal of this Act.

I brought some figures to the floor of this House during second reading and I had hoped that the minister might see fit to comment on them. But he has made no comments whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. The minister has said, among other things, during the course of his rather vague remarks, that people are taking their money out of British Columbia and investing in Alberta because Alberta has no succession duties. I had gone to the trouble, Mr. Chairman, to check out what has happened in Alberta during the last several years - both prior to the repeal of the succession bill there and after that bill was repealed. I quoted the fact that during the four years prior to the repeal of the Succession Act in Alberta, the ratio of gross fixed capital formation by business - which would include the kind of thing that this minister is hoping will happen in British Columbia; that that gross fixed capital formation will increase because of the repeal of succession duties - in relation to the gross domestic product of Alberta ranged in an area of greater increase than it did in the four years subsequent to its repeal. During the years 1964 to 1967, it was 25.84; during 1968 to 1971, it declined to 25.71.

~ Now, Mr. Chairman, to me those are some of the most telling facts - the only cold hard figures, in fact, that have been presented into this debate during all of the hours that we have discussed this bill. The minister has made to response and no comment. He continues to say that investment is going out of this province into Alberta because we have succession duties and Alberta does not have succession duties.

The latest report out of Statistics Canada says that our ratio of millionaires per capita here in British Columbia is higher than in Alberta. I don't know how much that proves but that, too, is a fact that indicates absolutely the contrary to what this minister and that government are trying to tell us is going to happen when they repeal this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it just continues to shock me that a government responsible for the economic recovery of this province can stand here and baldfacedly say: "Wait and see. I hope so. I think it will. Maybe." That's all they can offer. This is the major piece of legislation they're bringing in that's supposed to bring economic recovery to this province, Mr. Chairman.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister might just answer a couple of questions. I'd like to know what was in his mind when he developed what he's enunciated is the philosophy behind this bill that has caused him to change his mind from the remarks that he made in

[ Page 2488 ]

this House some years ago, when he was very fixed in terms of his support of the legislation that was introduced by the previous government.

He said at that time, and. I would just like to go over it and perhaps the minister would like to respond to it:

"Now there are some arguments which we've just heard in the last few minutes that are injurious to the growing British Columbia business. It seems to me that the substantial exemptions provided take care of that feature."

Now perhaps the minister might indicate to us when he gets up to answer in what way that has changed. Perhaps he might respond to a further thing that he said:

"Secondly, " he said, "it's going to drive people out of British Columbia. I said I would like the members to name one person whom succession duties have driven out of British Columbia. I know that there are other provinces which see fit to remove themselves from this field and which now are, with a view to the fact that there is a new capital gains tax in the federal area ......

Now he took the position five years ago in which he was throwing the challenge across to. . . . Actually, it was on his own side, because there were some of his own members who were against the bill. In what way has that situation changed, and why has he come to the conclusion that this drives the money out of the province? Has he got some very specific information? So far he hasn't given it to us.

He says that we all know of people who left the province because of the possibility of the payment of succession duties. I frankly know of only one person that I can recall who did leave the province because of the succession duty problem, and his name was E.P. Taylor. I don't know of anybody else; I really don't know of anybody else. For instance, I don't recall that any of the Bennett family left the province, or that the Wosks or Segals or Woodwards or MacMillans of Belzsbergs or Skalbanias or Mussallems have left the province. They are here. This is where they made their fortunes; this is where they're living. They're not looking for outlets to run away to or to abrogate their responsibility to the province.

He says he knows of cases. Well, when this legislation was before the House five years ago, he challenged the members to tell him: "Who do you know who's gone out of the province because of the succession duties?" Well, he hasn't told us who he knows. I've given you a name - E.P. Taylor. He took off because of the succession duties. But MacMillan didn't take off because of succession duties.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The Premier frowns with that all-knowing innocence of his. E.P. Taylor - he wouldn't have done a thing like that. Well, he sure did.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It wasn't E.P. Taylor? He didn't go down to the.... He never lived here? He never lived in B.C.? I'm sorry, Austin Taylor. I apologize.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The Premier is right. Well, it was a Taylor, anyway. Austin Taylor left the province. That's the only name that anybody has offered in the House. Austin Taylor made those arrangements.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Did they buy Austin Taylor's ranch? You mean that little piece of grade 4 farmland?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes. Well, we know about that. But anyway, perhaps the minister would tell us, first of all, how he came to change his mind about this. What has he got on the problem? What people have told him very specifically?

The other question I'd like him to be able to tell us is this: presumably because of the interests of the millionaires over there, this bill is going to pass. Will he be able to tell this House of the impact of the removal of this legislation on capital investment? Perhaps he could tell us how this is going to be done. How is he going to identify the influx of capital? Is he going to be able to note the number of people with large fortunes who will now say: "There are no succession duties in British Columbia; that's what we're going to do. We're going to sell off all of our assets and transfer our money to B.C. and invest in the province." Presumably that's the way it's going to work. If it doesn't work that way, what's the point of removing the legislation? How is he going to say this? How is he going to be able to explain to us, not in detail, but with some indication about how he's going to measure it?

He's given us nothing about how he's measured the so-called negative impact. In fact, five years ago he was quite convinced that the succession duties had no negative impact whatsoever on the economy of this province. Now what has brought him to the point where he's changed his mind? He's not making, I suggest, an economic decision; he's making a political decision. It's the political decision that his party campaigned under in the last election when they guaranteed the millionaires that they would remove

[ Page 2489 ]

the legislation.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would say to the minister that in 1972 he did not think that it was injurious to British Columbia to have succession duties. He defied people to give him one name. All right, I've given him one name -Austin Taylor. Would he tell us how he's going to monitor this? Will he be in a position next year to say to us as a result of the removal of the succession duties that British Columbia has benefited by X millions of dollars? Is that possible to do? Is that possible?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, when confronted with the questions, the minister hasn't answered the questions at all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm waiting for some new ones.

MR. SKELLY: We're waiting for some answers. When we asked him how many jobs would be created, Mr. Chairman, he said: "Oh, trust us. Wait and see. We'll let you know next year."

Well, we're dealing with the legislation this year, Mr. Chairman, and we want to know what kind of studies and information the Minister of Finance has as to how many jobs will be created. The Economic Council of Canada has an idea that with the capital that might be made available by this statute or the revenue that the province is giving up, the maximum number of jobs that can be created is about 900. That's the maximum number, when there's over 100,000 people in this province out of work.

This is the major job-creating programme of the British Columbia government, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to know what kind of studies the minister has done as to how many jobs will be created and how our competitive advantage over other areas will be improved by this legislation.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) got up and indulged in total irrelevancies as regards this bill and this section of the bill. He said the NDP always attacks people who have been successful. Successful at what - at inheriting their parents' wealth? What kind of success is that? What kind of effort is required to do that? Certainly a lot of people in the benches opposite, through no effort of their own, will be inheriting their parents' wealth. Certainly they'll be deriving some advantage from this legislation - a great deal of advantage in one case that I can think of. He hasn't stood up in this House to defend the bill at all.

The Minister of Education said that we're attacking the pioneers of this province who have built up those estates over the years. It's not the pioneers who are going to be benefiting from this but their successors - the people who, through no effort of their own, will be inheriting the estates of those pioneers.

He also mentioned Saskatchewan. We don't agree with Saskatchewan repealing the estates tax or the succession duty tax. We don't agree with that, regardless of where it happens.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It's the same party there.

MR. SKELLY: It's the same party, but we disagree on occasion. There are disagreements in this party, as I imagine there are in yours, Mr. Premier. Are you going to stand up and speak in this debate? After all, you have quite an interest in it. You have a substantial interest in this debate.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's not a different NDP but circumstances are different, Mr. Chairman, (laughter) as has been pointed out. In spite of the fact that circumstances are different, we feel, as the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, that there should not be blanket repeal of succession duties, that possibly exemptions should be increased, that possibly family farms should be exempted. I'm talking about Saskatchewan now. But we disagree that estates should not be taxed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one member can speak at a time.

MR. SKELLY: You'll have an opportunity to make an amendment, Mr. Minister of Mines.

But this one is a blanket repeal and because of that it's unjust. We feel it's unjust and we intend to vote against it.

When attacked that we don't support, or always attack people who have been successful.... The people who stand to benefit from this bill, Mr. Chairman, are not those who have been successful except in their success at getting rich parents. We all know that no effort is involved on the part of the descendants of those parents, Mr. Chairman, no effort at all. This is absolutely unearned wealth, unearned income, and it should be taxed as such. It's unjust to repeal the total Succession Duty Act. We feel it would be much more just if the exemptions has been increased and specific exemptions had been added.

In any case, the minister has not answered the questions. How many jobs will be created? How will this improve our competitive advantage over other areas? What studies have you done? Give us an idea of

[ Page 2490 ]

what studies have been done, how many jobs will be created and how this will improve our competitive advantage. Those are all the questions we have been asking. What is the minister's response?

Why has the minister changed his mind over a period of five years? Why has he changed his mind from being absolutely opposed to the repeal of succession duties to the point now. . . ?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Let's hear about the change in circumstances from the minister, not the mutterings from the Minister of Mines. Let's hear it straight from the Minister of Finance. How many jobs are going to be created?

MR. WALLACE: Let's have your speech, Jim.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just don't understand. We've been here for an hour asking the minister specific questions on succession duties and the repeal of succession duties in this province. I just assumed he was going to get up to answer. Is the minister not going to give us one shred of evidence to support the position of the government in removing these succession duties? We've had one after the other get up, asking and asking of that Minister of Finance: "Let's have some evidence. Let's have a few figures. What does it cost to administer the programme?"

HON. MR. WOLFE: I already told you that.

MR. SKELLY: When? What did you say?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Say it again!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I noticed the Minister of Finance was consulting with his staff this morning and I assumed he would bring us some answers on this. You mean the only answer that we're going to get with respect to jobs is: "Wait and see"?

MR. SKELLY: What are the answers? -

MS. SANFORD: Is that the answer as to the number of jobs that are going to be created - "wait and see"? What kind of a spurt in the economy are we going to have? What sort of new investment? Where is it likely to happen?

This is the major programme of this government to improve the economy of British Columbia, and he hasn't given us the information, Mr. Chairman. I hope that he has just overlooked it and will now get up to provide us with at least some of the details that we have been seeking this morning.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have one quick question for the minister, and I hope I'm not repeating a question. It is regarding the matter of the studies that were done by your department. Naturally any bill that is brought before this House would, I presume, be studied by your officials and then presented to cabinet with the arguments for presenting the bill to the Legislature.

My questions to the minister are: what studies were done? Would you please tell us what those studies showed that moved you in the direction of producing this bill?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member's question, I answered earlier that same question with regard to studies from her colleague on her right. I already tabled some time ago the information in the House with regard to whatever information was available produced by my staff with the impact of succession duties on various categories of estate, et cetera. That's the answer to the same question that was asked earlier.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 16

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

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On Section 7.

MR. LEVI: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's appropriate that we deal with the question that we asked the minister. I don't want to be repetitive; I just want to go over something.

We've asked him, and we've asked him continually,

[ Page 2491 ]

what information he has made available to the House that substantiated some of the statements he's made that this bill is necessary. He said that he tabled documents in the House. He didn't table documents; he tabled a document - this document. You know, he's got in his department a section in his budget which comes to something on the order.... Well, this year it's going to be about $3.5 million for computing and consulting services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't believe that is relevant under this section.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with the section.... We were told by that minister that he tabled information. He tabled one piece of information, which is just a catalogue of the values of the estates. He didn't even go as far as doing any kind of analysis that Mr. Stow did. It's simply a statement of the number of estates that were filed, how much money was collected, and what percentage of the various.... This is what he calls research.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: This is all the study that he's done.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: It's under section 7. It's quite in order.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Is that all you can do for $3.5 million worth of services in the department - produce that piece of paper?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the only relevant debate under this section would pertain to those people who died prior to the Act coming into force.

MR. LEVI: Oh, Mr. Chairman! We're dealing with the 1975 figures here. These are the estates we're dealing with.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, don't cut in on the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is cautioning you that only discussion with respect to those persons who died prior to the Act coming ...

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... prior to January the 24th.

MR. LEVI: We haven't passed the Act yet, Mr. Chairman. We haven't passed it. We're still dealing with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: All I'm trying to get out of this minister is: is this the only recent information that his $3.5 million operation in his department has come up with to substantiate the reasons for this bill? This is absolutely ludicrous.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Can't you wait? You're almost ghoulish in your demand for money.

MR. LEVI: Now I'm asking the minister: is this the sum total of the research that his department did in terms of finding out about succession duties?

MR. BARRETT: You're a bad boy, Bill.

MR. LEVI: Is it the sum total? Is this it?

MR. BARRETT: You're a bad boy, Bill. You might not get all the money you think you're going to get.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver-Burrard brings up a very succinct and very good point. He says very quickly that the only research that's been done over what has occurred -and that really is what this section is all about - is a piece of paper which gives some bare-bones facts without any kind of flow of information. Mr. Chairman, it would indicate to me that what the minister has tried to do is to confuse the issue. He's tried to confuse the issue by presenting no positive information that could be useful in debate on this particular question. There is impression after impression, but nothing conclusive - not one single....

MR. BARRETT: Scandalous haste!

MR. COCKE: Exactly - haste, but not one single argument in support of the position that that government has taken in support of their friends and in support of their own position as millionaires.

MR. LEVI: We're not asking the minister anything difficult, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only evidence they have is medical.

MR. LEVI: I see the Attorney -General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is back in the House. He should get up and speak on this. He had a lot to say in 1972. We're not asking him anything difficult. Is this the sum total of

[ Page 2492 ]

the research which substantiates the reasons for this bill, or do you have something else? We're told by Mr. Stow, in his analysis of exactly the same figures, that 96 per cent of these estates didn't pay any succession duties. Now is this the sum total? Or did he intend to table other documents and he didn't? He said "documents" when he answered the question before.

When I went to the clerk's office to look I found only one document - one measly little document that evidently cost something like $3.5 million to produce. It's disgusting that they can do no better than this in that department. We asked the minister before if he is going to be able to tell us next year. He has a $3.5 million research department. Just exactly what benefit has the province gained as a result of removing this legislation? He sits there. He doesn't say anything. He doesn't know anything. Yet he's trying to flimflam this House and he suggests that he tabled some documents which provided information. He has provided no information that was not available to the public. We understood that he had some other information particularly relating to the amount of money that would come into the province. But he hasn't provided anything.

Now does the minister have any other information? He said "documents" and I can only find one document. He said "documents." Did he forget to file something?

The minister is inquiring from his staff, Mr. Chairman. We should be able to get an answer from him anytime now. Are there any more documents, because he said "documents" when he made the statement? Perhaps the minister would indicate to us if there is other information which he can provide us with. Just a nod will do, or a wave of the hand or any kind of indication. Pick his hand up, Mr. Minister of Mines, and we'll know.

MR. BARRETT: It doesn't affect you. You were never wise enough to inherit a rich father.

MR. LEVI: Anyone in the Liberal Party, go get a cup of tea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, order!

MR. LEVI: Now, Mr. Chairman, just once again to the minister: does he have any other documents, because he indicated to this House that he tabled "documents"? I can only find one document - one piece of information.

AN HON. MEMBER: He says nothing.

MR. LEVI: Exactly. It says nothing - no analysis and no projections - just the straight bare-bones facts. Mr. Stow did much better than that without the backup of $3.5 million. Shocking!

MR. SKELLY: How about a memo from the Premier?

MRS. WALLACE: It's obvious the minister is not going to reply because there is no reply. He has no other documents. He has no other information. The only information that he has goes to prove the fact that this is an unnecessary piece of legislation. It proves just the opposite to the direction he's going, and he is not prepared to file any information because there are no hard facts to prove that this legislation will do what he says it's going to do.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this section is very short. It says: "This Act is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on or after January 24,1977."

AN HON. MEMBER: "On and after."

MR. BARRETT: "On and after." It was within hours after the delivery of the budget speech in this House. It was the fastest action that this government took on any issue which I know of, and it was to protect their own self-interest as inheritors of millions of dollars. This says that everybody who went to bed with a warm cup of Ovaltine, wrapped in blankets, and made it past midnight, would guarantee to pass on their money to the rich people of this province -11 millionaires over there who, as soon and as quickly as they could, protected their own self-interest in making sure that if anybody passed on, their rewards to the inheritors would stay in place. You ask the handicapped if they've had any immediate retroactive legislation - not on your life! You ask the working people of this province if they've had any immediate retroactive legislation - not on your life! You ask the small businessmen - not on your life! You ask the people who work on the ferries - not on your life! But on the death of millionaires, they looked after themselves.

This is the most scandalous piece of haste that I have ever seen passed in this House. "This shall be retroactive. . . ." How you used to cry and yell and moan about any suspicion of retroactive legislation! And this session says that everybody who made it past midnight, with Ovaltine and warm blankets, will have their money passed on to the rich kids who run this province. The rich kids' gang has no philosophy and it's no party! Social Credit is just an umbrella for the rich kids' gang who are second and third generations living off inherited wealth and who are protecting their inherited wealth without doing a lick of work themselves to earn a buck. You tell people to

[ Page 2493 ]

go out and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The trouble with people in this province is that they haven't had the gumption to go out and inherit rich parents like you have. That's what's wrong with the little people in this province. Go out there and tell them to get smart and get parents who are rich and show that they have some initiative.

"Retroactive to January 24." You're looking after yourselves. The rich kids' gang is in office in British Columbia, and you've got the nerve to make it retroactive. It was in almost indecent haste. You were hoping that no one would kick the bucket so their money could be passed on safely and secure in the strong boxes to every one of you. Eleven millionaires over there, while people in this province haven't even got enough money to put decent food on their plates. You threaten workers in every jurisdiction of Crown corporations, but you make sure that you put a section in here to inherit your own money and gorge it back on yourselves. You pride yourselves with the initiative you had in bringing in this legislation. You're not fooling anybody. You're a rich kids' government, looking after the rich and the rich only. You smile, you smirk; you giggle. Frankly, you don't give a dam for the ordinary citizen of this province.

You've not proven one bit that there's been any further investment, and then you tell us that you're preventing the withdrawal of funds from this province. Could you explain to us how come every year we've made more and more and more money from these taxes if the rich people were pulling out of the province? What a sham! What a mockery!

A rich kids' gang running the province, benefiting the rich kids, and you want to make sure that no one kicked the bucket before you have your chance to lock up your own money. You don't care for ordinary people, and this section proves it. Action? You wouldn't give a fig about taking action for widows, for the handicapped, or anyone else, but when it comes to looking after yourselves - overnight legislation. We know who you think about. Greed, your own selfish interest - and the ordinary people be damned.

Section 8 approved.

On the title.

MR. LEVI: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, on the Succession Duty Repeal Act title is that it be changed to the Socred Millionaires Relief Act. That's what it is - it's a relief Act. It's the only relief Act we've had in this House, and it's for millionaires.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not in order. It would require an amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Why? That's what it is. 'AU you consider the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you moving an amendment, hon. member?

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm moving an amendment that it be called the Socred Millionaires Relief Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have the amendment in writing, hon. member?

MR. LEVI: You want the amendment in writing?

AN HON. MEMBER: One moment and we'll give it to you.

MR. BARRETT: I think it's appropriate that a social worker give relief to the millionaires.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have to rule this amendment out of order as being a mere trifling amendment.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You don't make that decision. What rule are you relating it to? You don't dare make that kind of judgment. There's no ruling that says that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the amendment has been ruled out of order.

MR. BARRETT: For what reason?

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like you specifically to tell us why it's out of order and what reference you have to rule it out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is a mere trifling amendment, and therefore I rule it out of order. That order stands.

MR. BARRETT: Would you please give me the reference in May or Beauchesne or standing orders where it says this would be an appropriate ruling?

[ Page 2494 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. They never heard of Socreds in May or Beauchesne. How could it be?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I cite for you the 17th edition of May, page 551, No. (8): "Amendments which are vague, trifling or tendered in the spirit of mockery are held to be out of order." This amendment is therefore out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, are you informing this House that you are ruling this out of order because it is a mockery? We certainly cannot challenge it, because this whole Act is a mockery.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 16

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Succession Duty Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 12, Succession Duty Repeal Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 16

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

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): This is a matter affecting the privilege of members of this House and also of the 30th Legislative Assembly. I have here a letter addressed to the secretary-treasurer of the Powell River Regional District. It says:

"Receipt is acknowledged of your communication of February 24, respecting the Strata Titles Act. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the legislation was both enacted and proclaimed by the previous administration. The so-called loophole to which you make reference did not arise through haste or imperfect legislative draftsmanship. On the contrary, it represented the stated and deliberate policy of that administration, and its shortcomings are now visible for all to see.

"In contrast, the views of this administration can be found in the statement made in the Legislature by the Minister of Housing, the Hon. Hugh Curtis, on behalf of both of us, and the subsequent press release. Copies are enclosed and are self-explanatory.

[ Page 2495 ]

Yours truly, K. Rafe Mair, Minister."

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this legislation was passed by the 30th Legislative Assembly. It was subject to debate by members of all sides of the House. It was not opposed by any division recorded in the Journals of the House. I read in that second paragraph an imputation of wrongdoing, of the deliberate couching of some loophole, which has led to some unfortunate interpretations being made of this Act. To my knowledge, it has not been tested in court as to whether or not those loopholes are proper.

I would like you to take this under advisement, Mr. Speaker. I file this for your information.

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it, hon. member, you are raising this as a matter of privilege?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Then it will be looked at on that basis, hon. member, and I'll report back to the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call, please, second reading of Bill 11, Gift Tax Repeal Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

AN HON. MEMBER: You agreed that that not be called.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not agreed it's not going to be called.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've called Bill 11. -

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 11, Gift Tax Repeal Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't really understand the astonishment of the official opposition, Mr. Speaker. No. 1, it's been on the order paper since January 24; it's companion legislation ...

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... No. 3 ....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General jumps up.... Yesterday in the hall I was given an undertaking ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Now just a minute ... by the Whip that we were going into estimates today, and I said fine. So I used up my major speakers on Bill 11. This morning, when I found out we were going on to Bill 11, I said: "Will you excuse Bill 11 and go on to Bill 16 after going through Bill 12?" It was just a courtesy from the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the discussions in meetings which take place between Whips beyond the walls of this chamber have no bearing within the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you're not ready, that's satisfactory. We'll move on to Bill 16. I'll call Bill 16 then.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, rather than calling Bill 11, the Gift Tax Repeal Act. . . . Although I would like to mention to the official opposition that by virtue of the fact it is companion legislation, it would be greatly appreciated if the opposition would be prepared and organized to debate the bill as soon as possible.

I call second reading of Bill 16.

Before doing that, I would very much like to ask the hon. members if they'd be kind enough, with leave, to join me in welcoming to the Speaker's gallery my niece, Miss Tammy Butters, and my daughter, Miss Brione Gardom, whom I see sitting up there.

PSYCHOLOGISTS ACT

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the need for statutory regulation covering the provision of psychological services in British Columbia is the reason for the introduction of this bill. There has been considerable evidence of serious abuse of the public by persons who are unqualified but who offer psychological services. That evidence has reached such a level that the following organizations have officially expressed their concerns: the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the mental-health programmes of the Department of Health, the Attorney-General's department, the Canadian Mental Health Association and The British Columbia Psychological Association. There has been no way in which a responsible resolution of these complaints could be achieved due to the absence of statutory control over the practice of psychology.

[ Page 2496 ]

There are three broad areas in particular where psychologists affect the public. First of all, there is the delivery of mental-health services, both as psychologists within established institutions as well as private practitioners. As a result of psychologists within the school system, students can be directed in and out of a great variety of various programmes in the educational system. Then psychologists provide assessments which are used routinely and widely in the selection and promotion of personnel in the private-enterprise sector of our system.

The trend of recent letters and calls of complaint over the past five years from persons who have sought psychological services indicates many instances of suffered abuse of a very serious nature and that that rate of abuse is increasing dramatically. The lack of statutory control over the provisions of psychological services offered to the public in this province has made it possible for unprofessional persons to provide all kinds of services. The problem appears to be growing steadily worse, as evidenced by the increases in the number of complainants who have been sufficiently disturbed to outline and document their~ experiences to my office.

There is evidence, as well, that British Columbia is now attracting unqualified practitioners, since we are one of the last areas in North America without legislative control over the practice of psychology. Forty-eight of the United States and six of the provinces now have such legislation.

Recent complaints cover a very wide area of concern ranging from sexual abuse, promises of cures for migraine headaches, for blindness, for depression, as well as a demand for payments for services which have not yet been rendered. Complaints also include psychological services being offered by persons with no background or formal training in psychology, however holding themselves out to the public to have that kind of training.

There have been a lot of strategies tried already by various organizations, the B.C. Psychological Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons to reduce the public risk. Unfortunately, these have largely been of no avail. Public education courses, radio, television and newspaper articles and other approaches have been utilized, but in spite of these efforts at non-legislative control, the frequency and boldness of reported increases is still steadily on the rise.

In view of this, it is the wish of this government to bring forth a bill ensuring statutory control of psychologists and therefore safeguarding the public good, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I understand and relate to the minister's concern about some of the malpractice and quackery that has gone on in this field. However, I'm not convinced that this is the way to solve the problem. Indeed, I'm not convinced that this bill in fact does solve the problem, as I've indicated to the minister. The bill, it would seem to me, can set up just one more self-regulating, rather elitist body and can serve, in effect, to mislead the public as to what a psychologist really is or what a psychologist really does.

I would suggest that very often the general public can have a somewhat inaccurate perception of what a psychologist does. Most people see a psychologist as a counsellor, a community worker, someone possibly with ecclesiastical training, who may assist in the community with counselling parents and with individuals on social problems and marriage problems and things of that nature. These people may or may not have a "proper" psychology degree. However, they may or may not be very effective in what they do. A tremendous number of people in the field with masters degrees - with doctorate degrees, indeed -know absolutely nothing about social or community problems, know nothing about counselling. That's not because they're irresponsible or because they're stupid but merely because that hasn't been the nature of their studies.

They have dealt with behavioural problems and spent their time doing research in universities and, in fact, these people with this kind of training - and very good training indeed - could become "acceptable" under this Act and the people who are really doing the kind of community work, often at little or no remuneration to themselves, could find themselves still in business but hanging out a different kind of shingle. In the meantime, the charlatans would simply carry on as before, calling themselves something other than psychologists and certainly not pretending to practise psychology in any form, because that would be prohibited by the bill. But they would certainly still be in business. That's what really concerns me.

The government across the way has on numerous occasions decried the fact that perhaps our society is overregulated. It has decried the fact that possibly we are overgoverned, and yet here we have a bill being brought in by the government which provides, in my opinion, excess governmental control in a field in which it's not necessarily needed - certainly not necessarily needed in this way. But that would only be part of the problem, Mr. Speaker, if there was government influence or control. In fact, we're giving that overregulation and powers of overgoverning not to the government, but the government's handing it over to a private body.

Let's face it, when you get people together with the same interests, human nature being what it is, they tend to make decisions from self-interest, very often, not necessarily from community interest. Very often self-interest and community interest are the same thing, and that's fine when it is, but quite often,

[ Page 2497 ]

as we know from many other fields, when you get a group of people together with governing powers, self-regulatory powers, with a common professional background and a common field, in fact they begin to make decisions which look after themselves and set them up as an empire and aren't necessarily benefiting the public. That's really my concern.

I would also feel that perhaps the way to go about this problem of inadequate registration or licensing ... and this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not provide for any licensing by government. It merely applies for registration where a private society can say whether somebody is kosher or not in a particular field. I would think that there is a need for a comprehensive bill, Mr. Speaker - an omnibus bill that would cover all of the professional and health workers in the province, that would legitimize the legitimate people and define quite clearly those practitioners, in public and in private, whose qualifications and operations are by any reasonable assessment certainly not in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just read into the record remarks by someone who is in the field, He is a professor of psychology in the United States in a recognized university. He spends several paragraphs getting into all the very good reasons - essentially similar remarks to what the minister made as to why there should be licensing and registration. He's giving all the professional arguments usually given by the "psychological fraternity, " as he calls it. He says:

"After all, licensing protects the populace against the unethical and incompetent pseudo-professional. It sets up standards for training and conduct that can be overseen by a quasi-legal body. On top of all that, it makes the licensee feel that he or she belongs and is approved of. Who can be against that?"

However, further on down he says:

"As I was sitting there applying my test-taking wisdom to the standardized exam used in most states for psychological licensure, it was clear to me that it was designed to exclude . . ."

Note that, Mr. Speaker.

". . . a certain type of person. It was also clear that it wasn't designed to eliminate the person who doesn't know much about counselling or psychotherapy, or even the person who doesn't know much about the major personality theories or the major assessment devices. The test seemed designed to eliminate those who weren't, heavy in research design, statistics, scaling and learning theory, et al.

"I'm positive that all my experimental colleagues, whose most therapeutic endeavour is coaxing a rat out of a start box, could do superbly on the test. The test seemed designed to sort out the person who may have come to psychological practice by some route other than the traditional psych major avenue, and yet the majority of the people taking the exam will use the licence as a certificate of competency as a counsellor or a psychotherapist."

I think that that enunciates my concerns in a very adequate way. I'm not going to carry on too far with the article because I'm sure all the members can read it, but he confirms my feelings on the issue where he says:

"A second drawback I state sorrowfully -there are as many certified charlatans and exploiters of people as there are uncertified.

"The third drawback is that the urge towards professionalism builds up a rigid bureaucracy, not even a government bureaucracy."

I think those are primarily my concerns. If I was convinced, those reservations notwithstanding, that the bill was going to solve the problem, I think I could be at least neutral on it. As I said, I think it's an honest effort on the part of the minister to solve what I think everyone will concede is a problem, but I think it's a clumsy effort. I think it's a heavy-handed effort. I think it's an effort which takes the responsibility for solving the problem out of the purview of the government. It is discriminatory against some people in society.

Indeed, I can see that for those who are using psychological services, once you set up a small, rigid, elitist board, the kind of fees that individuals may pay - and even the state may pay - for these kinds of services could go up. Perhaps there's some room for improvement in the fees that people get for these kinds of services. As I said, in many cases some of our best counselling psychologists and psychotherapists are working for nothing or next to nothing. Indeed they're not even being paid by the individual; they're being paid by churches or people making charitable donations.

Perhaps there is some room for improvement there - some recognition that these people do really do a service in the community in putting people's lives back together and keeping families together, saving marriages, counselling people with suicidal tendencies and people with criminal tendencies ... such as that nature which, no doubt, not only eases suffering in society but saves a great deal of public expenditure in correction.

It's the old "prevention is worth a pound of cure" bromide, but I don't think this bill is going to solve any of that. I don't think this bill is going to do what it is supposed to do, because I think it's clumsy and I think it's directed in the wrong direction and that, in fact, it's going to set up another elitist body which is going to have the capacity, capacity that they take to their own bosoms to overgovern and overregulate the field for their own professional

[ Page 2498 ]

purposes. There's no question that there is need for regulation and no question that there is need for some governing, but I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is the way to do it.

I sincerely feel that this bill should be considered by a committee of the House - a select standing committee. It's the kind of Act for which, I think, there's been pressure on not just this minister but a number of ministers before him. The former member for Vancouver South (Mr. Loffmark) , when he was minister, had this request put to him on a number of occasions and, indeed, rejected it. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) who is still in this House, when he was Health minister had the same kinds of influences put upon him. He, in his judgment, decided - as had Mr. Loffmark - that the minuses far outweighed the pluses.

The present minister, of course, has his own judgment and makes his own decisions, and need not be bound by decisions that have gone before him. He is the minister today. But I'm sorry that a little more thought wasn't given this bill, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, I don't think it's too late. I think the subject matter of the bill could be referred to either the health, education and welfare committee, which is an all-party committee of which the minister is a member and on which the government has a majority of members, to amend or reconsider, or it could simply be referred to the standing committee on standing orders and private bills. I'm not going to make the motion at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I think that if the government agreed with it, or wanted to do it, they're fully capable of doing it themselves. I firmly feel that this bill is heavy-handed and goes too far, and does not really solve the problem that it sets out to resolve.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): First of all, if the House might permit me, I would like to welcome some good friends from Port Angeles, Washington, Mr. and Mrs. LeRoy Kuest, who are sitting in the gallery today.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the procedure suggested, although not moved, by the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) would be a good way to handle this bill.

I know that the intention of the minister is good here, but I wonder what the effect is. I've read the bill quite carefully. Were the effect simply to control the use of the name "psychologist" - that particular professional designation - and form a professional body that might use it and represent themselves as such, and enforce standards, and so on, I would have no objection. But as I read the bill, it goes well beyond that, and controls the provision of service in the areas that are described as the practice of psychology, which really covers a very broad ambit. I'll just read this definition out, because it's important, Mr. Speaker.

"The practice of psychology includes the provision to individuals, groups or organizations or the public, of any service involving the application of principles, methods and procedures of understanding, predicting and influencing behaviour, including the principles of learning, perception, motivation, thinking, emotion, and interpersonal relationships; or the application of methods and procedures of interviewing, counselling, psychotherapy, behaviour therapy, behaviour modification, hypnosis research; or the construction, administration and interpretation of tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interest, opinions, attitudes, emotions, personality characteristics, motivations and psycho-physiological characteristics in the assessment or diagnosis of behavioural, emotional and mental disorder."

That's a very broad net that is cast by this bill, Mr. Speaker. It would seem to me to bring within its ambit, for example, such persons as counsellors in high schools or the clergy. The question is whether they are doing it for money, I suppose. But one could say that high school counsellors are being paid to do their work. It may not be on a fee-for-service basis, but it says all of this is for a fee or reward, monetary or otherwise. I'll be glad to hear what the minister says on second reading about this, but surely a high school counsellor or a clergyman does fall into that category.

If it does constitute a control of the service, I share the concerns of the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) as to what really constitutes the outer margins of useful service in this enormous field of personal and emotional concerns, where what will be useful to one person might be entirely useless to another. Nevertheless, should that option be stopped? Some of the more experimental meditation techniques, let us say, or some of the Gestalt schools in California, as I see it, are the kinds of things that would be regulated by this Act.

I'll tell you why I think that. The prohibition section in this Act is section 16. Section 16 has the following conjunction clause, subsection (1): "No person shall engage in or carry on the practice of psychology and represent himself as a psychologist unless he is registered under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, I have read to you the definition of the practice of psychology and it's a very broad description. It remains only to add the definition of a psychologist, which - again from the definition section - means: "A person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology." The person's qualifications presumably would be assessed by the board set up within this Act, and therefore that person has to be a registered psychologist. So in fact, this Act, as I see it - this may not be the intention of the government

[ Page 2499 ]

but as I see it and as I read the plain words here -regulates too closely a very broad sphere of human activity in ways. it ought not to be regulated. I thought to myself that perhaps I had misread it. But then I went on to section 18, and section 18 mentioned certain exclusions which says to me that if they are excluding these kinds of people, then it must catch others of this sort of person up in the net if they are not benefited by this specific exclusion within section 18.

For example, within section 18 there is no exclusion of a clergyman. One could very properly argue - and the government could argue if they so wished in enforcing this Act - that a clergyman, in fact, has an important part of his duties in counselling people and he receives monetary reward for the business of being a clergyman. Therefore he has to be controlled somehow under this Act. Even the possibility of that, Mr. Speaker, bothers me enormously.

I would also say, in discussing the principle -there will be more detail when we get to committee stage - that the regulatory board of the psychology society, or whatever it might be called, that is set up should, as a matter of law, include outsiders. As I read it right now, the board is to be elected from members of the society - registered psychologists.

Increasingly in this province we have at least been giving lip service to the concept that regulatory boards ought to contain members of the general public. We have even been arguing, and I've argued , myself, that the Law Society should contain among its governing body ordinary persons - not just one or two as tokenism, but enough there to bring to the Law Society that viewpoint of the ordinary person. That tightest closed shop in the province needs that kind of outside control.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. If it says that, I apologize to you, because I had not seen that. I had seen: ". . . each of whom shall be a member in good standing of the society."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about "board, " page 2.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Section 4 (4) ? It just says, the sixth member of the board, " as near as I can see.

Section 4 (2) says: ". . . shall appoint five members of the first board, each of whom shall be a member in good standing of that society." I see nothing here about a lay member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will check it out for you.

MR. GIBSON: I have that concern, Mr. Speaker. I was unable to find any reference to a lay member. If the minister can find it in the Act, I'll be glad to have it pointed out to me. But if, as he says, it would just be one, I still think that is not enough.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, who is not controlled as to one way or the other but who could very well be a psychologist, for all we know. There is no legal requirement, in other words, that a lay person should be a member of that board, as I read the Act.

I'm not at all against what I think is the government's intent here. What I'm trying to suggest is that there is a certain amount of further thinking that should be done on this and some kind of an opportunity to hear representations from persons who are in the field and might perceive concerns that we in this House, in our relatively inexpert fashion, have no way of knowing at this time at all. I've received some correspondence on it and there may be other people who would wish to exhibit a point of view.

Accordingly, like the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) , I won't move a motion at this time; but I would hope that the government would give very serious consideration to referring this legislation to the committee on standing orders and private bills where, for example, we're looking at just such a submission from the accredited public accountants right now. We are able to go through it in detail. We are able to hear from the accredited public accountants, the chartered accountants and the certified general accountants, and they're all saying whether a new society should be formed by law or not, given their own Act.

The same thing should be done with the Psychologists Act, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. Accordingly, I will listen to the minister when he closes second reading before deciding how I will vote. But I do have to tell him that, as it is currently drafted and with the procedure we're going through, I am very concerned with it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because both in personal research on the matter and from my knowledge of discussions which I had with the former government and, in fact, the government before that, there is no question that in an area as important to human beings individually, such as the area of psychology, there must be some reasonable assurance that where individuals seek advice under the designation of psychological advice, they're about to receive what is being advertised or offered or made

[ Page 2500 ]

available to them. This is the whole crux of this particular bill.

I won't be repetitious because the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) did repeat the definitions that are covered in this bill as to what encompasses the whole range of psychological services. While I agree with the Liberal leader's emphasis on the wide range, I think we could be even a little less wide-ranging and just mention that when you use a phrase such as "behaviour therapy" or "behaviour. modification" you are dealing with a very powerful influence which individual psychologists can have over other individuals. It is very close to practising medicine. So that we don't get sidetracked into semantics, I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is to look at the realistic, practical impact in society rather than to argue as to whether psychologists may be practising medicine or not. It is the impact that the adviser and the counsellor, or whatever other title they might have, has on the emotional well-being and the subsequent behaviour of the individual receiving the advice. That's a pretty powerful, influential position for anyone to have under the designation of psychologist.

I just believe that we have to have a very high standard of professional ability and a reasonable measure of scrutiny of each and every person who has, within his or her power, the opportunity to give this kind of professional advice.

The problem in these debates is always that we are running the risk of taking away certain rights from honourable, honest individuals who are not abusing the present system where there is lack of specific legislation. We've all received a copy of some of the correspondence from lay hypnotists, for example, who I think in many respects have indeed provided a very useful service. That would be one of my reservations about this bill; many persons who can prove to have provided a useful and safe measure of service - whether it be lay hypnotism or counselling or some of these other services so designated - may not, within the intent of this new bill, meet the academic criteria.

One of the particular letters that all the members of the opposition have received from a lay hypnotist would indicate that physicians in that area, for example, have been well satisfied with the measure of help that that particular person has been able to provide. I don't know enough about the specific details to speak for or against that individual. I am just saying, Mr. Speaker, that while I certainly support the principle of the bill, the goal it has and what I think it will accomplish, I do have the reservation that in granting this authority to the board of directors which will be constituted from members of the B.C. psychologists' association, I hope the initiative and the spectrum of the board's efforts will be wide enough to ensure that there is not some absolutely rigid regulation laid down that you have to have a certain university degree and if you don't have that degree there's just no way you can practise as a psychologist.

Now I feel that there may well be many individuals in our society providing a measure of service in this field who may not have a specific degree but who, I hope, might be able to qualify under the Act other than by the so-called grandfather clause, which I think is section 19. There's a very important phrase there, and I am sure the minister knows it very well. I think at the end of section 19 it refers to persons demonstrating that they have had "professional experience in the practice of psychology acceptable to the board." I would like the minister, in closing second reading, to indicate if he feels that part of the section, which may well have been written in for this very purpose, would ensure that where a person is presently providing a service and can be shown to have done so adequately, safely and in a thoroughly professional manner, but where that person may not have a degree in psychology, that that particular person might be the one who could continue to provide service and not suddenly find that his livelihood is completely cut off in this particular province.

This is a relative matter. I still believe very much that the bill per se is a good one and should be proceeded with, and I will vote for it. But there is a great deal of power in the bill under the bylaws. I notice that in one particular section the board may define the words "misconduct" and "incompetence" for the purpose of the bylaws. Since we are breaking new ground in this particular professional area, I would be a little happier if we could have found a more specific definition of how they will determine what constitutes misconduct and incompetence. I say that again simply because of the very expensive definition of the practice of psychology.

Now in the medical field I well realize that the College of Physicians and Surgeons exercises that same power regarding misconduct and incompetence. But in the general medical field it's probably a little easier, I would think, to determine misconduct and incompetence than it is.... Let's deal specifically with incompetence because I think we all know that in the area of misconduct we are talking more in terms of moral behaviour and the area of ethics, whereas incompetence deals more specifically with a person's capacity to do the professional job in which they are engaging.

That wide definition of the practice of psychology.... It's not only wide, but in many ways it is vague. I personally would have great difficulty, perhaps, trying to decide in, let us say, the area of behaviour modification whether a person was competent or incompetent to advise in that area. The point made by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

[ Page 2501 ]

D'Arcy) is reasonable, too - that many people with professional degrees might not have taken their particular training or study in that field and yet might, under the bill, at least if they choose, be qualified to offer behaviour modification. So I just am relatively uncertain as to the wisdom of deciding that the board, in an area such as is defined as the practice of psychology, should have such complete power to determine what constitutes incompetence.

One of the other areas which the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) touched upon was counselling in the schools. While I mean to raise this issue in some detail during the estimates of the Minister of Education, I really am quite uneasy about the somewhat loose way in which counselling is provided in the schools in terms of the person who gives the counselling. I want to make it very plain that what research I've done shows that the teachers involved are certainly highly motivated, and I don't question their motives at all. I'm just saying that once again, if we're dealing with professional qualifications and background and training to give counselling to juveniles, to teenagers who are, as we all know, at an age where they can be very impressionable, and if the advice of the counsellor-is not of a high professional standard, the efforts of the counsellor can do more harm than good. So I wonder if in winding up the debate on second reading the minister would make some passing comment on how he views this bill applying to counsellors in our high schools.

On that point, I would specifically like him to tell us if he considers that section 18 is the section that covers the question I have raised, where "teaching, lecturing or engaging in research" under an academic appointment or, programme in a university would mean that the psychologist need not be registered under this bill and conform to the provisions of this bill. As I read that particular part of the bill it relates only to the universities operating under the Universities Act. It does not specifically relate to high schools.

It would seem to me that the literal interpretation of this bill must be, therefore, that teachers counselling in high schools will no longer be able to do so unless they meet all the other requirements of the bill. Maybe that is not the case, or maybe the board of directors will draw up regulations to outline what degree of academic training school counsellors must demonstrate. There again, that would leave this debate, of course, somewhat inadequate in that we don't know what the regulations will be. We're dealing with general principles in the bill without knowing the specific way in which the bill might apply to teachers who serve as counsellors in the high schools.

As far as that goes, Mr. Speaker, I had referred earlier to the so-called grandfather clause which would allow any person practising as a psychologist prior to the proclamation of this bill three years to be included as a member of the B.C. Psychological Association. I wonder if the minister could mention why three years is the particular time frame that was selected. It would seem to me that is quite a long time for present individuals practising as psychologists to have a chance or to make up their minds if they're to seek registration.

In closing my comments, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I don't think there has perhaps been enough emphasis on the masons why this bill is necessary. I've no wish to read out names or appear to be attacking or castigating any particular person, but I did make some considerable inquiries both with the College of ' Physicians and Surgeons and with the psychologists, and there is no doubt that over a period of years, on an ongoing basis, there are persons who can hang out a shingle and call themselves Doctor So-and-so and profess to be a psychologist when in point of fact they simply are not trained to undertake the very important job or profession which can have so much impact on the patients who seek their help.

Back in 1975, one particularly serious example was a person who came here from Texas and who, in fact, had jumped bail in Texas on a charge of having assaulted a female while he was conducting the practice of psychology in Texas. He was practising here in Vancouver, I understand from one of the psychologists with whom I discussed the matter that although charges were not pursued in this province, there were at least two other women who reported to the police that they considered they had been assaulted but they didn't wish to push the matter.

This particular situation was revealed - this was back in October, 1975 - and I think we have to thank The Vancouver Sun on that occasion. As I recall, they investigated the matter. When it became public knowledge, that same gentleman left the province within a few days of the matter being publicized. There are other examples where the community is ' at risk in being influenced by the professional title of psychologist when not only can the advice be less than useful but might in fact be very seriously harmful to the individual.

I've also received letters over the last few years from different persons who have sought psychological advice and who have been perturbed at the lack of real evidence that the person was qualified. But they were quite impressed by the fees that were being charged.

I gather that that first individual to whom I referred a moment ago would ask for several thousands of dollars in fees prior to embarking upon claiming to cure such problems as homosexuality. We know that our medical brethren don't really understand some of these problems, let alone know how to cure them. When we have other persons with

[ Page 2502 ]

limited professional training making that claim and advertising that they can do so, and charging very large sums of money to innocent people seeking help for their problems, I think that we do have to balance the restrictive nature of this bill against the responsibility of protecting society as a whole.

It's a little bit like the seatbelt legislation, Mr. Speaker. You hate to have to impose certain conditions on certain groups in society, but we must never lose sight of the fact that the right of the individual always has to be balanced against the rights of others and the rights of the community as a whole.

Although I recognize some of the reservations of the member for Rossland-Trail, I think that in the total concept this bill is necessary. It is a good bill. It has some areas that I hope the minister might try to improve. For these reasons, I feel it is a bill which I have no hesitation in supporting.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): I, too, feel that the bill is a very sound one. There are, however, one or two questions I would like to ask the minister to answer when he sums up. Basically it involves the concern that has been expressed to me about the broad definition that will encompass those who fall under this Act and the concern that has been expressed regarding the possible application of this to those who would be in religious instruction, teacher counselling or youth counselling.

While I appreciate the wording in section 16 (l) of the Act, I think it is very important that those individuals who have expressed this concern have their minds set at ease on this. I was just wondering if the minister, in summation, could possibly spend a little bit of time on this particular field so that those people would not have that continuing concern.

I do not have that continuing concern. I believe section 16 does outline that extremely well. But if the minister would spend a little bit of time on that, I'm sure those other people would appreciate it as well.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have some grave concerns about this bill, around the question of how much input has gone into the bill at the present time and about who is out there counselling now - how much good work they're doing. I don't want to look at red herrings around malpractice in any particular area. It even occurs in the medical business.

But we have the same kinds of concerns that the minister has - that there are people out there who are hanging up shingles and who are putting themselves before the public as something that maybe they're not. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is one opportunity for us to ask for some input.

This is not a political situation. This is purely a health matter - a matter concerning all of us on all sides of the House - as to what direction should be taken. Most people know that I felt there should be an umbrella piece of legislation - that is, a piece of legislation that would encompass all the practitioners, professional or semi-professional - so that we get away from the empires that are created through bills such as this.

Now many of us have had a great deal of experience with the Podiatry Act. It's possibly the most recent Act that would give a group such as this the right to run their own affairs and to decide who was in and who was out, et cetera.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Health, Education and Welfare committee was activated and was given an opportunity to hear witnesses and listen to all sides of this question, it strikes me that we could then come in with a report that would give us a far, far better idea of where to go. Right now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one group is being heard, and one group only. I don't really think that that's good enough.

So I believe that the minister, giving careful thought to a suggestion that I have.... I'll make it more than a suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I'll give him an opportunity to debate it because I want to move the following motion:

That the motion that Bill 16 be read a second time now be amended as follows:

To strike out all the words after the word "that" and substitute the following:

"Bill 16 be not read a second time now, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I find the amendment in order inasmuch as it refers to referring the subject matter of the bill to a committee. So the motion as prepared by the hon. member for New Westminster is in order.

I would point out to all of the hon. members that the debate at the present time is now limited to the desirability of referring the subject matter of the bill to a committee of the House.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment because it would give an opportunity for the committee to hear from a number of people not only in the field of psychology but also in the total area of the people business, where people are doing various work - lay people and people who have training up to various levels in terms of the health services.

We have not had this kind of opportunity for some years. In 1973 the committee the member recommends should look at the bill traveled the province on another issue not related to the helping profession so much as in other areas.

It's been suggested that there should be a piece of legislation which would be sort of umbrella legislation. That kind of opportunity should be made

[ Page 2503 ]

available to people to discuss at the committee level. I think it is important that the professions have an opportunity to give some input. I'm not aware that there's a great deal of material available from these professions on how they specifically feel about the bill. It would give us an opportunity to look at the bill, to look at the desirability of whether it should be continued with or whether in fact the advice of the committee would be that the minister might want to come back into the House at some later date with a completely new bill. The opportunity, as well, for the committee to sit and consider this matter would be, I think, very much in line with the thinking of the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) who felt that there was something haphazard and hasty about this piece of legislation. Therefore putting it into committee would give more time for that kind of consideration.

We are going to have to have, sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity for people in these professions to come to such a committee and to present their views. One of the things is that the government is very heavily involved in funding a number of organizations where many people are lay people. Some of them are professionals, but all are in the field of helping people. There does need to be some kind of order brought to it in terms of standardizing or ordering the kinds of qualifications that people have. It's not done in any way.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker - and this would be an opportunity for the committee - that we're not going to exclude people simply because they don't have a university degree. But it's necessary to be able to set the boundaries of just how far people can go in terms of what they do - and that's important. I think the committee should have an opportunity to be able to question people on what it is they do do - for instance, psychologists.

For some years I personally had some very serious concerns about some of the groups that operate and some of the kinds of therapies that are done. It's necessary for that kind of hearing to take place, and it should take place. An excellent body is the standing committee of the House. Although the bill is somewhat narrow because it deals with psychologists, there are all sorts of other people who are not so peripheral to the operation of the work that these people do, and we should have an opportunity to hear from all of them.

It's not just because the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is interested in this thing. It touches, for instance, the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department; it touches the Ministry of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Again, all of these people who work for those departments are in the so-called professions and their situations are not clear. They do need to be ordered because now they've been operating, certainly with the broadening of the grants made to various groups, for something like four years.

Now is the time to take a close look at what these people are doing. In this case, we are looking at the psychologists and no doubt, if the committees meet, we will have other people coming who will say that they are concerned because of the introduction of this piece of legislation that they themselves may not be able to continue in the work that they are doing.

I am not suggesting for one minute that if they're doing clinical psychology and they're not clinical psychologists they should be doing it. Nevertheless there are people who are doing various levels of this kind of work. I think it should be clarified, so I would urge the government to accept the amendment and give us an opportunity to go into this in some depth in that committee. I think it would be very much in the interests of the profession and very much in the interests of the recipients of the service.

Ms. Brown moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): I ask leave of the House to move a motion with regard to matters to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear a "no." It will have to therefore come as a regular procedure on the order paper, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that being the case, some members having deemed it necessary not to allow this report and matter to go before the House, I would now file notice of a motion which will be dealt with at the sitting of the House next week.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Before we move the adjournment of the House.... Earlier this morning the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) rose on a matter of privilege in respect to a letter from the Hon. K.R. Mair addressed to J.F. Whent, secretary-treasurer, Powell River Regional District.

I have examined the content of this letter and I have determined that no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been raised as defined in numerous Speakers' decisions given in this House. I would refer the hon. members particularly to the Speakers' decisions at page 82 of the 1976 Journals and page

[ Page 2504 ]

192 of the 1972 Journals.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.