[ Page 2505 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act (Bill 15) .

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2505

Motor Dealer Licensing Act (Bill 39) .

Introduction and first reading –– 2505

Plant Protection Act (Bill 37) .

Introduction and first reading –– 2505

Motion

Establishment of Vietnam aid committee. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2505

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Report by Premier to Railwest workers. Mr. King –– 2506

Report on details of housing committee. Mr. Skelly –– 2506

Discussion with distillers on liquor price increases. Mr. Gibson –– 2506

Bortnick statement on ICBC strike possibility. Mr. Wallace –– 2507

Property for proposed steel mill. Mr. Stupich –– 2507

Appeals under new liquor regulations –– 2507

Subsidies to B.C. Ferries –– 2508

Role of MLAs in B.C. –– 2508

Anti-Inflation programme 2508

Steel mill site –– 2508

Anti-inflation programme –– 2508

Statement

Composition of Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Barrett –– 2509

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2509

Mr. Gibson –– 2510

Mr. Wallace –– 2511

Routine proceedings

Gift Tax Repeal Act (Bill 11) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2513

Mr. Barrett –– 2514

Mr. Lauk –– 2516

Mr. Cocke –– 2518

Mr. Levi –– 2519

Mr. Wallace –– 2523

Mr. King –– 2523

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2524

Division on second reading –– 2525

Psychologists Act (Bill 16) Second reading

On the amendment.

Ms. Brown –– 2525

Mrs. Dailly –– 2526

Mr. Lauk –– 2527

Division on the amendment –– 2528

Mr. Barnes –– 2528

Ms. Brown –– 2529

Mr. Levi –– 2530

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2531

Division on second reading –– 2532

Power Amendment Act, 1977 (BiII 30) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2533

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2534

Mr. Nicolson –– 2534

Mr. Lockstead –– 2535

Mr. Cocke –– 2535

Mrs. Wallace –– 2535

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2535

Division on second reading –– 2536

Systems Act (Bill 44)

Introduction and first reading –– 2536

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, about a week ago I and the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) were guests on board Her Majesty's New Zealand ship Otago, which is presently docked in Esquimalt basin. We were there as representatives of the province and indeed on behalf of the members of the House here. I must say we were extended the finest of welcomes, and it served as a keen reminder of the value of our ties here in the Commonwealth.

Seated in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, are 14 crew members of various ranks from the Otago along with their commanding officer, Commander Lewis. I would ask the members of the House to bid them a very warm welcome.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a group of 21 students from Fort Nelson along with their teacher. Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I ask the House to make them very welcome.

Introduction of bills.

COPPER SMELTING AND REFINING

INCENTIVE ACT

Hon. Mr. Chabot presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MOTOR DEALERS LICENSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Mair presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Dealers Licensing Act.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PLANT PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Bill 37, Plant Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tables the second interim report of the advisory committee on the control of the Eurasian water milfoil in the Okanagan Lakes of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , I ask leave to move the following motion: that a special committee be appointed to consider further the matter of building, staffing and maintaining of medical facilities for the rehabilitation, care and development of Vietnamese children pursuant to the resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly on April 18,1973, and to report its findings and recommendations to the House; said committee to be composed of Mr. Calder, the Hon. H.A. Curtis, Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Kerster, the Hon. P.L. McGeer, Messrs. Strongman and Cocke, Ms. Sanford, Messrs. Gibson and Wallace; this committee to be convened by Mr. Calder.

Leave granted.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): We are pleased that this motion is before the House. We certainly agree that the committee should be formed and that the children in Vietnam be afforded the medical service that we had promised to provide them. Mr. Speaker, we will co-operate in every way we can in this committee and, hopefully, the work can be done in very short order. One other thing, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, we would give the same leave to Motion 6 being called on the same basis - the Trident motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I support the motion and look forward to serving on the committee.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I also feel that this province made a commitment in 1973 and that by reconstituting this committee we are starting on the road to implementing the original intent of this Legislature which made a decision by unanimous agreement. I also will try to expedite the activities of the committee and regret very much that perhaps I contributed something last time to delaying the actions of the committee on the basis that we had to establish accountability. I think that accountability can be very quickly established through various agencies who are active in Vietnam. I appreciate being on the committee and I'll do all that I can to expedite its work.

MR. SPEAKER: I now intend to put the question on the motion, hon. members. I do not have the motion in front of me but I don't think it's necessary that I should have to reread it to you. I believe you have all heard the motion.

[ Page 2506 ]

Motion approved.

MR. WALLACE: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, do you wish a division? I have declared it unanimous but if you desire a division then I am quite prepared to put the division on your request. Do you wish a division?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we frequently hold divisions in this House although there is a unanimous decision of the House so that it can be recorded in the Journals.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps rather than take a division, would you be prepared, hon. members, to have it recorded as a unanimous decision of the House for the purposes of our Journals?

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

REPORT BY PREMIER

TO RAILWEST WORKERS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he made the trip to Squamish, as he promised to do, to report to the Railwest workers on what their rather dubious destiny might be.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I've not yet, Mr. Speaker. We still have no word from the federal government.

MR. KING: In light of the fact that the Premier promised to the Railwest workers when they were in Victoria that he would go last weekend, has the Premier been in touch with the Railwest workers to explain his delay and failure to fulfil his commitment to them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan is wrong again. The commitment I made was to go the weekend before. The Railwest workers suggested I not come until such time as I had a response from the federal government. My office has been in contact with their spokesman and advised them that no such answer has been forthcoming as yet and that we will advise them. The obligation will be met as soon as we have the word that they asked we carry, one way or the other, when we hear from Ottawa.

REPORT ON DETAILS OF HOUSING COMMITTEE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Some time ago, the minister took as notice a request to table the transcripts and the expenses of the Bawlf committee. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to table those documents at this time.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding me of that undertaking. I'm sorry, I don't have the information with me today but I will be happy to table in due course.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: There's not a supplementary question, hon. member, when a question is taken as notice. I've extended to you the opportunity to remind the minister of a commitment to the House. I think that's as far as it can proceed at this time, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, when the minister says the documents will be tabled in due course, is there no alternative to ask a supplementary in that case? He did not take the question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: It's improper, hon. member, to ask a supplementary on a question that was already taken as notice at a previous time.

MR. SKELLY: In a previous decision of the Speaker, Mr. Speaker, you stated that if you considered that sufficient time has passed you would allow another supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, I've allowed you to bring it back to the minister's attention in question period.

MR. SKELLY: He didn't take it as notice, Mr. Speaker; he said "in due course." I simply wanted to ask him if he would be tabling those documents before discussion of the Municipal Act bill, which is presently on the order paper, or his own estimates.

DISCUSSION WITH DISTILLERS

ON LIQUOR PRICE INCREASES

MR. GIBSON: This is a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Inasmuch as the recent price increase in LCB brands of liquor has probably violated the AIB guidelines by the province and certainly produced a windfall for the major distillers in the form of decreased competition, what consultation or discussion was there with the distillers in this regard?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and

[ Page 2507 ]

Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, none.

MR. GIBSON: Could I ask the minister: was there any form whatsoever of advance notice given to any of the distillers in this regard?

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. GIBSON: Has the minister any knowledge of distillery contributions to Social Credit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

HON. MR. MAIR: If any, no.

BORTNICK STATEMENT ON

ICBC STRIKE POSSIBILITY

MR. WALLACE: This is to the Premier. With regard to a public statement by a senior employee of a Crown corporation, namely ICBC, to the effect that a rejection of the corporation's latest contract and a subsequent strike could result in ICBC closing its doors, never to reopen, can the Premier tell the House whether the spokesman - in this case, Mr. Bortnick -was speaking for himself or for the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, he wasn't speaking for the government and we've had no contact with him. But the rest of your question, as to reporting on this, I'll take as notice for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who is a director of ICBC and reports to the government.

MR. WALLACE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was taken as notice on behalf of another member.

MR. WALLACE: My supplementary is related to the first part of the question which was not taken as notice, in regard to whether the spokesman was speaking for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, then.

MR. WALLACE: Had there been any talks between the Premier or other government or ICBC officials and private insurance companies to prepare for a possible takeover of insurance policies currently in force, should ICBC be closed down permanently?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker: as an alternative to the possible closing down of ICBC, has the Premier considered allowing private companies to enter into full competition immediately with ICBC, and has he held meetings with the private industry to discuss this possibility?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

PROPERTY FOR PROPOSED

STEEL MILL

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, one day last week I asked the Minister of Economic Development about the acreage that was being negotiated for in the Duke Point area; I believe he said approximately 300 acres. I wonder whether he has any further information as to the acreage that's being negotiated on?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: This is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether he has any knowledge as to the acreage that would be required for the construction of a steel mill - the one he suggested might be built in the Duke Point area.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it would be 1,000 to 1,300 acres.

APPEALS UNDER NEW

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: I understand that you recently indicated that under new liquor regulations you would be personally hearing all appeals where licences had been refused for some reason. Could you indicate to the House if this would not be a conflict of interest or involve undue influence, should you assume that position?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I see no conflict of interest. I frankly don't understand the question.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I think that as an elected official he is in a position to hear the appeals where a licence has been refused - personally, himself. Maybe the report was incorrect, but it stated that you yourself would hear all appeals personally. I wondered if that was not assuming a responsibility that was setting a precedent?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I simply can't answer that question. It doesn't beg of any intelligent answer I can think of, but I will say this: cabinet

[ Page 2508 ]

members, in groups and individually, are often called upon to decide matters arising out of statutes of this province. That's what the duty that devolves upon me is under the proposed changes.

SUBSIDIES TO B.C. FERRIES

MR. D.F, LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications: has the minister or the government reached any agreement with the federal government regarding subsidies to B.C. Ferries and/or to coastal transportation?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, there is no signed agreement between the province and the federal government in that respect.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Perhaps the minister could indicate to this House when he will be prepared to make an announcement on this subsidy and how much the subsidy is likely to be.

ROLE OF MLAs IN B.C.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Premier. In view of the statement by Victoria Restaurant Association president Mr. Oldfield that the industry in Victoria suffered loss of business last fall because there was no fall sitting of the House (laughter) , and since the Premier is committed to stimulating the economy, will the Premier assure the restaurant business and those whose jobs depend on it that a fall sitting will be held this year?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think I can assure them that there will be a longer sitting this year than they've ever had before - that is, more MLA days spent in Victoria than ever before.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Since the Premier is on record as not favouring fall sittings, has he given any further consideration to his earlier statement that MLA salaries should be cut in half?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if the member can recall, the suggestion was not mine, but was made in response to a member who suggested some MLAs - and I don't speak for our own, who are all overworked - didn't feel they were utilized. I suggested they could always consider the option. However, I've never said that all MLAs weren't earning their salary. I think all of the MLAs on this side of the House put in yeoman service on behalf of their constituents.

MR. WALLACE: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since the government has recognized the importance of committee work, has the Premier considered an all-party committee to study the appropriate role of the MLA in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but I do believe in the committee approach and full opportunity for more than one committee to meet during the life of the Legislature, which will probably go well into 1978. I'm sure that there will be a lot of committee work for, hopeful, all members of the House and that a few members won't try to hold other members off, claiming special status.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's determination to maintain the AIB programme, has the Minister of Finance made any representations or will he make representations to the AIB with respect to the salary for the present incumbent president of MacMillan Bloedel, which is some 13 per cent in excess of what his predecessor got the previous year?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the AIB, of course, is a federal programme, and I'm sure those matters come within the inspection of the Anti-Inflation Board itself. Due to the submissions of that company before the Anti-Inflation Board, it will become a matter for their attention.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my question was in view of this government's determination to maintain the AIB programme and to make it credible in the eyes of British Columbians. Does the minister not feel that he has some responsibility to ensure that this particular item is considered by the AIB?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a federal programme, and we think they're administering the programme in a competent manner.

STEEL MILL SITE

MR. SKELLY: To the Minister of Economic Development: is the minister considering sites on Vancouver Island other than the Duke Point site for a steel mill location?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not considering any site.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

MR. COCKE: In view of the Minister of Finance's

[ Page 2509 ]

answer to the member for New Westminster (laughter) ... uh, Nanaimo - I don't even know who's who around here - that he isn't concerned at the 13 per cent increase, what would the Minister of Finance and the Premier say to a 13 per cent increase for the IWA, in view of some of their statements to the press recently regarding restraint?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I can appreciate your desire to pose that type of a question, but you really are involved in a hypothetical situation. The minister, as I heard him, suggested that the AIB had a responsibility.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance needs all the help he can get, but I would like to have an answer to a question. I didn't really ask the Speaker the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The fact is, hon. member, whether you asked the Speaker the question or not is not part of the question period. It goes through the Speaker, and I have to make a ruling on whether the question is acceptable or not. I suggested that it was hypothetical to a great extent, and it was.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is just not hearing me. Twice I've asked him about his particular responsibility, and twice he has said the federal government has some responsibility. I agree that it has. But my question, very specifically, was that in view of his government's and his own support of continuation of the AIB programme, does he not feel a responsibility to the citizens of British Columbia to bring this particular item to the attention of the AIB? Does he not feel responsible?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention this weekend that two members of this House have been impaired from doing their duty in terms of their responsibility on committees. An arbitrary decision, of course, must be made in committee meetings to allow people to participate or not participate.

It is my information that in the structuring of the committees, both members raised the question as to whether or not, if they committed themselves to any committee, there would be flexibility in the future, if a committee was called, that they could serve. My recollection is that in the history of this House, when there have been either independents or one or two members of separate, small groupings, they have always been considered to have some flexibility to play their full role, as they see it, on all House activities, including the committees.

I find it a rather regrettable situation that two members have said publicly - that is, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson ) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) - that they have not been allowed the flexibility to alter their schedules to attach themselves to a committee that they find attractive to them; and also the flexibility that allows people to expand the number of MLAs on the committee is not being afforded to the House. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that this sets a pattern of exclusive determination of who should or who should not sit on the committee without any flexibility or respect for the traditions of this House to allow people who are in a minority position to always have their say.

If democracy is to work adequately and to function properly, it is not the choice of any leader of any party or member of this House to cast aspersions on the ability or attitudes of any other member. The degree of the amount of work that a member wants to put in or not put in is entirely a matter of conscience with that MLA, not with any government leader or any opposition leader.

This morning I was further grieved to hear comments made by an hon. minister on a hotline show, attacking the two members personally by reacting to their comments in a personal vein, that I found somewhat, perhaps, bordering on a matter of privilege to this House. In any event, I feel it is my duty to relate to the House that as Leader of the Opposition I am deeply concerned that it appears two members are not being given the opportunity to serve on committees simply because they represent minority groups. That's not in good keeping with the traditions of this House or democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would further ask for unanimous leave of this House to instruct the House committee that names members through the House to reconstitute itself and allow these two members to express their wishes at that time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the statement, the selection for standing committees is made up of representative members at the beginning of each session. As such, members of the opposition and members of the government are on the select standing committee that canvasses members from all sides of the House to make up the traditional representation on a percentage basis between opposition and government. The allocation of opposition members is quite within the purview of the official opposition and, as such, I would feel that every opportunity is made for them to adjust members within their allocation for reasons that some members may wish or have to drop off and others wish to take their place, just as it's within the

[ Page 2510 ]

opportunity for members on the government side to adjust on committees.

I wish to categorically deny, Mr. Speaker, any attempt to keep members off committees. That choice is made by members in negotiation at the start of each session.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Legislative committees, as such, are just that: committees for opposition and government members of the House. All members of this assembly, Mr. Speaker, should have equal opportunity to serve on committees. No members should consider themselves to be more equal or have greater opportunity than any other member of this House to work as members of the Legislature on any committee for the citizens of British Columbia. As such, all members are asked to make an arbitrary decision at the start of each session in their negotiations to be placed on certain committees, and all members have done so.

It may be that the government may activate more than one committee. Already one committee is active - that of public accounts - and I understand that the two members who have complained are both on the one committee that is already active. Many members in this assembly would like the opportunity to be active who aren't already on the public accounts committee.

Be that as it may, they made their decisions and they're hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the committees they have chosen will be activated. I'm hopeful. And I say this to the assembly in response to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition: in the years since I have been in the House, 1974 and 1975, the committees weren't active between sessions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: This will be the first active committee that I've seen since I've been in.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In 1974 and 1975.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier continues.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This year there will be plenty of opportunity for members to serve on committees they have chosen. There is every possibility, although it is not guaranteed, that all committees, or most committees, may be active.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): We should cut your salary in half for that remark.

MR. GIBSON: I'm glad of an opportunity to correct the record.

MR. SPEAKER: In a matter like this it would be proper to ask leave to make a statement.

MR. GIBSON: Could I have leave?

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: I was interested to hear the Premier say that members have a right to sit on any committee they want. He didn't mention the Bawlf committee, I noticed, which' didn't have a single opposition member on it.

MR. LAUK: Shocking!

MR. GIBSON: I would also like to correct the record when the Premier speaks about committees not being active in 1974 and 1975 while he was here. I wonder where he was when the education committee was traveling around this province. I wonder where he was when the labour committee was traveling around this province. I wonder where he was when the municipal affairs committee was traveling around this province.

MR. COCKE: Agriculture!

MR. GIBSON: And the agriculture committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I just draw to the hon. member's attention, for the benefit of the House, that the privilege of making a statement by leave does not include the privilege of engaging in a full-scale debate on the matter, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am purely correcting the record on incorrect things the Premier said.

MR. SPEAKER: You're entitled to make your observations, but I would draw to the attention of all of the members of the House that this is not to be considered a full-scale debate at this particular time on the place of the committees, the representation and how they're made up.

MR. LAUK: Let the man speak! He's been cut off the committees.

MR. GIBSON: I want to say something about the

[ Page 2511 ]

way that committees are chosen by the selection committee that the Premier referred to. Members of the selection committee are not afforded any information as to which committee is likely to sit during the currency of the session. Accordingly it is next to impossible to choose which one you want to go on. It's particularly next to impossible for members such as the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) or myself, who are the sole representatives of about 145,000 votes in this province, I might point out....

Mr. Speaker, you can have the committee any size the government wants. You can have them large enough so that every member of this House who wants to serve on them can be on them. The government might even find that there are some opportunities for their own backbenchers to make a useful contribution to the governance of this province if they did that kind of thing.

The argument that the size of committees makes it impossible for any particular group to be on them is incorrect. I say again that it is absolutely wrong that on any committee in this House that is sitting on a matter of importance, opportunity should not be afforded to two members representing two political parties in this province - the hon. member for Oak Bay and myself, who represent 145,000 people - to be there and represent those people on that committee.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a statement?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. WALLACE: I regret that we're getting into an area of acrimony over this because I feel it can be resolved as a result of statements that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano and myself have already made over the weekend.

I just feel that in fairness to all the members of the House we should recognize, as we've discussed in debate and, in fact, on the Premier's estimates, that some of the systems that we use in the Legislature are out of date and not meeting the needs of a modern provincial government. Some of the reasons which are now being discussed as to why the Liberal leader or myself may not serve on a committee really have very little modern conviction or reasoning behind them, particularly since we are, at the start of a session, making choices in ignorance of what the government intends to do. It seems very foolish for any member of this House who wishes to make a contribution on any committee to be kept in ignorance of which committee will function. The fact that we're serving on the public accounts committee while the House is in session really has very little to do with what we can accomplish when the House is not in session and when a committee might or might not be traveling in the province.

It just seems that some recognition should be given of the fact that flexibility must exist in relation to access to membership on committees. Either that, Mr. Speaker, or at the start of the session when we are given an opportunity to state our preferences, we should at least know which committees will in fact be activated. It may well be that the Premier can respond somewhere to that suggestion.

The last point I wish to make, because I don't enjoy this image of perpetuating oneself in this House and then being accused of certain distorted motives -I don't enjoy that and I didn't make the fuss for that reason - is that I want the House to know and I want the people of British Columbia to know that the Liberal leader and myself were informed exactly one hour before the Minister of Agriculture proposed bringing the resolution to the House. We met with him and made a simply gentlemanly request that he consult with cabinet or with the chairman of the selecting committee, who is the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

If we had even been given the assurance that some attempt would be made by the government to have us either meet with the select committee or be considered for membership on the agriculture committee, I doubt very much if the Liberal leader or I would have said anything in public at all, but the fact is we received a reply within the hour that we would not be on the committee. It was in the light of that answer, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal leader and myself felt that we not only wanted to make the matter an issue but we felt we had an obligation to do so. We did not relish having to fight for a position on a committee where we felt that there is good, sound reason why we should be there in the first place without having to fight for that position.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I proceed any further or recognize any other hon. member in the debate which is taking place - because that's about what it has amounted to - I would just like to observe the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was granted leave to make a statement on something that he felt came within his responsibility. I agree that he has the right to make that statement and he was allowed to proceed. Following that, the response came from the hon. Premier and from the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative Party. Under ordinary circumstances, I believe that that is as far as the Chair can extend that privilege. I'd suggest to other hon. members that if they wish to engage in a full-scale debate, the proper way to do it is to put a motion on the order paper and debate the motion when it is called, not by

[ Page 2512 ]

asking leave to make a statement.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept your words and I have no intention of engaging in debate. I just would like to ask leave, though, to make one observation and that is....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. KING: As a member of the committee....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. I heard a no.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I didn't hear a no.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker did.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, will you accept a motion that I would like to put before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Not without leave, hon. member. You'll have to follow the rules of the House and put it on the order paper.

MR. KING: Well, I request leave, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear a no and....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect to your request, hon. member, to make a statement, I did hear noes, so that denies you the right of making a statement, as you know, under the rules of the House.

You're now, hon. member, asking leave to move a motion. I think it would be wise at least to advise the members of the House of the subject matter of your motion before asking leave to move it so that they will have some idea of what it is that you're about to do, in a similar manner to that used by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My motion relates to unanimous leave of the House to expand the agricultural committee to provide for the addition of one government member, a member of the opposition, and certainly the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative Party.

I would point out in making this request, Mr. Speaker, that at the time the committees were struck the hon. Liberal leader asked the Provincial Secretary, as chairman of the committee, if this kind of flexibility would be allowed in light of the fact that they had no knowledge of which committees would be activated. At that point, I supported their request. Therefore I think it's reasonable, I think it's rational, and I think it would improve the climate of this House if unanimous leave for that purpose would be granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan have unanimous leave to move a motion without notice?

Leave not granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my motion is....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I heard a no.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, if any members do not want to give leave I wish they would have the nerve to stand up and say so right now instead of hiding.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit lecturing the House!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan asked unanimous leave. It was obvious to the Speaker, as it was when he asked unanimous leave to make a statement, that that was not granted. The matter now would have to be by notice on the order paper in the regular manner and in keeping with the rules of this House.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you asked leave of the House, leave was given -there were no noes - and then the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) decided....

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there were.

MR. COCKE: Then they must have been very, very low. The Speaker didn't hear it because he looked over there to find out why it never occurred. Then, the Minister of Health jumped up, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2513 ]

and said: "Put it on the order paper." That's not a no.

MR. SPEAKER: As a matter of fact, it was not the Minister of Health whom I heard say no, HON. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's necessary that I identify the member, as long as there was a member.

Orders of the day.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I could for just a moment beg the indulgence of the House, I'd like, if I could, to introduce someone in the galleries whom I didn't see when the normal time for introductions was there: the chairman of the Vancouver General Hospital, Mr. Gordon Gilley. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 11.

GIFT TAX REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bill 11 is the Gift Tax Repeal Act and is to be described as a companion bill to Bill 12, which is the repeal of the Succession Duty Act.

Just a brief explanation, Mr. Speaker. The government of Canada withdrew from the estate- and gift-tax fields at the end of 1971. At that time, this province imposed the gift tax, primarily to protect the revenue of the Succession Duty Act.

Most gifts which are subject to tax are between members of a family. The government does not wish to discourage such gifts, particularly when the Act is not now needed to prevent people from avoiding succession duty. The revenue from the Act is not large relatively, being approximately $500,000 per year.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, it is proposed that the Gift Tax Act be repealed effective January 24,1977. Gift taxes, I might say, affect quite a lot of people, and this Act is directly related to succession duties in that it was providing a deterrent to circumvention of the impact of succession duties. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the, outset that I am opposed to the repeal of this tax. One could use all of the same arguments that have been used during the succession duty, but in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, and for your information and yours alone, this is again a gift to the wealthy people of British Columbia by this government :

This tax was designed originally, in companion with succession duty - that is, death taxes - to stop people on their death bed or prior to that point, seeing the tax man appear before the judgment day, saying to the tax man: "You won't get me, no matter what my reward may be later on in afterlife."

You won't beat the grim reaper, but you'll certainly beat the tax man. The people who beat the tax man are the wealthy people of British Columbia.

The federal government did, indeed, abandon the succession duty and the gift-tax area and have left it to the provinces. To everybody out there who is worried about a gift being taxed, let us clearly understand that this tax had no effect on gifts between husbands and wives if it was below $9,999. Mr. Speaker, you could give your wife a gift of $9,999 every year and there'd be no tax on it.

Mr. Speaker, my wife, if she's listening, could give me a gift of $9,999 a year and not be taxed. The point is, my wife doesn't have $9,999 to give me and she's not run off yet with the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , who, of course, would be one of those millionaires who will benefit from this, along with the other 10 millionaires over there who have bent every bit of their will this session to protect their own situations, in spite of what they've done to everybody else in this province.

Gift taxes have gone up? No, not at all; they're being removed. Succession duty tax has gone up? No, not at all; it's removed. Ferry rates - up. ICBC -up. Income tax - up. Ambulance service - up. Pharmacare is going to be hosed, but the millionaires will be taken care of under Social Credit.

Gift tax, indeed! the millionaires have had a field day when Social Credit got elected. Not only are they getting strawberries and cream but now they're getting second helpings. All those people who went out and worked for Social Credit to get them elected weren't told that this was going to be the reward for the millionaires.

What happened to that old populist base which used to be in Social Credit? They had a leader at one time, the father of the present Premier, who never agreed to this. He used to describe his party as a party that was fair, a party that said that everybody must pay an equal share - the rich and the poor. Now we have all the rich kids in control and they know how to take care of Daddy and gifts.

The Ovaltine crowd - put 'em to bed, wrap'em in a blanket, and make sure they survive until the legislation is proclaimed. In case they're worried about that, they make it retroactive. It almost embarrasses the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . I can see them buying him a blanket, giving him a cup of Ovaltine and hoping he makes it

[ Page 2514 ]

through the night. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Help me make it through the night.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. "Help me make it through the night so the kids can go on about their way working so hard to inherit millionaire parents. Everybody else in this province should pull up their bootstraps and go out and inherit themselves a rich mother and father. Those of you who don't are just plain lazy or welfare bums."

That's the motto of Social Credit - go out and inherit yourself a father or a mother who's wealthy.

MR. C. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): You'll never make it!

MR. BARRETT: Never make it? You made it past the Ovaltine barrier. (Laughter.) You made it; your money's going to be safe, tucked away in the hands of your children and your children's children, and no gift that you give will ever be taxed again.

The whole lot of you came in here right after the election and you couldn't wait to ram this legislation through, to make sure that death didn't mar any attempt at your control of your money.

There's no question about it, Mr. Speaker. I want to read to you something very interesting. They say that it's Social Credit philosophy to protect the rich. They say it's Social Credit philosophy that if you family's got it, keep it. It's a root, hog and die government over there!

Mr. Speaker, who gave the arguments for this legislation when it was first introduced in 1972? W.A.C. Bennett - that's who did it. You'll recall that during the succession duty debate I had to read the words back to that member who is the minister today and who was a member then. He said that succession duty was ethical. Let's read what W.A.C. Bennett said. I know it'll appear in banner headlines in the Vancouver Fun and the Vancouver Pravda. I know that the message will be carried in banner headlines of the newspapers of the day, which are really fair and will expose what this government's doing in protecting the rich. Just look under "Help Wanted" for the stories about the succession duty or gift tax repeal. Maybe, if you're lucky, you can look on the back pages of some obscure newspaper or in the yellow pages of the telephone book.

You're not going to find the front pages of this province carrying this despicable piece of legislation - not on your life! I want to tell you that there won't be any editorials in The Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province or the Columbian or the Colonist attacking this legislation. This day will go by and only the few people in the galleries will know what went on. It's a sort of quietness that spreads across this province when the richies are being taken care of. It's richies' freebie - that's what it is. You can be darn sure that very little of this will be covered on hotlines, on newspaper front pages or anywhere else. It'll be a quiet day in the House when the rich are being given another gift.

They say that they're looking after themselves. I say that you're looking after yourselves! I haven't heard a sensible argument about repealing gift tax at all, except that it is companion legislation to succession duty. It means that if you're going to have an estate tax, the way to avoid it is to give a gift to your wife or your husband before you croak. It's that crass, Mr. Speaker! Before you croak, give them the money so that it won't be taxed. What did W.A.C. Bennett say?

MR. WALLACE: That's why I left the party!

MR. BARRETT: That's why he left the party? Not because of this? I'm sorry that the son isn't here, but I hope I'm speaking loud enough so that these words go back down through the squawk box to the son.

This is what his father said. He did it with histrionics - with both hands. (Laughter.) I'm quoting from W.A.C. Bennett on March 24,1972, speaking on the Gift Tax Act that he brought in, on page 960 of Hansard. This is what W.A.C. Bennett said:

I want to say that whether it's my family or any other family that makes money and develops partly on their own benefits, through their own abilities, but partly because of the economy established by this government and by the great people we have in this province who come from everywhere - without them they could not make this money.

You won't find this quote on the front page of The Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province this day when we're repealing this tax. W.A.C. Bennett said: "My family shouldn't escape this tax." He went further. He said here:

I say they should pay a part of it to the state because the state has that money in trust for all the people of the province. All the people! This is a fair tax because without this tax our succession duties would be worth nothing because you could give it all away and therefore your succession duties would be of no value at all. I want to say this is a fair tax.

And then he moved second reading. It won't be on the front page of the Vancouver Province; it won't be on the front page of The Vancouver Sun; it won't be on the hotlines. This will be buried as the millionaires take care of themselves. Most of the people in this province will never understand how they've been done in today.

Thirty-two million dollars are given back to the wealthy estates of British Columbia, and now this tax

[ Page 2515 ]

will remove any taxes on gifts. And who said that his family should pay its fair share? W.A.C. Bennett. And who made the money? W.A.C. Bennett. And who's making sure that the money stays in the family when the Ovaltine days are over? The kid! Pretty crass, eh? You bet your life it's crass. It stinks! One voice for the ordinary people of this province says: "The old man said pay your fair share." The kids couldn't wait to get in here to slap the lid on their own private cash box.

How that minister can bring this legislation in here when he voted for the gift tax back in 1972, I don't know. He can answer to his own conscience. How that minister can stand up and debate this legislation to protect the wealthy when he's the one who has impaired the ability of the average citizen to have a decent living in this province, I don't know. How he can stand up and defend this in light of his statements three, four, five years ago in favour of this kind of legislation, I don't know. That's for his conscience to decide, Mr. Speaker. But I do know this: rest assured, anybody in the back bench who is queasy about my words - they won't be in the front page of the Province or the Sun. Most of the people in this province will never know that today the gang took care of themselves.

Yes, the gang has taken care of themselves. The rich kids' gang of millionaires' sons, who have taken over government in this province, have gone out of their way to protect their vested interests and make sure they don't get taxed. Has anybody else got another explanation? Let's hear it!

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Garbage!

MR. BARRETT: Let's hear it. An explanation that poor little widows are being robbed - don't kid yourselves. No gift is taxed unless it's around $10,000. Those who say that there is cynicism in what's gone on in politics in this province have a point to make today. The very father of Social Credit, the father of the present Premier, said: "My family should not escape this tax." That's what he said; his words are enshrined for history. Now the kid can hardly wait to clean up the act and look after the cash box.

Who made these people wealthy? I'll tell you who made these people wealthy. The resources in this province made them wealthy; the labour of ordinary men and women who worked hard as employees made these people wealthy. Some of them worked for $1 and $1.50 an hour. When the cost of living went way up they attacked us when we raised the per-hour minimum wage. They said, "oh, $2.50 is too much to pay someone who's cleaning up rooms in a hotel, " or "$3 is too much to pay someone who's washing dishes." They know all about the economy of keeping people working at low wages, but they sure know how to take care of themselves.

Not a word of it will be on the front pages of the Sun or the Province, and I know that. It won't be on the hotlines, and I know that. But I want to tell you this: I find it pretty disgusting, the crassness of this move. I find it without any sort of understanding of the impact you've had on the ordinary people. It's cut-and-run legislation: cut yourself out a hunk of protection, make sure that your rich friends and you, the richies, are being taken care of while the rest of the peons out there slave away. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You come in here and ask for restraint, make speeches about restraint, go around wringing your hands saying, "the workers are asking for too much, " and "we can't pass on money to the handicapped." Oh, yes! "Those of the handicapped won't have their increase, folks, because if the handicapped get their increase they'll be dependent on the state." Oh, yes! The lousy $17.50 a month that this government is holding back from the handicapped - we have to have that money to take care of the rich because the rich won't be paying $32 million in taxes this year.

It won't be on the front pages. Oh, we'll see scandalous stories spread by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) saying: "Oh, they're all bums on welfare." I want to tell you we have got the rich welfare bums in this House today with this kind of legislation. You come in here and take care of yourselves at a $32 million feed at the trough.

I have to read W.A.C. Bennett's own statements about how his family should be taxed too, and every one of you will stand up like a group of drones and vote for this, no matter what. You don't have any heart or compassion or understanding. You are motivated simply by greed as a government. You look at the bottom line on the basis of what you think the ferries should pay. "Pay as you go" is your slogan. Why don't the rich people pay as they go? The poor pay as they go, or the working families pay as they go, or the people in the middle class who live in the suburbs pay as they go, but the rich are not going to pay under Social Credit.

Read the words of the father. What did he say? I read them again:

I want to say that whether it's my family or any other family that makes money and develops partly on their own benefits, through their own abilities, but partly because of the economy established by this government and by the great people we have in this province who come from everywhere - without them they could not make this money.

Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The father is telling the son, and all the people of this province, that millionaires became millionaires because of the hard work, not only of themselves but other people as well - employees who worked for them 20, 30 and 40

[ Page 2516 ]

years, and go out on a pension of pittance. "I say they should pay a part of it to the state." That was W.A.C. Bennett. He said that the rich should pay part of their money to the state. That's now being removed by the rich kids.

This is a fair tax, because without this tax our succession duties would be worth nothing, because you could give it all away, and therefore your succession duties would be no value at all.

Mr. Speaker, callous, cold, cynical, smug and any other word that you want to use to describe this legislation would be appropriate in the light of its history. The handicapped can go fight for what they have. The unemployed can root, hog and die. People on welfare will get a shovel from the Minister of Human Resources; people on low incomes will have to go scraping to find some housing. But the millionaires can rest easy tonight because -they're taking care of their own again. It stinks. You show no sign of remorse, no sign of care. You just ride hog on your legislative powers and ram it to the people any way you can, and you don't give a fig.

It won't be on the front page of the Sun; it won't be on the front page of the Province; it won't be on the editorial pages. I can guarantee it that it won't be on the editorial pages. You read Porter's Vertical Mosaic and find out who's who in Canada and how editorial decisions are made. The rich are going to take care of themselves, gang! I only ask that all the people in the gallery don't go around spreading the word that the millionaires are getting away with murder today. You might upset the peasants out there. Rich-a-care - look after yourself. What a gang!

MR. LAUK: I've just been reading the Gift Tax Act, chapter 23. It was passed in 1972. I don't see anything wrong with that Act. I don't know why the minister is now moving to eliminate it from the books. The exemptions seem to cut out any problems with the average working family in British Columbia, who are paying the bulk of the taxes in this province. This Gift Tax Act, which was complementary to the Succession Duty Act just repealed by the millionaires' government, was to capture the problem of making elaborate and expensive gifts to people and avoiding succession duties, but it was also to bring to the public coffers needed revenue that would provide for the services that are so expensive. The two people whom I've just interrupted talking, Mr. Speaker, should be listening carefully because they have considerable wealth that they could.... I know the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) has no intention of giving any of it away.

MR. COCKE: He's going to take it with him!

MR. LAUK: He's going to take it all with him, but there are others in equal positions of wealth who do make such gifts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to contrast this repeal of the Gift Tax Act to what has happened to the ordinary families of British Columbia. In a year, they have been taxed and re-taxed and overtaxed to the point where the elimination of a large percentage of their disposable income has caused a dramatic downturn in retail sales in British Columbia. It has caused a decrease in the revenue to the government. Increased taxes have caused a decrease in revenue to the government, and it has caused cruel cutbacks in services to people, particularly those who are on fixed incomes and who cannot provide for themselves, who cannot negotiate vast increases every year.

I'm thinking, Mr. Speaker, of the sales tax, of the increased income tax, of the increased ferry rates, of increased insurance premiums in ICBC, of increased medicare payments - all of those costs that a family has to meet every year in British Columbia.

It's not the family of a hardware merchant in Kelowna who has millions of dollars; it's not the families of people who own car dealerships and estates; and it's not the families of those who deal in land. It's ordinary working families, which make up the great majority of people in this province. They have been told to restrain. They have been told that they must contribute to society by showing responsibility and maturity and restraint. At the same time, they are faced with this very serious hypocrisy. It's okay for the working families of this province to pay increased taxes and show restraint and responsibility, but it's not okay for millionaires.

The minister was less than candid with this House when he said that studies were done that showed that if you repealed succession duties, and if you alleviated this kind of tax for the millionaires, it would encourage more people to bring their money into the province to invest in the province. We asked question after question after question of the minister. He did not produce those studies. The answer is -there are no studies.

The studies that do exist clearly indicate that the removal of succession duties and gift taxes do not in any way affect increased investment in this province. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) got up in response to the similar argument I made under the Succession Duty Repeal Act. He said: "It's not small depositors and it's not small investors in the working class who provide capital investment for this great province. It's accumulated capital in the, hands of a few people."

I was really quite amazed to see the abysmal lack of understanding on the part of a minister of the Crown, a gentleman who is a manager of a credit union.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just draw to your attention the fact that we're not recanvassing

[ Page 2517 ]

the Succession Duty Act. This is the Gift Tax Repeal Act, and the debate and the line of debate must be relevant to what was said in this debate, not in previous debates and previous votes that have already been taken by the House.

MR. LAUK: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I pointed that out only to point this out to the House that he made a mistake. He was incorrect. It's the ordinary people of this province who allow financial institutions to accumulate the necessary capital for economic development in this province, in Canada, in North America and, indeed, in the world. It's the depositors in the banks, policy holders with insurance companies and small shareholders in the various corporations around this country who provide that capital. It's not the millionaires; it's been proven that it's not the millionaires. This specious argument that's constantly resurrected by the Social Credit millionaire party is false. It has no bearing whatsoever on investments in the economy. The people who produce the wealth in this province also produce the investment capital. They are the people who deposit in the banks, who buy insurance policies and who invest in small stocks as small shareholders. The great accumulations of private personal wealth stay in the mattress. The people who have confidence and faith in this economy are ordinary working families, not the millionaires' row. It's absolutely false and specious to say that eliminating the Gift Tax Act is going to encourage investment in this province. It's false.

So from a wrong premise, this government is proposing the repeal of a taxation Act on the rich. At the same time that they're alleviating that tax pressure on the super-rich in this province, they've increased the taxation on the ordinary working family, and I'll show you how. In March, 1976, we had just completed the first Social Credit budget since the NDP administration. In that taxation year of 1976 to 1977, we saw the burden of taxation on the ordinary people of this province increased by 5 per cent. The 1975 budget of the NDP had 30 per cent of the tax burden of this province - that's the whole budget of this province - on resource companies. We believed that resource companies and the very rich should pay a little bit more tax to alleviate the ordinary working families of this province - not all of it, but a bit more. We were slowly building up a little bit more of the burden of taxation on the large, multinational resource companies in this province.

But that was 1975 - 30 per cent was on the companies; 70 per cent of the taxation was born by people through sales tax, income tax and other taxes such as medicare payments and so on. The first Social Credit budget, Mr. Speaker, shifted the burden to the people. Only 25 per cent of the total budget was on resource companies and 75 per cent was on people.

This year, the second year of the millionaires' coalition, we see the shocking example of a further 5 per cent shift in the burden of taxation. Only 20 per cent of the total budget of this province is on the shoulders of the big multinational corporations and resource companies of this province; 80 per cent, Mr. Speaker, is now based on personal taxes of ordinary working families. At 5 per cent a year we can see very clearly how soon the total burden of the provincial budget, being $4 billion and $5 billion, will be on the backs of the working family, the ordinary family of this province.

The super-rich, Mr. Speaker, wish to corral their wealth; they wish to protect their wealth. They wish to protect their position and their power through hypocrisy, through false arguments and through demagoguery throughout this province. I am sure they have convinced some people somewhere that by eliminating the gift tax they are going to encourage investment. But I'll tell you, they won't fool all the people. That burden is shifting over on to the people. The ordinary people are asked to restrain themselves. At the same time, the richest families in this province get off scot-free. They don't have responsibility.

W.A.C. Bennett, in 1972, when he passed this legislation, Mr. Speaker, said that if these super-rich people who make their money from this province don't have the sense of responsibility to pay a fair tax, then we're better off without them.

Well, the New Democratic Party represents all the people of this province, and the taxation under the Succession Duty and Gift Tax Act is a fair tax; it is a just tax. Even to argue about the amount is not the important issue. The important issue is that it is a fair tax. But let's talk about the amount of succession duties. Thirty-five million dollars was eliminated by a vote of that millionaires' coalition. How much of that money, Mr. Speaker, would go to benefit the disabled, could improve schools, could build a hospital... ?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're reflecting upon a vote that was already taken and decided by the House when you refer to succession duties. As long as you stick with the repeal of the Gift Tax Act, you are in order.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only want to emphasize the moneys lost by the repeal of this Act could best serve the people of this province, because it is a just tax. We need the money; we can't afford to lose it. There are cutbacks in Human Resources; there's no economic development; there is vast unemployment. Yet we're giving the millionaires a tax break. The only plan for economic development in this province to provide jobs to the ordinary people is to eliminate the Gift Tax Act.

[ Page 2518 ]

After a year and a half in government that government is without any creativity whatsoever. It is without ability. It is inept and it is bankrupt of ideas. It is clear to me that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has not come up with one programme for development in a year and a half during a crisis in unemployment and a downturn in the economy. It's a very disappointing thing indeed.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in all honour, when this bill for second reading comes to a vote, those members who were named before as having a direct pecuniary benefit from the passage of this bill abstain and leave the House. The honourable thing for them to do, Mr. Speaker, would be not to vote on this statute.

There are members, such as the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , when they were debating in another bill, who raised these phony examples. They don't state the amount of the estate; they don't state the amount of the gift. All they give is this phony example. "Oh, we had a tough time paying our succession duties." What a bunch of nonsense!

If the exemptions are too low, expand them. If the categories of beneficiary or donee are too few, expand them. But don't do away with a just tax, Mr. Speaker. The New Democratic Party will vote against this bill. It's a travesty, it's hypocrisy, and it's a stab in the back to the ordinary people of this province, some of whom voted for that party.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the Gift Tax Act was first enacted - and I don't mean in 1972, when it was brought back.... Many people will recall that in 1972 the government of the day was responding to the federal government moving out of estate taxing. At that time, it was decided by the then Finance minister and Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, that it would be wise not to leave that place open. Therefore they reinstituted two Acts.

Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to talk about one without the other because they are companion pieces of legislation. The Gift Tax Act is a companion piece of legislation to the Succession Duty Act. However, the gift tax wasn't always a companion piece. When it was first brought in, when it was first instituted in earlier times, it was brought in in response to people who were avoiding income tax.

They were avoiding income tax by giving gifts to their family or friends in order to cut down on their income from the sources that they controlled. Sometimes it was thought by the then governments that they didn't really give them away, as we would understand giving, but that they maintained a fairly tight control on the gifts that they gave. In any event, they were able to successfully reduce their income tax.

Then, of course, with the succession duties, estate taxes, et cetera, the same situation applied. That was that one way of avoiding paying succession duty was to give it away during the course of your life, and in relatively large sums. Then, Mr. Speaker, you would not have such a large estate at death.

I can recall having seen situations where the allowable gifts were somewhat lower than they are now. I can remember at one time when you were only allowed to give $1,000 per year to as many strangers. You were allowed something more than that - as I recall, $4,000 - to the spouse. That was to and then ultimately for. But, Mr. Speaker, all this really begs the question about why we are doing these things. Why are we doing the kinds of beneficial things for people who really don't require benefit at the present time when we find that we are unable to do beneficial things for people who require help?

The provincial government received an unexpected gift from the federal government. That unexpected gift was an increase for those people who qualified for disability income from the provincial government. It worked out to $22.50 per person per month. That was not passed on. It wasn't passed on, Mr. Speaker, because the government said they couldn't afford it. But at the same time, they can afford to provide benefits for those who can very well do without those benefits. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says that people will hereinafter pay for their antacids and laxatives and other drugs which can generally be bought in pharmacies without prescription. These are products, chemicals, that are often required by the elderly and the poor. Mr. Speaker, that benefit isn't provided for the elderly and the poor.

No, Mr. Speaker, what we do instead is provide a benefit for those who least need it - benefit to the very successful businessman who needs no protection; benefit to the wealthy who need no such protection in times of travail, in times of stress, in times when there are people in great need within our society.

We waited with bated breath for a year and a half to see some increase in income to the disabled. There is total frustration for those people who are disabled, but not for those who are wealthy; there's no frustration for them at all. Mr. Speaker, I know there is nothing we can do to reverse the course of this intransigent government or to change their minds about the whole question and a related question in this whole area of gift tax and succession duty. I wish to heaven that people a few years ago had listened with more care to Carter. I don't mean President Carter; I mean the commissioner who produced the Carter commission report and who said: "Revamp the whole taxing system of this country. It's unfair, it's inadequate, it's stupid." Remember - it was. There was never any very good argument against the work of the Carter commission report. I heard no dynamic controversy at the time. I think most people

[ Page 2519 ]

recognized that this was a fair assessment of what could be done and a fair assessment of what was happening. Oh, I feel sorry for the situation that occurred, the one that the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) brought into this House. But if the member for Shuswap and the people of his ilk had stood up and said something positive a few years ago about the question of the Carter commission report, we wouldn't be in this bag today. We would never have got into this crazy, unfair taxing system that we have. It's a taxing system that's completely dependent upon taxing those people at the lower end of the scale, a taxing system that gives all the benefits to those who require those benefits the least.

I just can't tell you how frustrated one becomes when one has to sit across the floor in a Legislature, watching people who obviously have their hands tied by a commitment that they made in a moment that they probably regret today. Sometime prior to that election they said: "Well, we're prepared to make a commitment to you people who are prepared to support us." That's what they did. Of course, those people who were prepared to support them came up with a considerable amount of money obviously. Because had they not, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of legislation brought for-ward, particularly at this time.

I said the other day, in another argument - but the same argument applied - even if you agree with this philosophically, how do you make an excuse for doing it now? There can be no ready excuse. I've seen no one from the government side other than the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , jump up in support of the Minister of Finance's position. Don't anticipate that you will see very many, Mr. Speaker, because I'm sure that over the last week or two or three, government members are regretting a direction they took around this whole subject. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if they have any conscience at all, they must regret the position that they've taken on these companion pieces of legislation.

I'm delighted, Mr. Speaker, with the words of the former Premier Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that if he were here today - despite the crazy Kelowna Charter, whatever it might mean - he would stand up again, having given a great deal of thought to his philosophy at the time. I would hope that if he were here now, he'd be standing up and turning his back on this kind of legislation. It's of no help and of no significance to our economy.

There has been no presentation in this House made that would indicate anything other than the fact that they're keeping a promise. And to whom is the promise made? It's made to those people, Mr. Speaker, that governments should not worry or concern themselves about to any great extent. The people who require the services of government and the people who require the help of government are the most defenceless people in our society, and they should be the priority. They should certainly be the priority at this time in history, Mr. Speaker.

There can be no excuse for doing what they're doing now. We will certainly oppose this piece of gross legislation.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): One of the persistent arguments that we've heard from the Minister of Finance really is related to the necessity of relief from the Gift Tax Act and the previous bill we dealt with, in the interests of getting better investment in the province.

The Leader of the Opposition, when he debated the previous bill, pointed out the remarks made by the Minister of Finance when he was a backbencher with the previous government. He had a lot to say on the succession duty bill. Interestingly enough, when the Gift Tax Act came up in 1972 he didn't have anything to say about it.

However, his colleague from Vancouver Centre at the time, Mr. Capozzi, had something to say about it. I just want to cover it briefly because he was the only one of that government who actually voted against the legislation. He said at that time: "I don't suggest that people are suddenly going to fly or to leave British Columbia because we impose this type of thing." He was talking then, Mr. Speaker, about the gift-tax legislation, He also went on to say: "We're being pushed more and more into a socialist concept where the state has the right to take everything above the bare minimum." Now that was a remark made by the Minister of Finance's colleague when he was a backbencher, a multi-millionaire who says, interestingly enough, that the state will have the right to take everything above the bare minimum. Well, I don't know what the bare minimum was considered to be when that kind of a statement was made by a multi-millionaire. But he was upset about it and he voted against it. In fact, he was the only member of the government to vote against it.

But the minister keeps saying: "We have a climate that creates more investment capital." Well, I have before me, Mr. Speaker, the situation in respect to investment capital in the province, which is reported in the mid-year economic review. The latest one that we have is for the fiscal year ending 1976. Under the heading, "Capital investment, " it says: "Total capital investment and repair investment in British Columbia in 1976 is estimated at $6,400, 000,000, an increase of 10 per cent over 1975."

The information contained in table 42 starts by giving you the investment capital in 1966, which at the time was something like $2.5 billion. Then we get up to 1971, when it was $3.9 billion. In 1975 it was $5.8 billion, and in 1976 it was $6.4 billion. If one studies the yearly reports on capital and repair investment in this province, at no time has investment

[ Page 2520 ]

capital dropped below the previous year. In fact, it's been increasing at anywhere from 8 to 13 per cent a year.

Now on the other hand, we do have to look at the question of equity, particularly in relation to this Gift Tax Act. My colleagues have already said that this is the kind of Act that benefits only very rich people who really do not need it. If you're going to remove it, it gives them a complete field in terms of the disposition of all of their money.

In the same report in 1976, where we have a breakdown of the kind of fiscal burden that is being borne by the rest of the province, we find that by the end of the fiscal year 1976 the corporations paid something like $400 million and the personal income taxes were up to $950 million. Then, as my other colleagues have pointed out, the natural resource contribution was something like $400 million, which is half the contribution made by the people who work for a living in the province.

Now just going on further in terms of the investment capital situation, as a province, we are in receipt of a portion of the yearly collection on the Canada Pension Plan. It comes to this province; we get it on a loan from the Canada Pension Plan fund. I think in the fiscal year 1976 we received some $175 million or thereabouts - within $5 million - at an interest rate of about 9 per cent.

Now that is seen as useful for investment capital. As a matter of fact, in 1974, Marc Lalonde, who was the Minister of National Health and Welfare and responsible for the administration of the Canada Pension Plan, said that 38 per cent of all the capital formation provided in provinces came from the Canada Pension Plan.

Now what we have to look at there is, in terms of the Canada Pension Plan, who provides the money? Well, half of the money comes from the people who work and the other half comes from the people who employ them. That's investment capital; that's the workers' participation in the investment area. It's already been pointed out that they're also heavy purchasers of insurance and mortgages.

I also want to point out that as time goes on, Mr. Speaker, more and more of the major burden of investment capital, both in Canada and in the United States - and I'm going to come to the United States in a minute - is borne by the people who work for a living. In Canada today we have something like $30 billion invested in pension funds. This is used as investment capital. It's estimated that $18 billion to $19 billion of that money is direct contributions of the people who work and for whom the plan is set up. The rest is the contribution that is made by the employer.

Peter Drucker, who is an eminent economist and business management corporate specialist, has pointed out that by the year 1985, 60 per cent of all of the investment capital in the United States will come from pension funds. There again we have a shifting, an enlarging of the contribution that is made by the average working man in terms of his pension funds, and those pension funds being a significant part of the investment capital formation that goes on both in this country, in this province, and in the United States.

The minister has not been able to provide us with any information which would indicate to us just what percentage of all the capital formation that is needed or is contributed to in this province is brought about by the relieving of the gift tax. Now we know that the gift tax is a companion bill to the previous succession duties bill that we dealt with. If you get rid of one it seems you've got to get rid of the other one. But certainly in this case, as in the previous legislation, we simply don't have the information from the minister at all.

He's making just the bald argument - and from his point of view it's regressive taxation; after all, it's hurting the millionaires so it's regressive - that somehow it has a direct effect on the introduction into this province of investment capital, and also on the use of money that's existing in this province. We're a well-known saving province. We save an enormous amount of money in this province. Canada, as a whole, is a very well-known saving nation in the world, yet we rely to a tremendous extent on investment capital from outside of the province and from outside of the country. There is no way that the minister has been able to convince anybody on this side with the argument that he used in the previous bill, and is using in this bill, for removing the tax burdens - and that's an interesting word considering we're talking about millionaires - to millionaires of gift taxes and, in the previous legislation, succession duties. He hasn't demonstrated to us at all what the burden is.

Really we're not interested in the kind of smokescreens that are put up by people on the other side when they show us the odd anomalous case which deals with a widow, which is the favourite one they like to drag up over there. What we're talking about is the people who are going to escape who don't need to escape from this tax. We're talking about the millionaires. We're talking about the people who have estates of $300,000, $400,000, $500,000. Those figures were available to us in the eminent research done by that department which was tabled in the House at the beginning of March and consisted of one page. The total contribution of a $3.5 million research budget was one page of information. We have nothing on the Gift Tax Act.

But the principle is the same in both bills as far as we're concerned: they are relieving people who don't need to be relieved. More importantly, he has not been able to connect up for us the argument that

[ Page 2521 ]

somehow this will generate investment capital. If it was to do that, if he had the facts, I'm sure that we would listen with some interest. But that is not the case. We certainly know that the major capital formations in this country, and in the rest -of the world, are being formed on the basis of the very huge pools of money which are available. Those huge pools of money, as Mr. Drucker points out, are certainly in the ever-growing pension funds which exist both in Canada and in the United States. If you put together those pools of capital and the capital from the insurance companies, then you have a very large percentage of all of the wealth of North America.

In no way does the working person in this province have to take a back seat and feel somewhat inhibited by the fact that because he doesn't take from his own bank account large gobs of money and put it into the investment of the province that he should think he's not investing. He is investing, Mr. Speaker. If he has a pension plan, he's investing in this province. If he's contributing to the Canada Pension Plan, as everybody who works in this province does, he's contributing to the investment in this province to a very large extent. In removing this Gift Tax Act, he will be way ahead in his contribution in terms of direct investment in the future of this province than the rich people who will be able to take their money and dispose of it in any way they want without any real consideration for the obligation they have to the province.

The working man is locked in. He needs his pension for his future security. One of the things, of course, Mr. Speaker, that he doesn't have, which the millionaires have, is control over what happens to the investment, and that's his problem. That's the worker's problem. Sooner or later they're going to wake up to the fact that they have to control their own pension funds. They're going to have to have a say in the investment policies, and not leave it to trust companies or insurance companies. They should have that control; that's got to come. Once that comes, once you have the average working man in the trade unions controlling his own investment funds, then he will have a direct say, and a very obvious say, in the investment growth of this province.

Part of the bill here today we're dealing with is that the minister is indicating to us that the only people who are ready and willing to make a contribution are the people who are millionaires. Providing you lift this Gift Tax Act, they'll be only too willing to make this contribution. Well, I ask too - and perhaps the minister might indicate to us -where they have this money at the moment. Where is it invested? Or is it, as the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) indicated, in the mattress somewhere? I doubt that it's in the mattress. It's invested.

Five years ago, when former Premier W.A.C. Bennett produced the two pieces of legislation, he had a lot to say about obligation to the province. But then, as it came closer to the time when he was going to have to call an election, he had to make a very crass political decision, and he made it. What he had said in March, 1972, was no longer operable in July, 1972, and therefore he was going to give back to the millionaires.... He was going to roll back the legislation and they would feel free to stay here. He hadn't really meant everything he'd said. Well, this government is less crass, I think, than Premier W.A.C. Bennett. They campaigned on the issue that they would eliminate gift tax and succession duties. They came right out right up front and they said they would do that.

Then, after they were government for a year, it appeared that the most overwhelming priority problem in terms of legislation in this province became the Succession Duty Act and the Gift Tax Act. Somehow, in the three to four years that they are going to be government, this was a major priority that had to be dealt with this year because the whole economy was in danger if we didn't remove the Gift Tax Act. So they brought it in. If you follow their logic, next year the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will get up and tell us how well the economy's doing. He'll point directly to the removal of the Gift Tax Act and the Succession Duty Act, and say: "Now the province has freed itself up in terms of investment capital. Away we go!" The only thing is that we don't know; we don't have any information and neither does he have any information.

What they're doing is keeping a political promise, and I suppose one must say to them: "Well, you see, you made the promise and you're keeping it." But there were a lot of other promises that were made at the same time, Mr. Speaker, not just to remove financial burdens from the millionaires, but there was also the question of relieving financial -burdens from low income people and people on fixed incomes, improving social services, looking at the whole hospital service, and the ambulance service, looking at the school system. But it appears that in the prioritizing in that government, when they looked at what kind of legislation they must introduce, this was at the top of the heap.

Well, I would suppose that it has to be at the top of the heap because once you've delivered the promise, you can expect, sometime down the road before the next election, that all of these people who are going to benefit from the removal of this tax now have an IOU to the government, or to the political party of the government. They will have to make the contributions ' because we've heard enough already from that side and from some of the dismal economic forecasts that we've heard both from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . They say that one of the

[ Page 2522 ]

problems that exists is that we don't have enough investment capital, and therefore one of the answers is to relieve the millionaires of any tax burden. The other thing is that people have to be much more positive about the province because most of businesses and the resource industry are saying that they are not really prepared to invest in British Columbia right now because they're not sure that the socialists aren't going to get back.

Well, this is really an anti-socialist insurance bill, because what's going to happen here is that having delivered this one, which is a companion bill to the previous one, they can be assured of a fair amount of money in their next election fund, because they've delivered the promise. It'll be worth - who knows? -$1 million or $2 million in terms of election contributions. That's what it'll be worth to them over there.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Will you put it back in if you're elected?

MR. LEVI: Put what back in?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Act.

MR. LEVI: You're damned right we'll put it back in when we get elected. You're right. Of course we'll put it back in. We're not prepared to go back on a political expediency. We campaigned on the business of succession duties. We voted in favour of the succession duties, along with the former Premier.

You want to put it out. If we get back in, you're darned right it's going to go back in, because there has to be some kind of equity. We can't rely on Ottawa to do some kind of equity with the income tax system, but on this one we do have some control, and there has to be an equity situation. To suggest that of all of the major priorities you've got this comes before helping the handicapped, or children, or anything.... This is a major priority, and the only reason it's a major priority is because it's an election fund. That's what it's going to bring to the government, to their political party - an election fund, and a fairly substantial one.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Never mind about Saskatchewan. We're in British Columbia - let's deal with that. You're the ones who are going to have anywhere up to $2 million or $3 million in an election fund from the happy millionaires who are celebrating as of January 24 because you cut off the Succession Duty Act and the Gift Tax Act. Don't tell us about Saskatchewan; don't tell us about the previous government. You're the government; you're in charge; you're running things, I'm telling you that this bill is a political promise that you made. You're delivering, and it's going to be worth a couple of a million dollars to you in an election fund.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Garbage!

MR. LEVI: That's what it's going to be worth. That's where you get your election money from. You make those kinds of promises that you're going to look after the rich. You're delivering and you've got some insurance. It's part of the insurance fund.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The Liberal for Boundary-Similkameen, Mr. Speaker, is so twitchy these last few days because we keep hitting the sore spots.... It's incredible! You joined them; now live with them, wallow with them. That's the way they do it.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Wallow with them. You should be ashamed.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to see you. I'm just winding up now.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: There's the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , old Mr. Jobs, the man who was going to generate more jobs than we need.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we meet next year, after we get the information about how successful the minister's drive for economic investment is going to be, we're going to be able to understand the impact of this legislation on that kind of investment growth. Then we're going to be able to have the Minister of Mines or perhaps the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) stand up and tell us that no longer are 25 per cent of all of the people seeking work in Alberta from British Columbia, but that we're able to take care of our own unemployed in this problem, and we're able to provide the jobs.

But so far, in 15 months, in terms of the policies of that government they have not been able to generate, to our knowledge and to the knowledge of this province, one new job. We know of 20,000 or 25,000 jobs that have disappeared; we know of the large number of people who have been driven out of the province.

But we hear from the Minister of Finance that the objective of removing the Gift Tax Act and the companion bill, the Succession Duty Act, is to stimulate economic investment, and from that will flow jobs. Well, we'll see, because I don't believe that for one minute. It's exactly as I said it was before. It's

[ Page 2523 ]

a guarantee of a straight $2 million election fund from the millionaires for that government when the next election comes around.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. I outlined my arguments during the debate on the succession duties bill, and it is really only because of the action taken by the government to abolish succession duties that this bill is also being debated. It's quite obvious that the Gift Tax Act was necessary at such time as we had succession duties in order to circumvent abuse of the succession duties legislation.

Now that the government is abolishing succession duties, it really doesn't make much sense to have a Gift Tax Act, although there may be a time when a gift tax would be necessary in the province. I just wish to repeat my lack of conviction that the abolition of succession duties will provide the investment capital. That was the main argument presented by the government.

I feel that the balance and the justness of our total tax system is not met by abolishing succession duties and gift tax. Therefore I will be voting against this bill, mainly because I voted against the succession duties abolition. My arguments need not be repeated in this debate as they're available in the debate which took place on the succession duties bill.

MR. KING: I do not intend to take too much time on this bill either, but I did want to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the proposition that's been put forward, both with respect to the succession duties and the gift tax abolition, that this in some way will generate more industrial activity in the province and more investment in the province.

I want to offer to the government some alternatives for stimulating financial capital investment in the province rather than providing a tax holiday for those people who are already very, very well off. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government should review some of the policies that they have initiated up until this point. I believe that a more realistic way of increasing economic activity in the community is to place moneys in the hands of the people who spend it - the consumers of the province.

I've pointed out on many other occasions during this session and the last one that the government's economic approach was to dry up disposable income in the hands of the ordinary consumer in the province. They have accomplished that, Mr. Speaker, by increases in virtually every area of government service: increases in the ferry rates, automobile insurance, personal income tax, sales tax, cost of health care, cost of home heating fuels, cost of hydro, surcharges and so on.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of approach results in less disposable income in the hands of people and a consequent reduction in the demands that are placed upon the goods and commodities in the province. There is a concomitant reduction in employment, and that is where the main problem lies in terms of a stagnant economy at the moment and the tremendously high, unprecedented level of unemployment at this particular time.

This government has rolled the clock back, Mr. Speaker, in terms of modern economics. They have rolled the clock back to the old Adam Smith theory, the old trickle-down theory of providing more money to the rich in the hope that some will trickle down to the poor. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I don't know whether the motivation for that approach, the adoption of the Adam Smith economic theory, which was abandoned years ago by every modern government in the western world, is a dedication to the past, which this government is perhaps fairly well known for, or whether it's personal interest.

I do know there are people in this government who are looking to very large estates in terms of their inheritance possibilities. I do know there are those in this government who are able to pass on very large gifts to their spouses and to their children and to their friends.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're not dealing with the death tax duties now; we're dealing with the gift tax.

MR. KING: Well, that's just what I was talking about when you interrupted me, Mr. Speaker - the ability of many millionaires on that side of the House to make gifts to their spouses and to their heirs and to their children and so on.

It is legislation which, you would agree, Mr. Speaker, is being defined by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as being hand in glove with the succession duty bill. The philosophy and the approach is identical. The effect is the same, Mr. Speaker, and that is to reward those who can well afford to pay taxes in this province, and in a way, I suggest, that brings no benefit to the province in improved investment.

I submit as an alternative to this approach that it would pay the government to start looking at rollbacks in terms of some of those inordinate increases in ferry rates that they have imposed on people. It would pay them and stimulate the economy more beneficially if they would roll back the sales tax at least to the previous level of 5 per cent. It would certainly place more disposable income in the hands of our people, particularly senior citizens who spend it in British Columbia, if there would be a reduction in the cost of hydro-electric rates, home heating fuels and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the abolition of gift taxes and succession duties cannot be justified as a sound and

[ Page 2524 ]

sensible economic approach to stimulating the economy in British Columbia. Rather, it should be recognized for what it is: an outright gift, an outright payback to the millionaires of the province who are certainly in a minority position, Mr. Speaker. It is an outright concession to them at the expense of the poor people and the ordinary taxpayers. That's exactly what it is, and it should not be masked in anything but that purpose.

The motivation will have to be defined in the mind of each and every person in this province when it rolls around to the next election. They will have to determine whether the government was acting out of self-interest, out of political expediency to those who pay their campaign funds, or whether they were acting, as they claim to be acting, out of the interest of stimulating the economy of British Columbia on behalf of all people. I say that there is no way that kind of claim can be made with any validity.

It's another payback to the rich and the privileged of this province. It's a complete reversal of position for the Social Credit Party. I don't mind that too much, Mr. Speaker; I understand that. I hardly demand consistency out of this group with what was formerly Social Credit policy. After all, they not only abandoned many of the principles of Social Credit; they certainly abandoned the people-oriented base of the previous Social Credit government. So I don't demand that kind of consistency.

But I do think that it must be a very difficult and embarrassing task. for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to pilot this bill through the House when he is on record as speaking for it and voting for it when it was introduced in 1972 by W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier and the former Leader of the Social Credit party. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , read some statements and reminded the members on that side of what Mr. Bennett had had to say about the equity, the fairness and the appropriateness of this kind of tax on the rich in the province of British Columbia. The wealth of the rich was not gained by their own initiative and incentive alone. Certainly a major portion was created by the sweat and the toil of working people in this province, as well as the resources which the rich were allowed, in many cases, to develop. Surely it is not too much to ask that some of that wealth be paid back to the state for social benefits to those who helped to earn it in the first instance and to those , who are not as fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, it must be an embarrassing task for the Minister of Finance to change his position and abandon the principle that he stood on in 1972, when he both spoke for and voted in favour of succession duties and death tax. It must be difficult for him now - as it must be difficult for the Premier, the potential heir to a large estate in this province - to abandon the justice for which the former leader of the Social

Credit spoke in this House. It must be difficult to abandon those principles and to clearly and forever identify this coalition of convenience as representative of the rich and the privileged of this province, and to heck with the average person, the worker and the senior citizen who have a right to expect a fair return from the wealth that they have helped to create.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but are we not debating the repeal of the Gift Tax Act? All we seem to have been talking about is succession duties. So if I am incorrect, will you kindly correct me, please?

We are debating the removal of the gift taxes. Now gift taxes were introduced in 1972 because they were necessary to safeguard the implementation of succession duties. With the removal of succession duties taxes in British Columbia, gift taxes are redundant. They are no longer necessary. I would venture to say that they would no longer collect any significant amount of tax. There would no longer be any reason for people to declare gifts to protect their family, et cetera. During the past year, this province collected in revenues from gift taxes in 1976 $464,688.- This was derived from some 253 assessments. A great many more people would have declared gifts or would have made gifts within the exemptions which wouldn't be within these figures. But in terms of the moneys which were collected from other taxes, I would not classify this as a significant amount. If we were to even conceive of leaving on gift taxes with the removal of succession duties, it's hard to imagine where we would collect any revenue in the future from gift taxes. So this is the hard fact before us in debating second reading on repeal of gift taxes in British Columbia. I would further mention that any other province that has removed succession duties has simultaneously removed gift taxes. To name just one - Saskatchewan has presently introduced the removal of gift taxes, simultaneously with the removal of succession duties. The federal government as well, when they removed estate taxes in 1972 or 1971, removed the incidence of gift taxes at the same time. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is presently no gift tax in any province where succession duties have been removed - which is now the majority of the provinces in the Dominion of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we were treated earlier this afternoon to another performance from that matinee idol of British Columbia. He came in here and he's a fading matinee idol. He's something like the George Raft of a former era. He can't find a way to attack succession duties except to personally try to insult the members of this House and to attempt by other means to throw discredit on the need to remove these duties at a time like this in the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 2525 ]

We're not talking about three, four or five years ago, when the economy was buoyant and when circumstances were totally different. We are not suggesting that we should refer to what the opinions of people were at that time, but the present situation in British Columbia and in Canada certainly speaks volumes for the need to remove these deterrents to capital investment in British Columbia.

MR. KING: Nonsense!

HON. MR. WOLFE: So, Mr. Speaker, as many across the House have said, this removal of gift taxes is not for any single group in society, because in fact the great majority of British Columbians want the removal of succession duties and gift taxes. It's not for a small little group of people. The great majority of British Columbians, as a matter of fact, said this in December of 1975. They said they wanted this legislation, and that's what we're giving them, Mr. Speaker.

I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 16

Bill 11, Gift Tax Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

RON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 16. This is adjourned debate on the amendment.

PSYCHOLOGISTS ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to speak in support of the amendment very briefly, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. Since the bill was introduced.... I don't know whether the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is listening or not. He's not? I'll wait until he is, because it's his bill. Mr. Minister, I'm giving my reasons why I'm supporting the amendment and I wondered whether you'd be interested.

Since the bill was brought down I've received a number of phone calls, in particular from the lay counsellors - the Pastoral Institute I think is the exact title of the group. They're concerned that the bill would in some way curtail their right to counsel. Some of these people operate in hospitals such as Vancouver General Hospital or Riverview and in other places. A number of them are involved with marital counselling and other kinds of family counselling. They're not quite sure by the way the bill is presently worded whether it will in any way curtail their rights or their activities in this field. In any event, Mr. Speaker, they mentioned that they did not have an opportunity to have any kind of input into the legislation. Certainly by referring the bill to the committee on health, education and human resources the lay counsellors, or the Pastoral Institute as they are called, would have....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The lay counsellors. I have read the bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm just saying that this particular group feel they have not had any input into it. By having public hearings this would give them an opportunity to voice their concerns about the bill. In particular, I got a call from the chaplain at Vancouver General Hospital who seems to feel that in some way he is going to be curtailed in terms of his lay counselling as a result of the bill.

The other group of people to whom I spoke were some psychologists themselves, who seemed to feel that this bill was in some way going to prevent counsellors in the school system from involving themselves in psychological counselling. They expressed concern that counsellors in the school system who did not have any background or any training in psychology were, in fact, embarking on psychological counselling. The feeling was that if this piece of legislation was referred to the legislative committee on health, education and human resources, the counsellors within the school system would have an opportunity to have some input into it too, and to talk about the kinds of things they are doing and why they feel either that they should be permitted to do so or that they should not be permitted to do so.

In fact, the main concern seems to be that the only people who have had any input into this particular piece of legislation are the psychologists

[ Page 2526 ]

themselves. This is not fair because there are a number of other groups that are concerned aside from your lay counsellors, the psychiatrists, other medical groups, your preachers, your pastoral groups and others. All of these groups feel they should have some kind of input into the legislation too.

Certainly if one is interested in introducing legislation that meets the needs of the community at large, there is no harm to be done in terms of referring this piece of legislation to a legislative committee so that the public in general, as well as these particular special-interest groups, will have an opportunity to have some kind of input and some kind of dialogue in terms of just what the legislation is supposed to do.

I don't know whether the minister thinks that this piece of legislation is going to in any way curtail the activities of "quacks" and other kinds of groups that call themselves psychologists or refer to what they're doing as psychological counselling, because this bill is not going to do that. It just doesn't have any teeth in it to do that. The only thing the bill says is that this kind of counselling cannot be referred to as psychological counselling and that these people cannot refer to themselves as psychologists. But in fact they can continue doing what they're doing as long as they use a different title for themselves and as long as they give a different name to what they're doing.

So as far as the teeth in the bill in terms of disciplining or licensing or whatever, it doesn't have it. In fact, it's pretty much a nothing bill in that it just gives psychologists an opportunity to refer to themselves as registered psychologists, and that is all that it does. It doesn't do anything else.

In fact, if the minister is concerned about the quality of counselling that's going on in the community at large and seeing to it that it conforms to certain specifications, he should be looking at an omnibus bill that covers all groups that are involved in the counselling business.

I really appreciate the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) listening to me. I wish it was your bill, Mr. Minister of Mines, because you certainly seem to be much more interested in it than the Minister of Health himself. So I'll speak to you. Even the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) seems to be concerned about the quality of counselling that's going on.

In fact, what we need is an omnibus bill that covers not just psychologists but social workers, lay counsellors, psychiatrists - everybody who's involved in the business of counselling, either family therapy, marital counselling, counselling with children or whatever. I think the Quebec model is one that we could look at in terms of omnibus legislation rather than all of these isolated bills.

The social workers have legislation; they can call themselves registered social workers. When this goes in, the psychologists can call themselves registered psychologists. Big deal; it doesn't really change anything. The kind of abuses that go on in these various professions continue. The same is true of any of these professions that do not have the kind of power that comes under a licensing Act. Even when you have the power under a licensing Act, as they do in the case of lawyers and doctors, we see that not even that cuts down the level of abuses in those two professions.

For those two reasons in particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to seriously consider referring this - it's not an urgent piece of legislation, surely - to the committee on health, education and human resources so that more people can have input into it and certainly so that the public at large can have an opportunity for some dialogue.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I too support the amendment for the reasons that have been given by other members on the floor of the House, and particularly the last member. The points which she brought up are some I wish to elaborate on.

I believe the minister probably brought in this bill in good faith with the hope that there will be some protection for the public from incompetents practising psychology in our province. But our concern is that this bill doesn't seem to show that it will prevent incompetents from practising in this province. These are concerns expressed by a number of groups, as has been pointed out not only by the members on this side House.

I want to elaborate on a couple of points here for the minister, Mr. Speaker. I think there was a discussion, before we moved into this motion, to hoist the bill on the matter of training for psychologists. My understanding is that in our three major universities in British Columbia there is really not a specific training programme or school at this time to prepare psychologists to help and counsel people who have emotional problems. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a student can get his or her Bachelor's degree in psychology by passing academic courses which have nothing to do with the nature of mental symptoms in psychotherapy.

It's true that a master or PhD degree in psychology does require that the candidates be acquainted with a certain battery of tests for the diagnosis of disturbed persons and assessment of their personalities, but most leading American and English psychologists have stated that these tests are not particularly valid and the diagnosis to which they lead is often only an exercise in futility.

So the point I'm bringing out to the minister is my concern about the actual training which is available in our province at this time. This is no reflection on

[ Page 2527 ]

those who are practising in general, although we are obviously concerned with some who are. We are concerned with quacks getting involved in this area. As someone has said, you could say a person could even have a degree but still be performing inadequately if they're incompetent. Now how is this bill going to check on the competence of a psychologist?

At present there are only about four psychologists listed in the B.C. telephone directory as members of the B.C. Psychological Association who are actually listed as practitioners. We're aware it is probably difficult to make a living in this area. So my other question to the minister is: once this bill is passed, will this mean that those who are certified as members of the association will then be able to qualify for medicare payments? Will this be the next step? Will this come under medicare? I think this is another area that we're very concerned about. We're not saying whether we say pro or con, but we haven't had an answer. I think the minister should think very carefully about what would happen if they do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the answers could be given in committee.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, all right. Well, I'm just expressing another reason for my supporting the amendment to hoist it. It's something that I consider to be a question which I think a committee should well look into. That's why I'm bringing it to the attention of the minister.

There are people who have asked to become members of the psychological association. I think the minister himself recalls receiving a letter from someone who outlined their concern that they were refused entry into the association. Here again, I think that there should be a discussion in a committee set up by the minister as to what these criteria will be, and who is eligible for membership and on what basis they would be granted certification. Or is it going to be just a very small closed shop which decides in a very subjective way who is to receive certification? Because apparently there are people who have applied and have been turned down people who have valid European degrees. Yet no particular answer has been given for why they've been turned down.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that many of these questions can be left for committee stage, but the point that we're bringing up is the questions obviously.... When the minister introduced the bill, many of these questions, and the bill itself, do not seem to clarify in our minds at all that this bill will cope with the many concerns which people in our province have over this very, very vital area of the treatment of people with emotional disturbances. So that is why I too support the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I support this amendment, although I appreciate the attempt made by the Minister of Health through this piece of legislation to try and bring some order to the psychological services industry, if you like. It's done piecemeal, "Mr. Speaker. It's done in a way that avoids the, real question of delivery of health services at the professional end and it should be really seriously considered by this minister to bring in a rather comprehensive statute dealing with all of the professional services in health care.

We know that his department has for some years been considering just such a statute. We know that his staff and people in his department have been making such investigations. It seems that this minister is just having a knee-jerk reaction. That's all it is - a knee-jerk reaction. A few psychologists are putting a little political pressure to bear on the Health minister and he's bringing in this statute. Well, we should justifiably try and have the psychologists control the malpractice that's going on and the phony quacks who are running around calling themselves psychologists.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is avoiding the real issue. The real issue is that if you're dealing in one profession and you bringing a professional Act, another one is going to spring up. You're not going to catch anywhere near the number of people that are running around, putting themselves out as psychologists and family counsellors and doctors and what-have-you. A great many of them are quacks and nuts and berries running around society with cures for cancer and faith healing and what-have-you. But I'll tell you another thing, Mr. Speaker: this Act is not going to solve that problem. It will temporarily bring professional status to the psychologists in this province, but it certainly won't solve the problem of protecting the public from this quackery that's going on.

Now there are good psychologists, and there are some very good ones within the jurisdiction of this province. They can provide excellent counselling services to those people in need of them and I'm delighted to see that finally they'll be getting some kind of a statute to protect them. But surely to goodness, this Minister of Health should stop his knee-jerk reaction to a problem and look upon it as a total problem, a problem of bringing together under one statute the control and guidance of the health professionals in this province on the one hand and protecting the public on the other.

The minister has the material and has all the necessary information to go that course, and that he has not done so is disappointing to the opposition. Therefore I'm voting in- favour of this motion to refer.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 2528 ]

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 26

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

MR. BARNES: I just really only rise to make a few comments, and perhaps one observation. The Minister of Health really surprised me. He's quite anxious to get the bill through. You would think that he would have had something to say about the amendment. We're suggesting on this side of the House that although the intent of the bill is certainly well taken, it should be referred to a committee, as the last motion suggested. It was defeated, in any case. I was surprised that the minister didn't stand up and defend why it shouldn't be referred, at least at that opportunity. It just gives more credence to the point that we were making - that there is every need to refer....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The vote is over.

MR. BARNES: I know the vote is over, but why didn't you stand up and say something?

But I certainly feel that it should be a more encompassing piece of legislation. Psychologists are not the only group which we're concerned about. We're looking for an opportunity to review all of the programmes involving practitioners who are in the field of counselling and providing services for individuals.

There are a number of questions that perhaps could have been best discussed if we had made some of the concerns available to the public in order to get some input. I'm not quite sure if the minister has in mind just a simple recognition of - le particular group which is seriously concerned about a method of licensing on a broader scale, in trying to bring under control any organizations or individuals who may, perhaps, be attempting to exploit those unfortunate individuals who need counselling services and who are, as you know, desperately seeking to find answers to the many complexities that they face on a regular basis in our society.... They are under considerable frustration due to the pressures of a competitive society, in which they are perhaps not doing very well in trying to meet the normal needs of food, clothing and shelter in families. They are getting pressure because of high-pressure advertising and so forth, and they are feeling that their personal images are in doubt. They continually have to try and climb up the ladder and to try and achieve those things which are always just a little beyond arm's length.

So the field which we're concerned about is not really just the psychologists, although I can appreciate the concern of psychologists in wanting to eliminate those people who would exploit individuals who are looking for counselling and who are seeking help. But I think we're missing the opportunity to really nail down the ones who are the culprits. This is why I say the bill is well intentioned. I can appreciate the attempt of the minister in going as far as he's gone. But what's going to happen to those people who are referred to - perhaps unfairly in some instances - as charlatans ' or maybe to others who are not, but who are really not in a position to assume the responsibility for their acts? They may be given advice without any responsibility or liability for the consequences of their services.

You have retreats set up by individuals who may represent themselves as having certain professional competence to give advice. I'm wondering if the bill will deal with that. I'm sure the minister will want to respond and ensure the House about the scope of the bill, and how he views these other practitioners who may not come under the umbrella of the bill. Perhaps he intends to come in later on with a companion bill to this particular piece of legislation, which would be more encompassing and which would provide some protection for those consumers of professional counselling services who are not in a position to evaluate or assess the competence of the person who may be selling that service.

Really, that's the concern that I think that my hon. colleague had in mind in moving to refer it to a committee, Mr. Speaker, for proper assessment of the overall effects of this piece of legislation.

Because of this lack and uncertainty as far as the scope of the bill and its effectiveness is concerned, with regret I am going to have to oppose the bill. But, as I say, I do appreciate the intent of it and I had hoped that the minister would have at least given some indication as to the way in which he intends to deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed on this side of the House.

I am sure he appreciates the problems we have in the community of people representing themselves to

[ Page 2529 ]

be competent in areas in which they are not. There are in effect no laws so far that will eliminate these people, although certainly the people who are psychologists will be protected. They will be able to assure by policing themselves that no one is going to get in and call themselves psychologists. But they could call themselves anything. Is there going to be a campaign to inform people that they should be aware and to caution them against the result of people who may be representing themselves to provide services they are not legally going to be accountable for? There is no legislation with which to regulate their activities.

I think this is a fairly serious problem and one that should be included in this bill. I think this is the concern of this bill - an attempt to try and get some regulatory procedures and some control over the market that deals with counselling for persons who are seeking this particular service. So I will be opposing the bill on the basis of that, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: I am concerned about what is missing from the bill, and the most obvious omission is the definition of the word "psychology." If one can take the word of the American College Dictionary, psychology is the science of human nature. This, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what the members of the Pastoral Institute and the lay counsellors tell us that they are involved in.

Now when I was speaking under the amendment, the minister asked whether I had read the bill, because he seems to be inferring that ministers attached to places like Riverview Hospital or the Vancouver General or lay counsellors were not going to be affected by this piece of legislation. Yet we find that the definition of the word "psychology" which is commonly being used certainly covers the area that ministers and various people involved in lay counselling seem to see as part of their purview. In fact, the Act, when it talks about the practice of psychology, also includes things like interpersonal relationships and emotions, predicting and influencing behaviour. These are all certainly things that people involved in lay counselling, whether in the hospital setting or some other area, see as part of their purview.

Now what this piece of legislation is saying is that this is going to be discontinued; these people can no longer carry out their roles as lay counsellors or as lay preaches in hospitals or wherever unless they are registered under this piece of legislation. The Act specifically forbids anyone to involve themselves in the practice of psychology unless they are registered under this Act. In its definition of the practice of psychology it includes a number of things that, quite frankly, I am not even sure why they should be in the exclusive area of psychology. It includes hypnosis. Are we to understand that Reveen is never going to be able to have one of his shows in The Orpheum any more because he's not registered under this Act as a psychologist? There are a number of strange things which are included in the definition of the practice of psychology.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is your interpretation.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. Would you repeat that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Only one member may speak at a time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely because there is some confusion about the interpretation. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) recommended that the piece of legislation should be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature so that we could discuss these kinds of things. It is ambiguous in a number of areas. When the chaplain from VGH phoned me, I said: "Oh, no, it's absolutely clear here that it doesn't affect anyone except psychologists or people who are involved in psychological counselling."

He was the one who pointed out to me that yes, the definition for psychological counselling includes things such as predicting and influencing behaviour. The sole purpose of being a chaplain is to influence behaviour, to try to get bad people to do good and wicked people to do what is right. They're trying to influence behaviour. Under this definition of practice of psychology this is included. The whole business of interpersonal relationships is all that lay counsellors are involved in whether they call themselves family counsellors, marriage counsellors or whatever.

A lot of these people are ministers of the church. They have no background in psychology. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the most active groups is the group in North Vancouver that travels around with the police. They are known as the God Squad. It's three ministers who travel around with the police in instances of family violence. When there is a call to the police about a woman being beaten by her husband or whatever, the first thing that the police do is contact the God Squad. They go in, and they are involved in dealing in interpersonal relationships. They are involved in dealing with predicting behaviour and then trying to influence and change it, all of these things which are now going to be prohibited because they come under the definition of practising psychology.

Nobody is going to be allowed to practise psychology once this becomes law unless they are a registered psychologist. Now that is not a correct interpretation. That is precisely why we need to get the thing out there to be aired so that people can talk about it and exchange ideas about this. Because there

[ Page 2530 ]

are a number of lay counsellors and a number of ministers of the church and other people who are concerned about this piece of legislation. Yet at the same time a number of people who are abusing what we know as the practice of psychology are simply going to change their title, change their name and call what they're doing a different thing. They won't be touched by this piece of legislation.

So I'm not quite sure what the real reason was for introducing the legislation except to create a new status known as "registered psychologists." Because if it was in terms of monitoring or disciplining, or in any way protecting people from charlatans, this piece of legislation isn't going to do it. That's the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I really believe that what we need is an omnibus piece of legislation that covers everyone in the field who deals in this particular area, regardless of what their background, training or skill may be.

Whether they are skilled in police training, through the churches, whether they are social workers, or medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists or any other kind of therapist, they should have to meet certain criteria, certain qualifications, and they should be covered by a piece of legislation that deals with this particular area, rather than all of these isolated groups having their own little piece of legislation that says, "now you are a registered so-and-so, " and "now you are a registered so-and-so." That doesn't protect them, and it certainly doesn't improve the quality of counselling, or the quality of therapy that's practised in this province. It certainly doesn't improve it.

When you speak to the doctors about it the only thing they're concerned about is that the bill says that they can't do psychotherapy. That's all they're concerned about. When you speak to the psychologists, they say their only concern is that counsellors in the school shouldn't be doing psychological counselling because that's not what they're trained to do. When you speak to counsellors in the school they tell you a different story, and then you have your lay ministers and your police, and your various kinds of lay counsellors all saying: "Well, what does the bill mean to me? Does this mean that I can no longer do the kind of counselling or the kind of therapy that I was previously involved in?" So all we're doing with this piece of legislation is muddying up the water.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the people who recommended this legislation to the minister are good people. They are good psychologists. I've known Dennis Shulman for years. He's a good psychologist, but he doesn't understand what he's asking for under this piece of legislation, because it really isn't going to change anything in terms of the quality of therapy that's being practised in this province. If you had instead, Mr. Minister, withdrawn some of the splinter pieces of legislation and designed an overall piece of legislation, an omnibus bill that would cover this entire area, then you would have done us a service. You would have done all of us who practise in the field of therapy a service. But this doesn't mean anything, except that it's going to be confusing a whole bunch of people who are now not going to know whether they are covered by it or not. So I'm not going to support this piece of legislation.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I'm a little bit surprised that the bill is really before the House. It seems to me that this kind of bill would normally go before, or should normally go before, the private bills committee and go that route. The minister frowns, Mr. Speaker.

When you examine the bill, I'm particularly interested in what happens to the consumer in this bill. I can't find too much that protects the consumer. There's an awful lot of verbiage about how they're going to protect the association but not too much about how they protect the consumer. Frankly, it seems to me that the bill was drawn up by a group of bureaucrats and the minister - because he has to approve it - in complete isolation from the realities out there in the field where people are working with other people.

Suddenly we have before us a bill dealing with psychologists. In the last five years, the kind of work that is being done in the people business, with various people. . . ' Some are not trained; some are trained. There are numerous training programmes going on now with lay people to improve their skills. The earlier efforts by the family counselling organizations, which have been funded for many years, have developed a level of skills by upgrading people. But in respect to this particular profession, it's as my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said: "Well, what is a psychologist?"

You know, what we're really doing is providing legislation here which is turning it over to a group of people who say that they're psychologists and they are going to be able to deliberate completely on what is a psychologist, who can practise, and even to the extent of what kind of sanctions they can take against people if they practise without being registered. There are sections in this bill which, frankly, I have never seen before in legislation, where if somebody contravenes this particular legislation -if they practise without being registered - they can be hauled into court. I'm not dealing with any sections, Mr. Speaker, so don't get agitated. It's okay, I'm not going to cite any sections. I'm talking about the whole question of sanctions against somebody who practises as a psychologist. In this particular case, apparently it will go through the route of the supreme court and, if the case is made, then an amount of money will be levied against that

[ Page 2531 ]

individual. What amazes me is that it's going to be paid to the registrar of the board of organization. We have a court finding a decision and then the money is going to be turned over to the board. That's the sanction against somebody practising without registration.

You know, if this is going to be a model Act for other people who are going to come forward to have themselves registered - we're not talking now about licensing; we're talking about registering - we're going to have several little empires set up around this province where we have little professions, particularly in the people business. I'm not talking about, for instance, the mining industry, which is a specified kind of operation, or the medical profession or the legal profession. Here we're talking about one aspect of the people business, where large numbers of people in this province are working with other people in the so-called helping professions, whether they're psychologists, whether they're child-care workers or whether they're social workers. There are scores of different levels of operations that are going on in terms of the way people help one another. What we're going to do here is have this particular association prescribe the activities of its own members.

Now we're going to give them that power, and if we give them that power we may very well find that they've encroached on some of the activities of other people who are not psychologists and who would never be able to be registered psychologists, All of a sudden a whole area of activity that is going on in the province with people who are lay people - people who are trained not as psychologists but maybe as social workers, or maybe as child-care workers - will be told: "You've got to stop that because that's the role of psychologists." Then what we're going to have is the whole issue of whether we have enough people who are psychologists to be able to cover that kind of work. Well, we don't. There aren't that many trained psychologists in the province. All of a sudden we're going to have a whole area of treatment and ongoing counselling wiped out because this particular group -this particular board that we're going to empower in this Act - is going to be able to prescribe what work they can do and what work other people cannot do simply by including it in the work that the psychologists do.

We may very well get another bill, relating to some other group, and giving them similar powers. We're going to have a great deal of confusion. We're going to roll the whole people business backwards. I'm certainly not opposed to the business of getting after the charlatans and the quacks - there's no question about that - but there are also other remedies for dealing with that kind of thing. There are remedies through the courts for that.

One of the remedies suggested here, in terms of infractions, is to go to the courts. I don't see any remedies suggested about how the consumer can get at these people. I presume the consumer will have to resort to the usual method, which is to go through the courts. What we have here is the possibility of slowing down and removing from that whole people activity out there, in terms of dealing with other people, certain areas of work because it has been prescribed as being peculiarly the work that must be done by psychologists.

If we're going as far as to put a bill in this House where we're going to have, as we have, a definition -and I don't want to get into the specifics of the bill, but it does deal with the principle - where they define a psychologist as a person qualified to carry on the practice of psychology, then we need a definition. We can't give the psychologists that definition to give. If we bring the bill into the House then we have to define it, because once the bill is passed we have no control over how to define psychologist. They may very well define a psychologist as a person who is the only person who can work with any kind of individual who is troubled. Then all of a sudden, hundreds of people are not going to be able to do the very valuable work they do simply because, post facto - after the legislation is gone - the psychologists have decided to define their area of work as being the area of work of these people who are not trained as psychologists. So I don't think this particular piece of legislation is well thought out. It's a classic piece of legislative counsel legislation. That minister has just brought it into the House and hasn't really looked at some of the problems that are going to be created.

We made a very sincere suggestion before which was turned down. But we are going to have a lot of trouble in the people business once this legislation is passed. There are going to be great gaps in service. One of the reasons there are going to be great gaps is because there aren't enough trained psychologists to meet the need.

So I'm very concerned, Mr. Speaker. We have to be concerned about this kind of legislation because if it passes, it becomes a kind of a model, and then other people will come and we'll go through the same kind of debate. In its present form, there is no way that I can support this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health closes the debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: One would think that British Columbia was really breaking ground here in establishing this kind of legislation. However, that is certainly not the case. As I mentioned in opening earlier, 48 of the states have a similar kind of legislation . . .

[ Page 2532 ]

MR. LEVI: We have an obligation to lead, not to follow.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: as do six of the provinces. That's the reason we have much of the problems we have in British Columbia. We've become the last frontier, Mr. Speaker, and the charlatans are coming to British Columbia because other jurisdictions have legislated against them. British Columbia doesn't want to be the last frontier in this or any other area, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I can sympathize with some of the concerns of the members who obviously haven't read the legislation before they attempted to debate it in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: But perhaps I could lay some of their concerns to rest once and for all in closing debate very briefly.

I'd first like to agree with the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and some others that this legislation won't solve all of the problems. Of course it won't; nor would any kind of legislation solve all of the problems and protect us in all times from all kinds of charlatans or quacks. It's simply an impossible thing to ask in our society. But what we hope it will do is that the self-regulating body will become exactly that - a self-regulating body - and will build up some great degree of credibility and that the public will then be protected because of that credibility which will build up in the future. That's all we asked in establishing many, many years ago organizations like the College of Physicians and Surgeons. While some may say that that group has become an elitist group, I nevertheless believe we would have to agree that the self-policing of physicians today has largely eliminated medical quackery in our community. This is what we hope will result because of this legislation as well.

Yes, there are possibilities for the group to put forward all kinds of suggestions, Mr. Speaker, for various regulations. But I must remind the Speaker and the House that all of those regulations must be passed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and that there are very, very strong provisions in this Act for appeal, provisions which I insisted be put in this bill before we would allow it to come before this House.

I can't really argue with some of the comments that were made that we're becoming over-regulated in society. Perhaps we are, but if it requires regulation in order to protect the public from some kinds of abuses, I believe we have a duty to provide that regulation even given the fact that we might be over-legislated and over-regulated. We are considering omnibus legislation, and have been, and the previous government, and the government before that. It has become obvious that it's very difficult to devise the kind of legislation that would do the kind of job we all would hope it would do in terms of an omnibus bill. But the problems and the volume of mail detailing abuses were becoming so great that this government felt it needed to act in this regard.

So I have no hesitation in recommending to the House that this bill be given second reading today, Mr. Speaker.

There are some other questions which were raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , which I believe can be answered in committee stage. But I want to take this opportunity now to make it absolutely certain before our community that there will be no effect whatsoever on any teachers who are counselling, lay hypnotists, ministers who are providing counselling, Dale Carnegie courses or any other kinds of lay counsellors. There will be no effect on any of those people to practise the practice that they're presently engaged in. This bill will only cover, as I pointed out in opening, those people who fall under the general description in the opening interpretation and who not only practise psychology but label themselves as psychologists.

In section 16, that conjunctive word "and" is very important to this bill. It means simply that unless they both practise and call themselves psychologists, they will not come under any of the terms of the definitions of this bill. So for that reason I want it made very clear that those people who have expressed some concern - the hypnotists, the doctors, the school counsellors, the preachers and any others who are engaged in psychological counselling of one kind or another - will not be affected by this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'd like now to move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 14

[ Page 2533 ]

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

Bill 16, Psychologists Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

POWER AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 30, Power Amendment Act, 1977, is to extend the provincial subsidy for rural electrification to the investor-owned utilities in British Columbia.

The British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority already receives financial assistance from the government under section 107 of the Power Act of 1955. However, British Columbians living in rural, areas supplied with electricity by the privately owned utilities have not been helped in this way. This legislation will correct the situation insofar as taxpayer support for rural electrification in these outlying areas is concerned.

In recent years, $3 million has been available for this purpose. There is an item in the budget for 1977-78 of $3.25 million. This appears in vote 11 under the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . These moneys will be allocated by the Minister of Finance to B.C. Hydro, and to the investor-owned utilities, the application of the latter group being previously screened by the B.C. Energy Commission.

Hon. members may know that B.C. Hydro presently serves about 90 per cent of all electrical consumers in this province. The investor-owned utilities supply most of the remainder. Were the applications for additional connections of rural customers to parallel this breakdown, then 90 per cent of next year's vote would go to B.C. Hydro and something like 10 per cent would go to help rural customers supplied with electricity by the investor-owned utilities.

The current expectation is that in the current fiscal year, B.C. Hydro will get its customary $3 million, and the investor-owned utilities, on application to the B.C. Energy Commission and with its approval, will get the remaining $250,000. Of course, 1977-78 will be the first year in which funds are available for rural electrification assistance in areas not served by B.C. Hydro.

It may well be that as a result of experience gained over the next 12 months, some changes in the allocation of the total amount appearing under vote 11 of the Minister of Finance will differ from that of 1977-78.

This bill makes six investor-owned utilities eligible for financial assistance. Most of them serve customers in the Okanagan and Kootenay areas. They include West Kootenay Power and Light, Princeton Light and Power, The Corporation of the City of Nelson, The Corporation of the City of Kelowna, The Corporation of the District of Summerland, and Yukon Electric, which serves Lower Post, in northern British Columbia.

The same financial formula for rural electrification assistance, as it appeared in the Power Act for many years, will apply to new customers in these areas. Reading from the Power Act, Mr. Speaker, it says:

"Where there are not sufficient customers in a rural area to provide, at reasonable rates, revenue equal to the cost of supplying power in these rural areas, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of B.C. Energy Commission, may pay to the utility an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of:

"a) the capital cost of constructing and erecting primary transmission lines and cables, service transformers, secondary lines, conduits, pipes, pipelines, storage tanks, and meters; and " (b) the operating expenses for the supply of power in a rural area."

In other words, the government is now prepared to pay half of the construction costs and half of the operating costs of certain developments in rural areas.

Hon. members may want to know how B.C. Hydro utilizes its $3 million annual assistance at the present time. Its share goes primarily into areas served now by diesel-generating units. On the north coast, for example, it has diesel operations at Masset, Atlin, Bella Bella, Anahim Lake and Port Clements. Further north, it also has diesel operations at Eddontenajon -that's near Meziadin - Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek. On Vancouver Island, there are other diesel units at Bamfield and Zeballos.

During the last nine months of 1976, B.C. Hydro's actual allocation of funds was $1 million, covering operating deficits on diesel systems, $300,000 for site acquisitions and the purchases of diesel generating equipment, and $1.7 million for line extensions to serve rural customers themselves. Incidentally, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that some $544,000 of rural electrification assistance funds have already been earmarked by B.C. Hydro for a project near Kincolith, near Prince Rupert.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide equality of treatment for rural customers throughout British Columbia. Previously, those living in areas served by investor-owned utilities have had to build

[ Page 2534 ]

their own connections. Now they will have the same kind of help from the B.C. taxpayer as those who live in Areas served by B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. C. D’ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I rise in support of the bill. I'm extremely happy to see that the minister has brought it in, although I'm somewhat concerned with the amount. If we hear the minister correctly, it would seem that 85 to 90 per cent of the funds disbursed annually, at least in the initial stages, will still be going to British Columbia Hydro, with the six or seven other utilities dividing up what's left. As the minister has stated, there has been an inequity here for years and years and years. There was assistance available to rural customers of British Columbia Hydro, and of the B.C. Power Commission before that, that was not available to rural customers or any customers who were buying power from other utilities.

I would think there is a bit of a catch-up period here. At least in the initial stages there could be a slightly different formula applied through the Energy Commission. I know the minister is responsible for the Energy Commission and I hope he would be notifying them of his feelings. Perhaps there was an inequity here that's gone on for years and years, and it's not going to be corrected in one or two years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also a bit concerned about the present tariff schedules and rate schedules for extending power lines at least as applied to West Kootenay Power and Light. I know this is their own application of some years ago, but it's very, very low at this time, Mr. Speaker; it's $45 per month per mile. I think this is not only out of date in terms of the real cost today but I believe the emphasis of it is a bit out of date.

That kind of a tariff schedule goes back to an era that ended two or three years ago where an energy company was encouraging its customers to purchase all the power they could. We know now that that era is over and energy companies, whether they be privately owned or B.C. Hydro, are encouraging their customers to conserve energy. But where you have a basic high minimum we see that in any rural area, even with the assistance under this Act, a customer is probably going to be paying perhaps $100 to $120 minimum each and every month, whether he uses 100 or 200 kilowatt hours or several thousand.

In fact, then, this bill is encouraging very, very high consumption, or the tariff schedule as still exists that this bill will support is encouraging very, very high consumption. It's encouraging people to be all-electric, whether it's economic or not; it's encouraging people to have their own welding machines if they're in a rural area and do their own kind of work. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't do this, but I am pointing out that really the bill is incentive to high power consumption, and I'm not so sure that that's what the minister wants or what the Energy Commission wants at this time. I believe that even a company such as West Kootenay Power, which is finding itself in a position, as its demand on its generating facilities goes up over the years, where it's beginning to have to negotiate with British Columbia Hydro to buy bulk power to supply its customers.... This is not the direction that they want to go in either, and I would hope that when or if that company makes application to the Energy Commission, as it is going to have to do under this Act if it's going to receive assistance, some other tariff schedule for extending power lines suitable to both the Energy Commission and the private utilities will be put into effect, because I certainly don't like the way it's set up now.

There's no reason why the burden of initial cost can't be spread on a sliding scale over the customers, Mr. Speaker, and reduced as the customer load factor rises as a rural area is either developed or the customers begin to use more power as they develop their properties.

Those are my major concerns. As I pointed out, it seems absolutely crazy to charge somebody a minimum of $110 a month for power that probably can be purchased 20 miles away, if it's on a West Kootenay system, as low as 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. B.C. Hydro power would be substantially more expensive, but since we're talking about the private utilities we have to talk about a low rate. Certainly for $100 or $110 a month you can buy one heck of a lot of power if you were paying the amount. I believe that this should be something that the minister and the commission should look into.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the bill applies to civic-owned operations. While these companies charge somewhat more than West Kootenay does for their power, I believe that they're also in the same situation whereby they really don't have a lot of extra power to splash around. While they probably want to serve as many people as they can, the fact is that the days when the utility company went out like the gas company and tried to sell as much energy as it could are over with, and most power companies, including B.C. Hydro, are looking at ways to cut down both the growth in power demand overall and the per capita consumption.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I leap to my feet to speak in support of this bill.

In making his remarks, the minister didn't mention one utility company that sells power in British Columbia, and that is the Washington State power authority, or the PUD, I think it was called at one time, and may still be. They sell power in my riding

[ Page 2535 ]

and there are eight users of PUD power, plus the RCMP detachment at Nelway.

This is happily being resolved, Mr. Speaker, through the efforts of the B.C. Energy Commission and West Kootenay Power and Light. West Kootenay will be serving that area. It is one of the rural areas, and I think it points out in an almost ludicrous way the lengths to which people have had to go in order to get electric power. This was done many years ago. Through negotiations and the co-operation of West Kootenay Power and the B.C. Energy Commission, we have been able to resolve this matter. They are going to be going into the area and serving it. Those things are going ahead right now.

With that in mind and just as an example of the type of problem which is encountered, and with the remarks of my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) , I certainly am pleased that the city of Nelson power and light company will be able to extend better service to the people who will be subsidized by this - not that West Kootenay is going to be subsidized but actually it will be people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Very briefly, I do have a couple of questions for the minister. I personally approve of aid to rural electrification. As you know, I represent a large rural area. As a matter of fact, we could stand, primarily through B.C. Hydro, much more aid to rural electrification in some of the areas I represent.

The minister in his opening remarks mentioned several companies. I wonder if financial assistance is going to be restricted to those companies that he has mentioned or if there are any private corporations supplying power in British Columbia that will be able to receive this assistance.

If, for example - and I have quite a few areas like this - a group of 10 or 12 people living in a remote area got together and formed a corporation to supply electricity to themselves by putting in some type of generating unit, would they be eligible to receive financial assistance? I wonder if the minister would be good enough to answer that when he closes the debate.

MR. COCKE: I only have one question. Certainly there is support for this measure. We do hope that rural electrification can be broadened. There are many people in the province who require the service, and up to now there has been a limitation.

However, when the minister spoke, he indicated a budget increase of something less than 10 per cent. If a lot of the work that Hydro has been called upon to do in the past has been done, and therefore a reduced amount is required by Hydro, it would seem that you'll be able to make a far greater contribution. If, on the other hand, Hydro is still being called upon to make the same kind of contribution they have in the past, then it would seem to me that maybe something more should have been placed in the budget.

So I would hope that the minister can sort of allay our fears in this regard. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I think that it sounds very promising.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I just have a quick question for the minister too, Mr. Speaker, relative to the standards of construction for these lines. Now I realize if it's a company that's going to operate the line separately, that's not specific. But if this does apply, as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has suggested, to private concerns who would do extensions on behalf of Hydro, I have some previous experience with this during my years with Hydro and the kind of problems that occurred because of faulty construction, poles that were not properly set, poles that were not adequate, sloppy connections, loose lines and the whole bit. It caused quite some problems and expense to Hydro when they took these lines over. If it is the intent to do this kind of thing under this Act, I'm wondering what sort of safeguards and precautions the minister would build into it to see that this does not occur under this Act.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern both of the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) about the amount of the budget. Certainly I will be arguing for an increase in the total amount.

I also agree with the hon. member for Rossland-Trail that because B.C. Hydro has had access to this fund now for more than 20 years in total, including the commission period, there is a good deal of catching up to do in the areas served by the other utilities, which, incidentally, are regulated as to rate of return by the B.C. Energy Commission. So the sharing of $3.25 million, or hopefully a larger amount, need not remain in the order of 90 per cent Hydro and 10 per cent rest. It could well be a very different ratio. The B.C. Energy Commission will be looking into this matter as a specific assignment as to the adequacy of these funds in the catch-up areas, if I can put it that way.

Rural rate structures come under the scrutiny of the B.C. Energy Commission, which specifically looks not only at new capacity additions but also rate schedules of the investor-owned utilities. These increasingly will be designed so as to conserve energy as much as possible.

The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked how individual small groups, or perhaps a small company, could get this kind of assistance. Most areas of the province now - certainly residual areas - are in B.C. Hydro's franchised territory, so if arrangements of this kind were made they'd have to be made directly with B.C. Hydro, certainly as to the

[ Page 2536 ]

supply of electricity and probably the supply right on a nearby pole with a transformer and so on supplied.

As to standards, B.C. Hydro in that case would be responsible for the standards, and the present high standards of both B. C. Hydro and the well-established, investor-owned utilities would have to be maintained in order to qualify for this kind of assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I move this bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 30, Power Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

SYSTEMS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Systems Act.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.