1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 949 ]

FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

in the galleries today we have a group of 30 students and their two

teachers Mr. Arnold and Mr. Ross. They journeyed here to Victoria from

Texada Island Secondary High School. I'm sure the Members would wish to

join with me in welcoming them today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we have

gracing the House today a former Member — the former Dean of the House,

my old running mate who graces any House that he sits in — Mr. Arthur

Turner.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, may I join in

that warm welcome because I sat in the House with him for many years.

He was always a very good Member of the Legislature and a good

representative for his constituency in Vancouver.

Also while I'm on my feet I also want to wish the family well — the

new child of the second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams).

I know you were over visiting your family — that's exactly right for a

family man to do. I'd just like to know, Mr. Speaker, how the mother

and child are getting along.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Very well. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the

House to join with me in welcoming a group of 53 students and their

teachers from one of the truly great schools in the Province of British

Columbia. They have produced probably more people for this House from

Britannia Senior Secondary, 53 students with their teachers, Mr. Grant

and Mr. Minichiello.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

Members of the House to join me in welcoming 40 students and their

teacher, Mr. Commons from the Hugh McRobert School in Richmond.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the Honourable Member from Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Black)

the second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams) and myself I

want to warn the students from Britannia that if they don't behave

themselves, they may end up like the three of us did here in this House

from that school.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the first

sitting after today:

Bill No. 108 intituled The Automotive Repair Act .

Bill No. 109 intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act .

Bill No. 110 intituled

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act .

Bill No. 111 intituled

An Act to Amend the Court Rules of Practice Act .

Bill No. 112 intituled the Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 1972 .

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I move leave be granted for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 78, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 78, intituled

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act . The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, on this bill,

Bill No. 78, speaking to the principle of the bill I find there are

certainly two interests and possibly best stated, two very great

conflicts of interests.

The interests of the car driving public — particularly the young

people of this province and their right to be able to buy car insurance

at a reasonable rate, or the right of the car insurance industry to

gouge those children — to gouge all car drivers. This is the conflict

that I find in this legislation.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I'm not too surprised to find that in any

legislation of this government or any government that has accepted

moneys from insurance vested interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, order, order!

MR. HARTLEY: Now, as one and the only elected Member that

attended the insurance hearing of the B.C. Insurance Board on January

12 I received a copy of the brief that was presented by the Insurance

Bureau of Canada. What did they ask for?

They asked for precisely what is being brought down in this

legislation. I won't read it word for word because I realise that is

something that we will have to discuss when we are considering it

clause by clause. But, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, as all the Members

that were here in 1969 will recall, that when the no-fault insurance

legislation came down, Mr. Burns from the Insurance Bureau of Canada

was sitting up there in the gallery.

He was here and must have known that legislation was

[ Page 950 ]

coming down before anyone else did. Because as a

Member of the House and a member of the committee that had worked on

car insurance I didn't know that that insurance was expected that day.

But Mr. Burns knew. Mr. Burns must have had an advance warning and I

suggest that just as the Insurance Bureau of Canada from Bay Street,

Ontario, had a hand in writing these amendments, Mr. Burns, the

Insurance Bureau of Canada, the insurance barons from Bay Street had a

hand in writing that legislation in 1969. This is why there is a

conflict of interest.

This House, and I hope this province knows very well the position

that the New Democratic Party has taken. They know very well that we

feel that something that is compulsory as is no-fault car insurance,

something that is monopolistic in nature as is the insurance industry

should be offered to all of the people at the lowest possible cost.

As you have heard us argue before that if this government can see

fit to save the government, to save the Department of Finance of this

province, close to $1 million this year by self insuring some 6,500

motor vehicles, if we can do that for the vehicles that the taxpayers

own through government, then surely that same principle will apply to

the 600,000 vehicles owned by the people of this province.

Now there is a basic principle at stake. Do we want corporate

control and the great insurance industry putting up campaign funds for

political parties and then…?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please get back to the subject of this bill? You've been called to order now twice.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to the basic principle

of whether this amendment that is before the House is in principle in

the best interest of the people of this province, if it will do

something to reduce insurance costs or will it increase insurance

costs. I submit that this amendment asked for by the Insurance Bureau

of Canada at the insurance hearing on January 12, will cause and give

them excuse to demand increased costs, an increase in the price of car

insurance to the average car driver of this province.

This is the basis of my premise. We saw yesterday when the Leader of

the Opposition read the bulletin from the insurance agents of B.C. that

right now they are collecting campaign funds to make certain….

MR. SPEAKER: For the last time unless the Honourable Member

is prepared to discuss with the House the contents of this particular

bill and the principle thereby being established by this bill, I'm

going to request him to take his place and call another speaker. Now

would you please get onto the principle and the content of this

particular amendment?

MR. HARTLEY: I submit as I see it the principle is whether we

should have publicly-administered car insurance or we amend it to give

the insurance monopolies and great corporations a greater stranglehold

on the industry. Now, am I being unfair in…?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of being unfair, but being

in order, and one must look at the contents of this particular

amendment and speak to the principles contained in those particular

amendments. This is not a time for politicking if this is what the

Member has in mind.

MR. HARTLEY: Very good. Now, as far as the details if I were

to go into the wording you would ask me to do that when we go through

it

section by section. Correct, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I just want you to discuss the principle.

If there's more than one principle here in your view you're welcome to

discuss the principle in any

section you wish to discuss without naming

the section.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes. Well, one of the other principles that is

involved is the fact that someone injured in a car accident — pedestrian, passenger, driver must — must claim their no-fault

benefits. If by some oversight they just fail to claim their no-fault

benefits this is charged against them regardless. The account is

charged just as though they had received the full benefit of no-fault

benefit. If they do not make this claim with any given length of time

then they lose the right to these benefits.

I think this is very, very unfair. I think everyone should be free

to claim these benefits or not claim them depending whether they wish

to sue for a far greater amount. If they do choose to sue for a far

greater amount then this should be their prerogative.

Now, this is the other principle that I see in the bill. You are

changing this to make it further compulsory that if a person doesn't

claim those no-fault benefits and they lose a legal suit or they win a

liability suit later on they will lose any benefits that they could

have claimed. This will be deducted, their net claim would be less. So,

I think this is wrong in principle. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address a few remarks to this statute.

I'm interested particularly in the protection of the rights of those

who are insured and in the protection of the rights of those who are

claimants.

This bill has blocked some of the areas of concern. Particularly it

has taken care of the conflicting case which I spoke of in earlier

debates wherein a pedestrian may be an insured person by virtue of his

or her own car policy and who is struck down by another vehicle which

is similarly insured. There was a great deal of contradiction within

the industry of interpreting the statutes and it appears this bill has

cured that aspect.

I do feel though, with every respect to the Attorney General who is

the person who has the carriage of this bill, that it should have gone

farther. We still have in the Province of British Columbia essentially

taxation without representation in the insurance industry because we

have a compulsory policy. Everyone has to have it and yet those people

who are over 65 years of age are unable to make claims, though they

still have to pay the premiums for the no-fault.

Again we have the situation of a person who's a housekeeper. This

individual might be very seriously hurt and might have under her care

and control three or four children — she may be a common law wife. That

person is without remedy under the Insurance Act of the Province of

British Columbia even though — I think this is very unfair — even

though that person has to have a policy or keep off the road.

I do wish that the Attorney General — and we still have a few days in the session — that he would give thought perhaps

[ Page 951 ]

to maybe even hoisting the bill today and bringing

in an amendment to give these people the kind of protection they should

be afforded.

Failing that he could at least indicate very clearly that these

people are being penalised themselves and the people receiving the

benefits of that penalty, I suppose, is the rest of the motoring public

in the fact that these other people are contributing to premiums out of

which there's no possibility of them ever receiving any kind of benefit

at all.

I also had wished that the Attorney General had included in this

bill the direction as was followed by the State of Massachusetts not

too long ago when they found that the companies had grossly overcharged

on the no-fault benefits as has happened in the Province of British

Columbia — that he had included in the bill, a mandate or a caveat to

the insurance companies that they had to decrease their rates for the

no-fault benefits.

This could have been done by $7.50 a year for this year and $7.50

for next year because the insurance companies have over-collected to

the extent of $15 million which is a lot of money.

I had also hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General had

included in the bill a more definitive role for the automobile

insurance board and particularly that, among its many duties, it adopt

the one of becoming an ombudsman to insureds within the provisions of

the Act.

I gave the illustration to the House and I think it really and truly

is worth repeating and particularly in view of the fact that the

Honourable the Premier is here.

We had a situation of a young man who was married and he had two

children and his motor vehicle policy premium was $135 a year. Then his

little wife died of cancer and he was left to support his two children.

His policy went up to $286 a year and I think this is very, very wrong

indeed.

I think that this man should be able to approach the automobile

insurance board with this kind of a complaint because he has no redress

against the industry and by virtue of the fact that we have compulsory

insurance in the Province of British Columbia, these people are getting

really, a pretty rough deal.

The saving that has never been passed on, oddly enough, by the

industry to the motoring public — and out of our 2 million people,

we've got 1 million cars, we have 1 million drivers, we have 1 million

insurance policies, we have roughly $135 million worth of insurance

revenue in the Province of British Columbia — but the saving could be

passed on in this and I would hope that the Attorney General would have

included this in the bill, which he did not.

It should be a direction to the insurance companies that if they

insist upon prepaid premiums they should give the motorist the

opportunity of a discount of bank interest for one year on that amount

of money because insurance is a prepaid trust.

You take bank interest at $135 million at 8 per cent and it's not

too difficult to work out what that would amount to in savings which

could be passed on to the motorist of if the motorist chooses not to

pay his premiums in advance, fine and dandy, he would not be entitled

to that discount.

Two more points before I would sit down, Mr. Speaker. I would again

have hoped that there would have been a direction in here for the

licensing of all insurance adjusters, which there is not. Again as a

protection to the public, I'd hoped that the Attorney General would

have said in this bill that if insurance companies wish to rely upon

the one-year statutory limitation and I do hope that this message gets

across to the people in British Columbia because there are no end of

injured people, Mr. Speaker, who are absolutely out of court and out of

remedy because the year goes by.

I feel that the insurer if he wishes to rely upon the one-year

limitation, it should be mandatory that he furnish notice to the

claimant or to his own insured that he is going to rely upon it. In

other words, give him a month's notice and then he could rely upon the

statutory limitation in the eleventh month or failing that, that

defence should not be open to them. Because you have the situation of

insurers dealing with claimants throughout the total year and then

sometimes walking away.

The industry will say, "well, those were not the best kind of

insurers," and indeed they're not but they're living and practising in

British Columbia and selling compulsory insurance in British Columbia

so I think that something should be done with them.

Finally, I think the last speaker, in the New Democratic Party, made

a very good point when he talked about one aspect in the bill….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: One aspect in the bill. He's a good Member. He

always works hard. A very hard working, industrious Member. A little

long-winded at the end of the session, but apart from that….

But the point that he raised, Mr. Speaker, in this bill — one

section of the bill — and I'm going to address myself to it now and not

in committee. In one

section of the bill we find that it is mandatory

that claimants first of all make use of the no-fault Provisions. I

think that this is perhaps not correct because claimants today….

Mr. Speaker, if the Members across would be just a little bit quieter, I'd finish a great deal earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House come to order?

MR. GARDOM: The claimants today already have the rights that

are purported to be granted under this bill and by compelling them to

go first of all to the no-fault side probably will only serve the

industry and not necessarily the people of British Columbia.

I think the balance should be on the side of the claimant because

the making available of these no-fault benefits may be an attempt

perhaps on the part of the industry to justify this $15 million bonanza

that they have enjoyed.

It could also well increase the number of claims in this particular

category and finally in the situation here that I believe there's a

30-day limitation for an individual to make a no-fault claim. So you

have the situation in a certain type of accident case — a whip-lash

case — sometimes that does not present itself as a medical problem

until 60 days, 45 days even 90 days after the mishap. These kind of

people may — and I'm not sure that they would because it's not too

clear within the statute — they will be in a position of finding

themselves statute-barred.

I think that the points that I have raised are very valid ones and I

would greatly appreciate it if the Honourable the Attorney General

maybe would put the bill over to say next Tuesday and see if he can

come up with a slight improvement along the lines that I have suggested.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 952 ]

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to speak briefly on one phase of the bill. There is of course, the

intent of the bill to try and speed up some of the claims that are paid

particularly under the no-fault section.

Once again I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are some very grave

acts of misjustice or lack of justice in the handling of many of the

payments which are supposed to be made under insurance claims. The

present regulations enable insurance companies to put off or to stall

off the actual procedure in a court case so that at the end of that

time the payment which is made does not bear any interest. The claimant

as such, therefore, is not entitled to receive payment or interest on

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's covered, it's covered.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, it doesn't cover this, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to cases in regard to

automobile accidents specifically and only. For example there's one

here of an automobile accident that took place November 24, 1966, a

teenage girl in the rear of her father's pick-up had a large

disfiguring scar. There was a claim paid of $7,000. It was not paid

until five years later.

The interest on that $7,000 which went to the insurance company,

amounted to $2,200 which the insurance company received and the girl

did not even though she was entitled to that money since the claim was

hers from the very moment of the accident.

A similar case in 1967 where a husband was killed. The wife was in

her early 40's and she was obliged to sell the farm and had to wait for

three years for the recovery of the moneys, a total of $47,000 was paid

at the end of three years but the interest on that money was

approximately $10,000 which again the insurance company received, not

the claimant. So that money, while the insurance company is delaying

the case, they receive all the benefits of those funds, the claimant

receives absolutely nothing.

In 1968, a young boy 17 years old delivering papers, finally gets paid in 1971 — $58,000 but his loss on interest is $7,200.

There's case after case. An example of a young boy, 11 years old, a

lacrosse player, he was involved in a motor accident. The accident was

on August 2, 1968, the claim is finally paid in July, 1971. He received

$27,500 but the interest at 8 per cent on that money is $7,000 which

the insurance company gets, not the claimant.

I suggest that this type of withholding of funds is not in the true

sense of the type of justice that should prevail for everyone. I'm

pointing out as I've pointed this out half a dozen times, I've brought

this in, suggested it to the Attorney General, that what we are really

doing is making it profitable for insurance companies to delay

settlement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: Making it profitable for them to delay

settlement. I can say it — very clearly I'll say it. I've said it

enough times, Mr. Speaker, that it should be clear even to the Member

from Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) that this is one of the things….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: I appreciate that this is part of a federal

statute and a federal responsibility, yes it is. It would take an

introduction of a complete new

section in all documentation written in

the Province of British Columbia, but it could be done. I do suggest

that it could be done.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: It just arrived on my desk. I'm sure that it's

like most documentation from the other side, it's probably incompletely

worded. I suggest that he's still wet on his rather incomplete bill.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General,

to consider this very valid point, that we can hardly consider this

very valid point, that we can hardly consider it justice when dollars

are withheld, large sums of money are taken out of the pockets of the

actual claimant and left in the pockets of the insurance companies. I

suggest that there is injustice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, several

of the Honourable Members — or at least I should put it, the last two

Honourable Members — have taken advantage of this particular debate to

advocate features that are not in these particular amendments.

I would want to say that the amendments put forward in this

particular bill are not the result of any comprehensive survey of

insurance and I'm not suggesting for a moment that these are the only

amendments that should be considered in respect of automobile

legislation. However, these are the four immediate and rather simple

amendments that I felt we should take action on at this particular

session.

They result from meetings of the superintendents of insurance on a

national basis, they having agreed to propose these amendments or

amendments similar in principle for enactment in respect of the

insurance legislation. So I don't suggest for a moment the other

matters raised by the Honourable Members are not worthy of

consideration.

The only speaker I wish to take issue with is the Member for

Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) because his enthusiasm for the New

Democratic Party and for their particular brand of Socialism has far

outweighed their judgment or their ability to deal with the principles

of this bill. That he did not do.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Thirty-seven years as a political party,

12 elections, still batting zero. It's time to come up with more than

propaganda — it's time to come up with facts, Mr. Speaker, and deal

with the bills that are before the House and not this theory of

Socialism that they advance at every possible opportunity.

The Honourable Member has said that these amendments are going to

increase the costs of insurance. There's a bald statement — they didn't

advance one single argument in support of that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I think it would be easier calculation for you to try and tell us when you've been right.

[ Page 953 ]

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Never right, always left.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Far left, I'm afraid Mr. Premier, and

certainly insofar as any matters of rates are concerned, as I've

already indicated to the Honourable Members, these are matters that are

quite properly before the British Columbia Automobile Insurance Board.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 78,

An Act to Amend the Insurance Act , now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 78 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 92, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES

ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 92. The Honourable Member for Burnaby Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I have

now read the bill and I find myself in agreement with the Honourable

Minister and believe it would be better to discuss it in committee

stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is

that Bill No. 92,

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act , now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 92 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 25, Mr. Speaker.

GIFT TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 25. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Members will

field effective January 1, 1972. The province levies its own succession

duties, and as I mentioned previously does not propose to increase its

rates to cover the estate tax field vacated by Canada.

However, to protect its present succession duties, it is necessary

for the province, along with most of the other provinces, to levy a

gift tax. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the government expects

very little revenue from the gift tax itself, but it is necessary to

protect the Succession Duty Act .

This bill exempts the following:

(1) Up to $10,000 a year to the spouse of the donor. Up to $10,000 a

year to other persons with a maximum of $2,000 per person free of tax

and up to $10,000 once in a life time to a child of the donor to be

used in farming operations carried on by the child.

The rate of the tax starts after exemptions at 15 per cent when the

total taxable gifts made in a year does not exceed $25,000 and it rises

to a maximum of 50 per cent.

Public announcements were made by all the provinces concerned in

late 1970 to the effect that the gift tax would be introduced in 1971

and commence as of January 1, 1971, when the federal government vacated

their field.

As the Minister of Finance for this province I consider it in the

public interest that the kind of legislation in mind be presented as

soon as possible. I therefore introduced the Gift Tax Act being Bill

No. 25 on budget day, February 4, 1971. Since that date the Government

of Canada and the provinces have met several times and produced a bill.

I therefore have withdrawn Bill No. 25, Gift Tax Act , which was

introduced for public information only and substituted by unanimous

consent of the House the amended Bill No. 25 Gift Tax Act . I move

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Will the Honourable the Premier accept an adjournment?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No thank you.

MR. GARDOM: Very well. I would mention, Mr. Speaker, that we

have this bill coming in today which is 29 pages long. We find 64

changes between it and the bill that was presented a few days ago and

the amended bill. I'm getting a little tired here. I believe it came in

on Thursday night or Wednesday night and I think with every respect to

the Premier he's being rather small in not agreeing to an adjournment.

I suppose that in order to save the time of the House, Mr. Speaker,

I could say that my remarks during the succession duty bill, which was

Bill No. 23 could apply here Mutatus Mutandus — with all the necessary

changes being made. However, this gift tax bill apart from being

practically and philosophically unnecessary is without parallel an

example of hastily, ill-considered sloppily-prepared and needlessly

drafted legislation.

For a statute to come in in the shoddy form that this has from the

Minister of Finance makes one well question his continuing competence

in this field.

Surely at the very best it very clearly illustrates the need in this

province for legislative reform. There's no question of a doubt that

the government has the responsibility to govern and to bring forth

legislation. But it has an equal responsibility to ensure that it is

fair legislation, that it is equitable legislation, and that it is

workable legislation and this thing here is neither of the three.

For any law to be effective it's got to be clear, it's got to be

concise and it has to be certain. This is not. This bill should have

been sent to a committee of the House for examination by experts in

this field which is a very, very complicated and indeed duplicating

branch of the law. It should be sifted and screened and washed and

dusted and

[ Page 954 ]

polished and housecleaned and housekept and I'd say even fumigated

in the way that it's come in right now before it will ever effectively

do the job.

In short, Mr. Speaker, it's gobbledygook of the very first order and

it's just a twin throwback to the death tax bill that the House has

already approved.

It's an example of one more taxation duplication in B.C. Another

example of harassment of the B.C. taxpayer and another tax maze that

the Minister of Finance appears to be daily creating for the

long-suffering public that we have in B.C.

I would hazard the guess and I say this with all respect to all of

the Members, I'd hazard the guess that you wouldn't find two or three

per cent of the Members of the House has even read the thing and

probably even less that understand it.

One

section here it's just incapable of any kind of understanding:

Before the making of the gift, neither the donor nor

his spouse had made a gift the whole or any part of the value of which

was, by virtue of this clause, not subject to tax under this Act, or

was, by virtue of paragraph (

b) of subsection (2) of

section 112 of the

Income Tax Act (Canada) as it was before the first day of January,

1972, and after the twenty-second day of October, 1968, not subject to

tax under

Part IV of that Act as it was before the first day of

January, 1972, or was, by virtue of paragraph (ba) of subsection (4) of

section 112 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) as it was before the

twenty-second day of October, 1968, exempt from tax under

Part IV of

that Act as it was before the twenty-second day of October 1968.

Okay, what's it mean? (Laughter). I hope the Minister of Finance is

going to tell us what that means when he stands up and he closes this

very, very interesting debate. Really and truly.

Trying to give the long-suffering public in B.C. any kind of a

logical explanation of this thing would be like trying to attempt to

teach a Sasquatch the A + B theorem. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: Really woolly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a reflection on the theorem or on the Sasquatch?

MR. GARDOM: Where's the Sasquatch running this time? Does

anybody know? (Laughter). Well, at least we'll know what banner he'll

be running under. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: This is not needed. It's a double penalty. It's a

double jeopardy. It's more confusion and it's just one more tax hammer

on the B.C. taxpayers.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, for any kind of a law to be effective it has

to pass a four-point test. It's got to be clear. It's got to be

concise. It's got to be certain. It has to be capable of being

intelligently enforced. This is neither on all four points.

In the long run the only thing that it is going to serve to enhance

is the fact that the permanent and the lasting reputation of this

Minister of Finance will be that of the most severe and grossest

complicator and over-taxer in this province's 100-year history.

Everything that has been included in this bill has previously been

taken care of in the new federal tax bill — the new federal Income Tax

Act . This Minister of Finance should have given it a chance instead of

bringing in this duplicating legislation. But he's run headlong,

uncontrolled and wide-eyed and wall-eyed and uncertain into the new tax

Act philosophy of Canada.

This thing is precipitous. It's uncalled-for. It's not asked for by

anybody that I know in B.C. and this great man of plebiscite, who's he

going to take to the general public for a plebiscite on this thing?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: You? Ha! Well, I can certainly tell you the way

I'm going to vote so you've lost your plebiscite right now. Now if

you're going to withdraw the bill and get on with some intelligent and

humane business of the House that perhaps would be very, very

interesting indeed.

There's all sorts of woolly aspects of this bill and I would like to

refer to some of them that even stand out worse than do others.

Under the bill that was introduced a couple of days ago there was a

tax-free gift allowed to the federal government. But that

section has

now been deleted. So in British Columbia it's impossible for anyone to

parochial, small, mean kind of attitude as we had with the changing of

the name of the Trans-Canada Highway. Exactly the same kind of thing.

Under the earlier bill which this one replaced two nights ago there

was also certain tax-free gifts to charity. But this new Act permits

only gifts of charities who spend moneys totally within the province.

Now, O.K. That really and truly is a pretty silly thing. You know,

great strides that have been made in the world in science and, say, in

preventive medicine have resulted from the contributions from people in

all walks of life and all societies.

Look at Mayo. Mayo receives donations from British Columbia — receives donations from the rest of the world and look at the fabulous

work that has happened there. Look at the fabulous work that has

occasioned in the research, say, in the field of drugs.

But no, no. In B.C. we're just going to close it up within our own

little tight little tax island. Why if you want to become parochial to

the point of being totally obscene why don't we go ahead and say that

the only giving could occasion, say, in the riding of the Honourable

the Premier?

I use that as an illustration because this is a very small-minded

kind of an approach to anything. It's going to serve to encourage the

erosion and the exodus of capital from the province and there's no

question of a doubt about that. Capital is what we're short of, it

appears, in B.C. and anything that we could do to encourage its

retention here and to encourage the participation of those individuals

or corporate people who have those kind of funds in the province to do

their jobs here and live in the community, contribute to the community

wellbeing would be an excellent thing. But no, no this is not possible

at all.

Probably the definition of the tax collector here is ultra vires.

But one thing that is absolutely glaring, Mr. Speaker, is there is no

longer a gift between spouses possible.

A gift between a husband to a wife or vice versa has been tax free in Canada since October, 1968. A husband will turn

[ Page 955 ]

over his interest in a home or vice versa one to the other. But this

is now abandoned under this statute and that is not possible.

I say this is a very, very stupid provision because the family units

are family units. The husband and the wife both contribute to the

wherewithal of the family unit and to suddenly find out that you wish

to transfer your interest in your home from your husband to yourself or

the husband provides that the wife become registered say as the joint

tenant as is practically the main custom in the Province of B.C. and he

puts up funds for that purpose those are taxable funds.

This is silly. It's absolutely nonsensical. You know, I really and

truly don't think it's the policy of the government. I think it is the

policy of the Minister of Finance and maybe the Minister of Health who

is a great man at complicating things and this looks like a bit of his

background stuff here too. I say that very fairly to him because I

think it is.

I think he may be the ghost-writer of this hodge podge, Mr. Speaker.

Are you the ghost-writer? The second Member for Vancouver East (Mr.

R.A. Williams) is getting a little excited. Maybe he's the ghost-writer

but I tend to think it would be more likely the Minister of Health.

Now, I would certainly recommend that, apart from not voting for

this bill, if the government Members continue to have their convictions

blinded in this House they probably will back the thing in the same way

they've always done before. Just put blinkers on to truth and blinkers

on to reality and back the bills.

There's got to be a bit of a hamper, though. In most of these bills

is the explanatory note so the people get a little bit of an inkling

what's in the silly thing. But they don't even have this in this one so

I think their knowledge of it is going to be exceptionally limited — exceptionally limited indeed.

The federal system has worked very well insofar as treating the

husband and wife of the family unit. Ontario has brought in a gift tax

— as we know. I don't think they did the right thing in doing that

either. But they certainly excluded husbands' and wives' gifts which

you have not done here.

Just from a sociological or social point of view this is very, very

silly indeed. Oddly enough, under the Succession Duty Act , and this is

the twin Act to that Act, it contemplates that family homes can be

gifted by the husband to the wife or vice versa but they are not exempt

within this thing. So apart from it being very wrong as I've

illustrated and really destroying the accepted concepts which have

existed in this country for four years now it's just plain stupid that

you have one of the statutes in B.C. contradicting another one.

There's one item that is absolutely appalling. That is this: under

the definition of "gift" under this particular bill — it's I believe

section 18 or so — it's pathetic. It's absolutely pathetic. It compels

B.C. residents to annually file gift tax returns whether they happen to

have a taxable gift or not. Now, this thing is so silly I don't know

whether to laugh or cry about it. Because as it now reads every man,

woman and child in B.C. would be compelled to file a gift tax return if

they gave their child a pair of roller skates or the wife a new house

dress or the husband a pipe for Christmas.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Who read this thing? Who indeed read it? It would

be pleasant if we'd even seen the deputy Minister of Finance in here.

This has gone through his desk. I certainly can't give him any gold

stars for efficiency.

Apart from the utter ridiculousness of this, you'd need an

administrative empire in the Province of B.C. to handle the thing.

These returns would absolutely clog up the works. Maybe there'd be one

saving grace. We'd be a little too busy in the point of view of the

government to give any consideration to building any Moran dams or

anything along that line but Lord love a duck, when you have Christmas

gifts, birthday gifts and anniversary gifts subject to filing under

this particular bill what have you done, friends?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: You know, we're all tired, we're getting towards the end of the session but gee whiz!

Now the search and seizure provisions under the statute are

exceptionally wide. Under the Income Tax Act there could only be

forceful searching and seizure upon court approvals. But in this bill

as in most bills that come through from the Social Credit side and

certainly most bills that come from the Minister of Finance and the

Premier's side, we don't find the courts have any power at all and here

they're totally emasculated and there's no reference to them whatsoever.

The Minister of Finance has the right, under this statute, to trot

into a person's home or office or place of business and forcefully

seize records as, if and when he chooses, without any kind of

administrative or legal check at all. An unlimited discretion. I think

myself that's 1984 come to B.C. about 12 years early.

We have here double taxation. There's no allowance for the Income

Tax Act payments in most situations. Dealing, say, with the situation

of a capital gains you'd get into the ludicrous deal of where a person

can make a gift in cash but if he gives it in specie it will be subject

to tax.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I say without hesitation that we have here

a bill that is unnecessary. That is uncalled for. That is incapable of

any intelligent

interpretation, I would tend to say, by anyone. It's

creating the most blank, blank, censored, censored tax maze we've

probably ever had in B.C. It appears from the statute itself that the

Minister or his ghost writer who is now champing at the bit to stand up

either hasn't read the thing or had sufficient time to comb it out and

to prepare a workable bill.

If you're going to go ahead and bring in a gift tax bill — which I

think is philosophically and practically very, very unnecessary for

B.C. and a duplication as I've said — for goodness' sakes bring in

something that can be understood.

I would very much like to ask who, who in the community, in this

very, very complicated field has had an opportunity to peruse the 68

changes that came in on Wednesday evening. Nobody. Absolutely nobody.

Where do these things start from? The changes are even worse than

you had in the first statute. You just try to cram this through or rain

it down the throats of the Legislature on the final days of the session

and I think is very, very wrong indeed. You have here a fiscal, a

financial and administrative abortion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Welfare.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health and Social Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, it might be worth while to take a few minutes to bring a

certain degree of objectivity and perspective to some of the remarks

that have been made by

[ Page 956 ]

the Honourable the second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

He made something in his opening remarks about the complexity of

this legislation, and I don't think it would improper to disagree with

him on that. Because undoubtedly there are sections of this revenue

bill that do tax one's patience in reading through them.

However, I think that one should also remark that probably among the

complicated, more complex, than the revenue legislation in Britain, and

particularly the death duty legislation in that country — followed very

closely of course by the complexities of the internal revenue code in

the United States.

But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the outrageous

language so difficult to interpret, in this contest for first place in

this area the draftsman who are endorsed by the Liberal Government in

Ottawa are not amateurs….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Just a moment now. I say that the revenue

legislation in Ottawa takes second place to no jurisdiction when it

comes to a matter of

interpretation, and it's a matter of looking at

the revenue legislation in Ottawa, to see something really complex.

There is a certain element of ingratitude in this Honourable Member,

having in mind that there may come a time when he might be able to

augment an otherwise satisfactory income with a gracious supplement — derived from an

interpretation of this. Now please….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: The Honourable Member also suggests that

the legislation we're considering here is something that has been

generated out of the minds of British Columbia officers without

reference to other jurisdictions.

This of course is not the case. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is well

known in Canada that there is a considerable liaison in communication

between the revenue ministers in all of the provinces, and the revenue

department in Ottawa. I would assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in this

case this bill represents to a very large extent the combined judgment

of the revenue officers of all the offices throughout Canada.

If you look at the Liberal administration in some of the Atlantic

provinces, you will find that the legislation that they have either

enacted or proposed to enact is not substantially different in

principle from this. I think too, Mr. Speaker, a very short examination

of the legislation in those two progressive provinces of Manitoba and

Saskatchewan, that there again the legislation in principle follows

pretty much what we're considering here today.

Now, the point I make is this, Mr. Speaker, that when the Honourable

Member from across the way, the second Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom), suggests that there is something a little different in this

legislation than the other provinces there's no substance in what he

says.

There are minor changes that reflect local circumstances and to

bring it in line with other revenue legislation in the province. But by

and large it is the same in broad principles as to be found elsewhere.

Now then, that is the second red herring that the Member attempted

to distract our attention with. Now, the third one relates to his

discussion and his suggestion that where a father intends to give a

bicycle or a pair of roller skates to his children that this

constitutes a gift, or that when a husband buys his wife a gift or

Christmas present or something. This of course is not the case at all

either in fact or in law.

Because for these purposes one must always recognise that there are

parental duties to children, which involve the transfers of property,

there are marital duties between husband and wife and of course by

definition and by long, long practice both in the courts and elsewhere,

it is very well-recognized that these things do not constitute gifts.

So now then, that leaves us with the broad principle of the bill.

Now the principle of this bill is a very simple one, and that is that

through cooperation between the federal government and the provinces

there has been a mutual agreement between the 10 provinces and the

federal government that there should be a realignment of revenue

producing areas, and one of these of course is the withdrawal by the

federal government from the estate tax field, and the introduction of

succession duties in the provinces. And certainly the second Member for

Point Grey knows as well as anyone, and I hesitate to refer to his

professional standing and his position, which when I look at the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member extend the same courtesy to the Honourable Member that is speaking, that was extended to him?

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: When I recall the eminent position that

the Honourable Member occupies in his own profession, I'm sure that he

recognizes and knows as well as anyone that if we are going to accept

the transfer of succession duty revenues from the federal to the

provincial field that accompanying that must be a gift tax provision.

What this really represents is an amicable transfer of revenues from

the federal to the provincial field, and while the substance of the

revenue is reflected in our Succession Duty Act the gift tax is an

accompanying provision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the last

speaker is quite correct — that if you're going to have death duties

and no gift tax then a donor can give $1 million or $100,000 or

whatever it is while he is living and you might as well tear up your

Succession Duty Act . Now the Liberal Party respond to that, and they

say: "We don't believe in death duty." And the practical effect of that

is that the rich, the big, get bigger, and bigger, and the small shrink

smaller, and smaller.

That's exactly what we're talking about. This bill will not bother

Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker. I don't know too many people. But the

ordinary people of British Columbia who are going to every year in

their lives — or for even three or four years, or one year — be giving

away up to $10,000 and that's the exemption up to $2,000 for any one

gift for a total of $10,000 in any one year, this is not going to hurt

the common people, this bill will hurt the fat cats. The fat cat

protection party is defending the landed aristocracy, and the wealthy

aristocracy of British Columbia. This is the voice from the wealthy

waterfront suburbs that we have been listening to today. We are against….

[ Page 957 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What waterfront suburb do you live in? You don't live in Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. This is a very serious bit of

legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it's a very small attempt to

introduce a bit of social equality and equality of opportunity into our

society that's so sadly lacking. This goes such a short distance toward

achieving any such social equality of opportunity for generations to

come after us, it's really a shame. But it's a step in that direction,

and those who oppose this kind of a bill, believe not perhaps in the

old aristocracy of birth, but they do believe in the hereditary

aristocracy of wealth. And that's not the kind of legacy that we in

this party intend to see passed on to the children who come after us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: It surprises me in this House again to watch a

splitting of opinions on what stands up and sounds like a defence of

the small, but really ends up as the cry of Socialism. Because those

who pounded on this side, I must point out to the Members of this side

of the House, that you are really saying that initiative shall be

taxed, not once, not twice, but three times.

I suggest that I have supported the succession duties and the Gift

Tax Act in the past, believing that it was a very necessary part of the

tax structure. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, the present tax adjustments

which have taken place, which have eliminated the method by which

people may accumulate estates without taxation, by the elimination of

the capital gains tax, have now said that a person who accumulates an

estate of whatever size, has paid his price to the government, has paid

his price to society.

What really is the motivation behind individuals? And those of you

who have supported the Member from Vancouver East who speaks the

Socialist line, and you heard him speak the Socialist line: "Tear down

the top," not "build the small." Tear down the top, that's the exact

statements which are involved when we move from succession duties into

the Gift Tax Act .

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we are saying about the

past has been correct. Because there was no tax on purchase and sale of

land, no tax on purchase and sale of securities, no tax on purchase of

property that accumulated in value, no tax on any of those goods which

eventually rose in value you were capable and you were able to sell — that is past Mr. Speaker.

There is now very definite taxation on people who will attempt to

accumulate and build estates. And why does a person build an estate?

Fundamentally it isn't a question of throwing words like

"millionaires," and like "the rich" and so on. Part of the right of

living in a free

country is to accumulate within the framework of the proper taxation

those things which a person works for. Certainly that is a very key

part of what I assumed many of the people on this side were in favour

of.

I spoke out against the succession duty. I have always, and it's not

a question of stepping across and being with the Liberals because I

don't feel that your policies are that correct, I'll tell you my friend,

and so much of what's involved in the taxation legislation you are

putting through.

But, there is at the present moment a capital gains tax. That

capital gains tax has opened a completely new framework. Why did the

federal government step out of the field? Because they felt that there

had been fair taxation at the levels of capital gains and income tax.

I feel, and I've said this, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister

that we make an error. Because what do we do? We say to so many people

"accumulate so that you can invest and help build the Province of

British Columbia." So many of the estates have been responsible for a

great amount of the charitable work that has been done in the Province

of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them, name them.

MR. CAPOZZI: They can go on and on. They're names of the past

— Malcolms, Woodwards, you name them. Many of them. Very, very

responsible people, Kerner, and you keep going on all these people. And

the odd Macdonald is in there too if you want to take a look at the

names that have contributed in the past to the development of the

Province of British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we are talking about is a

limitation of the eventual investment possibilities in the Province of

British Columbia.

I don't suggest that people are suddenly going to fly, leave British

Columbia because we impose this type of thing. But certainly we are

putting a pressure on those people who are endeavouring to accumulate a

correct and proper accumulation of wealth after having paid the price

legitimately, and I think that is the point.

We are being pushed more and more into a Socialist concept where the

state has the right to take everything above the bare minimum. And I

for one do not accept that. I do not accept that, Mr. Speaker. I am

suggesting to you that the edge starts and moves down, constantly moves

down under your basic philosophy. And that's the real question of what

we're dealing with when we deal with succession duty and the Gift Tax

Act .

There are several things, I'm not going to go into depths because I

am opposed to the principle of the Act, not the question of whether we

say British Columbia or donations to Canadians et cetera. I do point

out that if a donation or gift made to a charitable organization can be

spent in the Province of British Columbia, what about donations to an

organization such as the Society of Christians and Jews which takes

youngsters from the Province of British Columbia, sends them to Quebec?

It isn't as if it's spent outside the province. It must be spent within

the framework of the Province of British Columbia. Someone who takes

youngsters and takes them to Montreal and Ontario, and sends them to

Eastern Canada, is spending money outside the Province of British

Columbia to charity. I suggest although it sounds like a rather

exaggerated case, it does exist.

But the basic point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that I oppose in

principle the start of this. I oppose the extra taxation. It is unfair,

at the succession level and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose

the bill on the gift tax.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the views that were expressed by the last

[ Page 958 ]

speaker can only be described as a silver-spoon philosophy. And I

want to point out that the Member who now represents them on that point.

Because the people of Vancouver Centre certainly believe that there

should be more equality in this province than there is. And they

believe that this Member is protecting a privileged position, and a

privileged class when he speaks as he does on this question in this

House.

I can understand why the Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) wanted to

hand out seat belts yesterday because the philosophy expressed by that

Member just now is more in the keeping with the Liberal philosophy in

this House, which is that privilege must be protected, at any cost.

So for anyone to say that a capital gains tax is double taxation

under the gift tax is absolutely ridiculous. Now I would urge on the

government consideration for a wider application of exemption when it

comes to charity. I don't see why a charity must be entirely limited

within British Columbia when many things in the way of charity from the

rest of Canada are spread into British Columbia. And they gain

exemptions in other places for their usage, or they should if they

don't.

I would urge the government to make that wider as long as some of

the charity is spent here. But you know, people who are making

charitable bequests often have particular charities that they have

particular reason to single out and it would be unfair to deprive those

charities of the opportunity of advancement, particularly in fields of

research, medicine and so on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

it was interesting to hear the last Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr.

Dowding) speak of widening the exemptions for gifts to charity. He

doesn't seem to realize that if we pursue this kind of taxation policy

which the government has brought before us today there's not going to

be anybody left in the province who's got any moneys left to give to

charity.

You see, what the Members on my right, the New Democratic Party,

fail to realize and what I'm surprised the Honourable the Premier fails

to realize as well is that when you destroy the initiative and the

opportunities for the accumulation of wealth then you also destroy that

segment of society who are in a position to invest that wealth back

into the province and make it work.

To do this means that we will have to look outside our borders

always for the investment capital and even the borrowing capital. The

continuation of this kind of taxation policy makes this a certainty.

The second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has spoken

of the failure of this government to understand the unity that exists

between a man and his wife in the production of the family fortune.

Missing entirely from this Act. As a matter of fact, it's even worse.

You can pay moneys to a spouse with whom you are not living, free of

tax, but you can't pay moneys which might be deemed to be a gift under

the laws of the land to a wife with whom you are living without having

to pay tax. If there ever was anything unfairer than that in the

application of this statute I don't know what it would be.

The Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Loffmark), who has a great background in tax laws, offers the

suggestion that because there is a bad piece of tax legislation offered

some place else in this country then this one's O.K. too. In other

words a multiplicity of bad legislation each makes the other all right.

The fact of the matter is that you can never accept that argument.

The bill, as the Minister said when he introduced the bill for

second reading, gives a great break to the farming community — $10,000

exemption from anything in respect of a gift which may be in the form

of a producing farm from a father to a son. It's ridiculous. That's no

exemption at all.

That doesn't take into account the problem that faces the

agricultural people of British Columbia. The only thing, Mr. Speaker,

that it does take into account is that the politics of this particular

government are ending up so no farm is worth more than $10,000. Maybe

that's the justification.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister's way off the track here. He

really should pull this bill and have it reconsidered. He's failed to

take into account those matters that really should be taken into

account in legislation of this kind. We've already got an Income Tax

Act now which will be brought into play as soon as the gift is given.

Capital gains become effective upon the making of a gift. Double

taxation right away. The possibility that every donor of every gift

will have to file a return — you know, the simplest way would be to set

up a wicket so that when Santa Claus comes down on Christmas Eve he can

stop and you can take a list of all those gifts that are being given

and make him pay a tax in advance.

We're going to build up a multiplicity of returns. Heavens to Betsy,

Mr. Speaker, this Department of Finance can't handle the Act we've got

now. When you put this Gift Tax Act on top we're going to multiply the

problems. As the Minister himself said when he opened the debate this

isn't going to produce that much revenue. Get out of the business. Get

out of the succession duty business as well and allow the people in

this province to develop their initiative to provide economic power and

strength in this province.

Let us grow with that and then we will have the position where we

can stand off the impact of those who would come from outside, place

their investments here and take their profits back home.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D. G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I can well

sympathize with the Liberals for taking the position that they've

that it should have done in the first place. They left the doors open

and the government had to close that particular door. They left the

door open with respect to not having a proper new Income Tax Act .

Now, if they had followed more closely the advice of the Carter

Commission, there would have been no need for this kind of legislation.

But, Mr. Speaker, they decided not to follow that course. So therefore

the door is open.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell us that we should vote against this bill because there's the odd mistake in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Odd?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if we voted against bills in this

House because they have the odd mistake in them we would not pass one

single solitary bill that comes before the House. So let's not use that

as an excuse. I would hope that the amendments will come in to take

care of those mistakes.

[ Page 959 ]

There's one area, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope that the Minister

of Finance will look at before committee stage and that is

section 49

where the Minister appoints or retains someone to assess the valuation

and so on and so forth. I would hope that should not be a charge to the

person making the gift. I would think that if the Minister feels that

there should be some expertise brought in I think that it's up to the

government to pay for it.

But other than that, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill aimed at filling up

some gaps left by the federal government and it was just unfortunate

that they couldn't even adopt the Benson changes. Mr. Speaker, we'll

support the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B. A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, this

has been an interesting debate of the lawyers in the House. I've sat

back trying to follow some of the legal niceties of this very

complicated Act. I enjoyed the contribution of my colleague who sits

behind me. I tried to understand the contribution of the Minister of

Health but I think his speech was even more complicated than the Act.

But what interested me mostly, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to be

brief, is the attitude of the New Democratic Members in the House which

I find really quite disillusioning. I can appreciate differences in

philosophy and differences in techniques. In principle those can be

appreciated and there's legitimate arguments on either side.

I happen to support the argument of my two colleagues that this is

double taxation and that if those who are earning the most or

accumulating wealth more rapidly in this country should be more

severely taxed then they should be so taxed through federal income tax

legislation and the capital gains tax which is now introduced in Canada

and that we should not attempt to come in the back door with this sort

of law.

I'm particularly disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the contributions to

this debate by two very confident lawyers who sit with the N.D.P. And

despite the fact that my colleague pointed out over 65 errors in the

Act these two lawyers chose to address themselves solely to one simple

matter of principle — what they described as principle — totally

ignoring the blatant errors that exist in the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait for committee stage.

MR. CLARK: I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that they haven't

read the Act because the errors that are now prompting the Member for

Burnaby (Mr. Dowding) to jump up and down are errors not in wording

that we might reasonably discuss in committee, but errors in principle.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) who just sat

down who said just because there's the odd mistake in the bill….

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your amendment on the order paper.

MR. CLARK: Cast your mind back, Mr. Speaker, to other years

in this House when we've had bills with 200 sections in them — 199 of

which we all jumped up and down with joy for but in one

section we saw

our friends here say: "Because that one

section is worded improperly we

will oppose the entire bill."

Now, I support that. When that one

section is that important Mr.

Speaker, we should oppose the bill. But we've got 67 sections here and

yet my friends say there's just a few odd mistakes down here therefore

we can overlook those. I think what the Member said was we hope the

government will introduce the amendments. Well surely, surely down

there you want to at least have the assurance that the government is no

longer going to tax gifts to wives while it will not tax gifts to the

common-law spouse not living with the man, I mean is that a principle

you can accept? Is that a principle you as a lawyer can accept, Mr.

Member, and still vote in favour of this bill? And when you vote in

favour of this bill you do vote for double jeopardy.

Another point, Mr. Speaker. Let the Members rise in support of this

bill of retroactive legislation. I thought I heard you Members down

here stand up against the principle of retroactive legislation. This is

another one. Overlook that one too as you support the government with

this bill. Retroactivity. Bad law. Double jeopardy. Taxation of gifts

to wives. Some principles to support! Stand up and be counted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say this. I explained it very

thoroughly when I opened. I'll say this, that this party, while the

Socialist party supports this bill and I'm glad to see that, this party

which I have the honour to lead is not a Socialist party but it is a

social reform party. It is for the great masses of the people. We're

not for the extreme left and we're not for the extreme right.

I want to say this. It wasn't without cause that the great master

said it'll be hard for the rich to go through the eye of the needle, my

friend, because he knew….

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a camel in there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. That's right. You know, the eye of the needle in the holy land is a very small, narrow gate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say this. They talk about double

taxation. You pay sales tax and you pay income tax and the same thing.

You talk about big bills, federal income tax was that deep — went

through the House without going through every section.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: 600 pages. Talk about different governments

in Canada. The Liberals in Nova Scotia have a similar bill. The

Conservatives in New Brunswick have a similar bill. The Liberals….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say to the Liberals of Canada

that a few little Liberals in B.C. think that all the rest of the

Liberals in Canada are dummies. Are dummies. Then when they have such

ego as that, when they have such ego as that…

[ Page 960 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: …no wonder people won't vote for the

provincial Liberals when they have such terrible ego. We know who they

represent. They represent the special classes.

I want to say this. That as long as I lead this party, it will never

be a party of the classes; it will be a party of the masses for the

benefit of everybody.

I want to say this. 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 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. 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 that this is a fair tax and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 25, The Gift Tax Act , be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS–42

Ney

Dowding

Fraser

Merilees

Nimsick

Campbell, B.

Mussallem

Barrett

Wolfe

Cocke

Dailly, Mrs.

Smith

Hartley

Vogel

McDiarmid

Lorimer

Jefcoat

Chabot

Hall

Tisdalle

Skillings

Williams, R.A.

McCarthy, Mrs.

Chant

Calder

Jordan, Mrs.

Loffmark

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Gaglardi

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Campbell, D.R.J.

Price

Bennett

Brothers

Macdonald

Peterson

Shelford

Strachan

Black

Richter

NAYS–6

Brousson

Clark

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

McGeer

Capozzi

PAIR:

LeCours

Wallace

Bill No. 25 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 68, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LEGAL PROFESSIONS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 68.

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act . The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the

contents of this bill were referred to the select standing committee on

standing orders and private bills. If you refer to your Votes and

Proceedings you will find a report of the committee which was adopted.

That report only contains one very simple amendment which will be dealt

with when we're in committee of the whole House.

The select standing committee on standing orders and private bills

has recommended that the bill be proceeded with and therefore for this

purpose I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. DOWDING: You need leave of the House because it's not printed as amended.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Not printed as amended, but it is printed and the amendment is also on the Votes and Proceedings .

I don't think it requires leave for second reading. It would require

leave if we were dealing with it in committee when the amendment itself

was going to be dealt with. So I therefore move that the bill be now

read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I sat in on the

committee dealing with this bill. And it is

An Act to Amend the Legal

Professions Act , and I find within the bill that it's sort of setting

themselves up, a group within the legal profession, as both judge and

jury when it comes to admitting people to the legal profession.

There is a

section in this bill where a committee is being appointed

to investigate and bring a report about an applicant to enter the legal

profession. And that committee according to this bill has got to be

members of the bench. It's got to be made up of benchers.

HON. MR. PETERSON: They're not members of the bench.

MR. NIMSICK: No, it's members of the bench. "The bench shall appoint among their members a credentials committee."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, the benchers. The benchers are the fat cats

in the law society. But anyway if an applicant makes application to

enter the law profession, and he's heard by this credentials committee,

and the report of that credentials committee has got to come before the

benchers, before it can be accepted or discredited.

Now the same people that heard the application, and investigated the

application are going to sit as to whether they'll accept the

application or not.

This is the reason I say that they're acting both as judge and jury

on the applicants. I feel that the credentials committee should be

appointed from the members at large, outside of the benchers. So that

when a committee reports then it can come before the benchers, and the

benchers can act upon it but they have not already acted on it before.

[ Page 961 ]

We just had a similar case, just to give you a parallel, we had a

case with the chartered accountants. I will give the chartered

accountants credit that they came forward asking that the credential

committee be outside of the executive. So that the executive could act

as an appeal to the committee more or less, when that application comes

before them. I feel that this should be amended to make this

credentials committee elected from the members at large outside of the

benchers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the essential principle of this bill

is the step that is being taken by the legal profession in the Province

of British Columbia to attempt to make some more funds available for

legal aid. Within the terms of this bill, Mr. Speaker, there's a

provision whereby a portion of trust accounts of lawyers — which of

course are not their funds but the funds of their clients — would

become interest-bearing accounts and that interest would be paid to the

law foundation.

I support that measure. However, I do feel that it is really and

truly just a tiny, tiny step along the way. We find that the legal

profession here are trying to do what they can to preserve the dignity

of the individual and in respect for law and order. Really and truly

it's their responsibility, but it's also the sacred responsibility of

all of society to do that particular thing. And what we need in the

Province of B.C. instead of just nibbling at the cheese we need policy

action on legal aid and I'd say this very instant.

We find here we have a billion dollar budget yet we do not have

legal aid — a province-wide legal aid plan in the Province of B.C.

Now, one of the characteristics of the law which has unfortunately

burdened it from the outset, and which this bill is attempting to

economically underprivileged.

This gap is closing by this kind of a measure, but far from

significantly. And I say the time has come for British Columbia to

accept legal aid and bring it in not as a social measure but as a

democratic right.

We know the maxim that justice must not only be done but appear to

be done, and there's little quarrel with that fact, Mr. Speaker, of it

being done within the walls of law courts. But that is little comfort

to those people who cannot get through the door. And I'd say how

justifiably brutal that criticism is with this affluent government, and

its billion dollar budget, and its terrific surpluses, that it has not

provided province-wide legal aid.

For anyone to say in B.C. today that there is equal access to the

courts in B.C. I would say would be rank hypocrisy. This is no

criticism of the lawyers or the courts. They are trying, but the poor

are still unable to afford the due process of law. You know there was a

very stark statement and a very dramatic one in my view by the Economic

Council of Canada. It said this:

Poverty in Canada is real. It is more than simple

income deficiency. It carries with it a sense of entrapment and

hopelessness and the poor tend to be collectively inarticulate.

These people, Mr. Speaker, view legal redress as a luxury, and we

say it is everybody's right. It is everybody's right. There must be

equal justice to all and relegated not to the charities of some, but

government-supported for all people. We should have a comprehensive

province-wide legal aid system in British Columbia and I'd say

fashioned along the line of the Ontario programme. Because the gap of

the undefended and the non-advised has got to be closed, and make no

mistake of that.

There's one other aspect that I'd mention here. It's gratifying to

see that the legal profession has on its own been prepared to take this

step to provide some degree of assistance. Very gratifying.

But the largest amount of moneys that are lodged in trust in the

Province of British Columbia — and I'd say they would be millions and

millions of dollars — are those that are lodged with the real estate

concerns. And I think it would be most heartening indeed if the real

estate profession, however they're described in B.C.,, would come along

with this kind of a situation.

Because unless the government proposes to accept its responsibility

and do the job — and it has given absolutely no indication of accepting

that responsibility in B.C. — if the citizens are prepared to carry on

with the government instead of turfing them out, and have the measure

I'm talking of, legal aid, legal care shall we say, for those in need,

not for everyone along the lines of medicare, unless the government is

prepared to do it people outside of the government I think should have

the responsibility, and the energy, and the initiative to try to bring

in that kind of a measure, as the lawyers are doing.

I would say to the real estate council in the Province of B.C. you

have more money lodged in trust than any other comparable group of

people in the Province of B.C. and you similarly should put a portion — and I would suggest 50 per cent of your trust funds — into

interest-bearing accounts and make that interest available for the law

foundation in the Province of B.C. in order to provide some degree of

better access to the courts for those who are the poor.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Under standing

order 79 and 80, we really are jumping the gun by continuing second

reading without the bill having been shown on the order paper as

reprinted, nor indeed on the bill itself. I note that the bill we have

before us is the one that we got in committee but does not appear to be

any different with the amendments made in committee.

I read standing order 80, and I think we should observe some of the

legality involved in this, for the simple reason that if we don't then

in time these distinctions end up being blurring so badly that when the

House wants to deal with the matter it can't.

Standing order 80 says:

When a bill has been amended in committee of the whole House, or by

any select or standing committee it shall be reprinted as amended; and

when the bill has been sent to be reprinted it shall be marked on the

orders of the day thus, NOT REPRINTED; and shall not be further

proceeded with until that mark has been removed and the word PRINTED

substituted (signifying that the bill has been reprinted and

distributed).

This has not happened, as far as I can see in the bill because I was on the committee that dealt with this.

HON. MR. PETERSON: May I just speak to the point of order,

Mr. Speaker? The bill has been printed, it's available to the Members,

and perhaps with leave we could continue the debate and dispose of this

piece of business. It's only one

[ Page 962 ]

simple amendment and the amended copies have not been distributed in

your books apparently. It has been printed and the Honourable Member

can have one if he so wishes.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, my point is simply this. I asked

that there be leave granted to debate the bill and I was told that no

leave was required. But I say that leave is required and I am certainly

for my part willing to grant that leave and willing to finish second

reading of the bill. We can deal with committee….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Considerable discussion ensued at the

beginning of this discussion of this bill, and the Chair could only

assume that unanimous leave was given. The point….

MR. DOWDING: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter was discussed and we

were told that leave was not required. Remember, I stopped the Attorney

General and asked him to ask for leave. I would like to see the

niceties of this House preserved but with that condition certainly

there are….

HON. MR. PETERSON: I would ask under the circumstances for leave for the debate on second reading to continue, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief and I

wish with these few remarks to draw the attention of the Honourable

Attorney General to the amendment that was adopted in the committee. I

haven't seen the reprinted bill but am I to understand that the number

of the persons comprising the board is to be increased from 17 to 19?

If you could just tell me that, because the wording that is in the Votes and Proceedings

from the report on the committee appears to add a further sub

sub-section, which increases the committee numbers by two. So it

becomes 19, and if I could just be assured that the reprinted bill now

says 19 members, then my question is answered.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The number is the same, it's just the method of appointment that is different.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well is sub-section (

C) now 11 members?

HON. MR. PETERSON: Eleven by society, and two by the Canadian bar.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 68 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 68,

An Act to Amend the Legal Professions Act ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 99, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PODIATRY ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 99.

An Act to Amend the Podiatry Act . The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of

professional Acts that deal with matters peripheral to the activities

of the medical profession. These include chiropractors, naturopaths,

podiatrists and so on. What this bill proposes to do is to define with

greater clarity and certainty the professional activity permitted by

the podiatrist.

There are also minor matters dealt with relating to names. But in

the main the substance of the bill is a definition of the activities

properly carried on by podiatrists. I might say that the wording that

you are considering here, Mr. Speaker, is the result of quite some

negotiation between the medical profession and the podiatrists and I

believe it has been during the last two years that they've spent some

time working out these terms.

I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to use the opportunity of this

bill in second reading to not oppose the Act but to point out to the

Members one principle which is contained in it with which I personally

disagree most firmly.

That is the principle that from time to time in this Legislature and

indeed in this Act too, Mr. Speaker, we make it possible for certain

groups of people in our society not to advertise their profession. This

is definitely within the principle of this bill. I'll be very brief.

I don't think that is proper in a free society — and to illustrate

my point, because of legislation of this chamber, a man in the City of

Vancouver today was sent to jail for advertising. I don't think that is

what this assembly intended to do.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CLARK: This happened to be the same provision under the

Hairdressers Act . The man is spending 30 days in Oakalla. His offence — advertising his profession. I use the opportunity to raise the point,

Mr. Speaker, because I'm totally against the principle which puts such

restrictions on groups of professions and makes it impossible for them

in my opinion to compete or make their products known.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I wonder if the Honourable Member would be

kind enough to give me a little more in the way of details at a later

time on this because I think the point is an important one and we would

like to consider it a little further.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 99,

An Act to Amend the Podiatry Act , now be read a second time.

[ Page 963 ]

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 99 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Committee on Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 3, intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act .

Bill No. 3 was committed, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, divisions occurred on

section 10

and the amendments to

section 16 and 21, and the committee asked leave

for these divisions to be recorded in the Journals .

MR. SPEAKER: Recording of the divisions in the committee will require leave of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1972, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada