1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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 13, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 593 ]

FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Legislative

Assembly Privileges Act,

Chapter 215, I would like to rise on a point

of privilege. I move that one Glen Ringdal of 349 Oxford Drive, Port

Moody, British Columbia, be required to attend before a Committee on

Privileges to be composed of Messrs. Vogel, Strachan and L.A. Williams,

to give information with respect to certain allegations made against

members of the Legislative Assembly, circulated and printed at several

places throughout this Province, and wherein legislative members are

attacked for misconduct in relation to opposing the Succession Duties

Bill, and that in such behalf, the Sergeant-At-Arms be empowered to act

upon the warrant of the Speaker, to cause the attendance of the said

Glen Ringdal or other such witnesses as the said Committee may be

required to investigate the said allegations, and report their findings

and recommendations to the House. Moved by myself and seconded by Mr.

Dowding.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have some evidence to support the….

MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you submit that to me, please?

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I have the letters here.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member be kind enough to be seated for a moment.

First, to address my remarks to the honourable member for

Yale-Lillooet, all members of the House should be interested in

accusations that are going abroad, which are completely unjustified, of

the members of this Legislative Assembly who had no opportunity,

because of the anticipation rule, to discuss the contents of the

Succession Duty Act or the amendments thereto. Certainly it is

reprehensible for any citizen of this Province to send information

abroad which improperly implicates any member of this Legislature, and

as such we must be most concerned with this type of nonsense that is

going abroad. Nevertheless, I must point out, with respect to the

honourable member, that we are here drawing a motion which involves one

Glen Ringdal, who presumably is the holder of a certain post office box

in Vancouver, but the letter is signed by one Mr. J. Black. I feel that

rather than involve this Legislature, until the facts are better known,

with this particular motion, I must rule the motion out of order.

However at the same time — I have expressed my feelings on this type of

literature — if and when the facts are properly known, certainly a

motion of this description could be brought before this House.

The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think every

member will agree that all the facts should first become known, as far

as we can find them out, and I understand from certain indications in

the House right now, that other members have been placed in this same

invidious position by the letter writer, who has attacked members of

this House and will continue to send, apparently, letters to various

newspapers throughout the Province, merely substituting more names for

the name he had in another newspaper, with the same attack.

I have ascertained, Mr. Speaker, that the box number 2891 in

Vancouver is in the name of this person shown in the motion, Mr.

Ringdal of Port Moody. The name shown on the letter is J. Black. I have

been unable to ascertain any person of that name who is associated with

the particular association shown on the letterhead. No one will admit

to being that person, so the only one upon whom we could look, if we

wanted to investigate further, is Mr. Ringdal, and I am not suggesting

in advance that Mr. Ringdal is guilty of anything. We do not know that

until he is given a chance to explain how these letters emanate with

this box number on them, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, there is

another solution to it.

Before this is spread all over the Province quite falsely about

members, I would ask the Speaker if he would consider, in the meantime,

investigating this matter further by writing to this box, requiring the

person who is there to explain to the Speaker, what connection, if any,

he has with this affair, so that then the Speaker could, if he feels it

incumbent upon him, report back to the House, so that appropriate

action might be taken and the whole thing cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: The first I heard of this matter was

this afternoon, and I do appreciate the observations that you have

made, Mr. Speaker. I wish to advise the House that this very Bill I

hope to have up for second reading this afternoon, so we can have the

opportunity to debate the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take the recommendations of the honourable member for Burnaby-Edmonds under advisement and consideration. Next order.

On the motion of Mr. G.B. Gardom, Bill (No. 67) intituled

An Act

Respecting Proceedings against the Crown was introduced, read a first

time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker two Messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. W.D. Black, the following Bills were

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 48) intituled

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 49) intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

The Hon. D.L. Brothers presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. D.L. Brothers, Bill (No. 64) intituled An

Act to Amend the Public Schools Act was introduced, read a first time,

and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. D.R.J. Campbell presented to Mr. Speaker two

[ Page 594 ]

Messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. D.R.J. Campbell, the following Bills were

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:-

Bill (No. 43) intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

Bill (No. 44) intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered

to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next

sitting after today:

On the motion of the Hon. R.R. Loffmark, Bill (No. 45) intituled

An Act to Amend the Medical Act.

On the motion of the Hon. R.R. Loffmark, Bill (No. 61) intituled Vancouver General Hospital Act, 1902.

On the motion of Mr. Hartley, Bill (No. 68) intituled

An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act)

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill No. 11. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 11 is

an Act to Amend the

Succession Duty Act. This Government believes a broad base for taxation

is the most equitable method to raise the funds necessary to carry out

essential services provided by Government. It considers the succession

duties must form a part of this base in respect to our more wealthy

citizens, but that exemptions be provided of sufficient worth to

eliminate the vast majority from having to pay any succession duties

whatsoever. The Government is aware that the thrifty, industrious and

prudent citizens of our society are entitled to encouragement to

continue their contribution to the economy of the Province. For this

reason this Bill increases exemptions that are presently in force by

raising the amount allowed for pensions or annuities from $100 to $250

a month, and completely exempting a family home passing to close

relatives.

Including the measures contained in this Bill, the following are the

main exemptions provided. For example, for a spouse, (1) an outright

exemption of $60,000; (2) an additional exemption of the value of the

family home; (3) an additional exemption of $25,000 of life insurance;

(4) an additional exemption of up to $250 a month pension. This means,

for instance, a husband could leave, for an example, a $40,000 home,

$25,000 in insurance, other properties to the value of $60,000, and a

$250 a month pension to his spouse, which, if she were 60, would be

valued at $33,832.50, or a total estate of $150,832.50, and no British

Columbia succession duty would be payable. It is therefore apparent

that most beneficiaries of estates in British Columbia will be totally

exempt from the Provincial succession duty.

In the case of an estate larger than that, in the case of an estate,

say, of a net value total estate minus all liabilities against the

estate of $1,000,000, the following exemptions and duties could apply.

Exemptions — $100,000 to charities; $100,000 objects of art; $90,000 to

a family home; $60,000 general exemption; $25,000 life insurance;

$33,800 pension if wife aged 60, or a total exemption on a million

dollar estate of $408,800. The dutiable value, therefore, Mr. Speaker,

would be $591,200. The duty would average at 20.5 per cent, or would

amount to $121,150, or 12 per cent of the net value of the estate, 12

per cent of one million dollars.

In the past, exemptions allowed for religious ,

charitable or educational purposes have been, in part, subject to the

Minister in his absolute discretion. It is now proposed in this Bill to

abolish the Minister's discretion and to broaden the exemptions to

include those organizations qualifying for exemptions under the Estate

Tax Act of Canada to the extent of 10 per cent of net value, which

precedent is contained in the Income Tax Act of Canada. It is further

proposed to allow this exemption back to April the 1st, 1968, to any

estate where duty was paid on a gift which would qualify under this new

section.

Mr. Speaker, it is the Government's intention to value objects of

art at a nominal value of $1 for succession duty purposes when the

property is bequested to a public library, museum, or art gallery, and

accepted for display and retention within the Province. This will

greatly encourage the granting of gifts to these Provincial

institutions, (applause) and keep them within the Province, Mr. Speaker.

The British Columbia succession duties will, therefore, in future

only apply to very large estates, as the generous basic exemptions

outlined above eliminate most beneficiaries. In the case of large

estates subject to duties, the Government is still prepared to forgo

its revenues up to 10 per cent of the net estate where donations are

made to charities. Of course further funds can also be left to

charities after the payment of duties. It must be remembered that

succession duties enter the consolidated revenue fund, and are

available for social service expenditures on a priority as determined

by the Province and the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Succession Duty Act amendments are

as follows:

(1) To increase exemptions. Family homes to be totally

exempt. Previous Act allows exemption up to a maximum of $35,000 to the

spouse only. A family home is defined as where the deceased and his

household were ordinarily resident and which is not leased or rented.

Homes can now be left, or will now be able to be left succession duty

free to a husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother,

child, grandchild, son and daughter-in-law of the deceased.

(2) Pension

or annuities exemption increased from $100 to $250 a month. This is

important, as pensions or annuities are amortized at present worth in

the case of the beneficiary. With present day pensions, this amount can

be considerable.

Mr. Chairman, too, to clear up any misunderstanding about charitable

donations, the present regulations in the absolute discretion of the

Minister of Finance determine what is an eligible exempt organization.

While this procedure was satisfactory in the past for well-known

charities, the advent of private foundations, etc. now requires a more

positive and clear-cut approach. The amending Bill therefore clearly

outlines that effective April the 1st, 1970, the following charitable

or non-profit organizations qualify for succession duties exemptions:

(

a) Those organizations qualifying for an exemption under the Federal

Government Estate Tax Act. This Act allows very wide exemptions and

includes churches, universities, hostels, foundations, etc. (

b) Exemption allowed is 10 per cent of the net value of the estate, total

of estate less obligations similar to the 10 per cent provisions

contained in the Federal Income Tax Act. (

c) Exempted organizations

must use the donation in this

[ Page 595 ]

Province. Many British Columbia succession duty bequests were

finding their way out of our Province. (

d) Exempted organizations must

have the sole discretion as to the use of the funds, though the person

making the gift chooses the organization, but the organization itself,

once chosen, to have the say of the use of the fund, because priorities

have been given which are not the high priorities of that organization,

and if it's tax exempt then certainly it should be for the purpose

which that organization has the higher priority. Of course, any money

given after paying taxes, the priority, of course, will be given by the

donor.

In order to be fair, Mr. Speaker, the new 10 per cent exemption

provision is back dated to April the 1st, 1968, for those estates that

have paid the full duties and who can qualify under the provisions.

Note that the retroactive provision allows an exemption, it does not

apply a duty.

In order to start the new 10 per cent exemption provision on April

the 1st next in a clear-cut manner, and to enable the present

operations of the Succession Duty Act continued unhindered until that

date, all past determinations of the Minister confirmed and ratified.

There is nothing new, as the Minister has had absolute discretion in

the Act now for many years, and which is now being abolished as of

April the 1st next. The following exemptions will now be provided as of

April the 1st for Succession Duties:

(1) Family home.

(2) Life

insurance the value of $25,000.

(3) Pensions or annuities up to $250 a

month. (4) $60,000 outright exemption for a spouse.

(5) Charitable

donations up to 10 per cent of net value of estate.

(6) Works of art to

public museums, libraries, and art galleries without any maximum.

Over and above these exemptions, Provincial succession duties are

low. For example, for a close relative the following rates apply. This

applies on the net after taking off all of these exemptions which I

have outlined, on the net. Up to $50,000 of dutiable value it ranges

from three to eight per cent. That portion which is taxable from

$50,000 to $100,000, dutiable value ranges from eight to ten per cent.

$100,000 to $200,000, ten to 13 per cent. From $200,000 to $1,000,000,

13 to 23 per cent. From $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, 23 to 36 per cent,

and all above $5,000,000, 36 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I move second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of this

Bill that are certainly great. Particularly the annuity aspect, where

now, changing from $1,200 a year to $3,000, is giving a lot of people,

particularly in view of the fact that people now are becoming more and

more pension conscious, and there are more pensions available, this

aspect of the Act is going to be very helpful to the little people in

B.C. I think that these are the people that we are primarily interested

in. The family home situation with one or two exceptions, I think is

also a very desirable aspect, although I can envisage a family home

being a very expensive family home. As a matter of fact some ultra

expensive, in the quarter of a million dollar class and so on.

But there are some issues, I think, in this Bill, and the issue that

strikes me the hardest is the issue of who is paying the bill. It seems

to me that when organizations such as the church, such as health

foundations, and such as organizations that do essential experimental

work, the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army in their own field, and so on, when

they get hurt by a Bill like this, I think it means that we should take

some very, very deep consideration of all its aspects. Now, there are

two ways that we look at this, and I'm speaking particularly from my

own standpoint. One, the limitation of 10 per cent to a charity, 10 per

cent, for example, to a group such as the Y.M.C.A. which I am very

interested in, the church which I am also extremely interested in, and

the Heart, Cancer, and so forth Foundations that I am also interested in.

I know that there are some Foundations that have taken advantage of the

Succession Duty Act and the Estate Tax Act over the years, but there

should be some other way of finding who they are and sort of excluding

them in law better than discretionary powers, better than doing it in

this way.

Now the 10 per cent is going to place a real hardship on some church

efforts. Some people, particularly older people have built a habit over

the years of supporting a particular activity, and these activities

have been smiled upon by this Government, and by most people over the

years. This particular individual may not have very much more in his

life than this activity, as far as his heart's desire is concerned. He

wants to take care of his family which is left. At the same time he

wants to really take care of this particular situation. It might be,

for an example, an experimental work being done in teaching or

religious work in say Fiji or New Guinea. The Y.M.C.A. for example, right

now, is setting up an extension in New Guinea. It could even be in

northern Alberta, Mr. Chairman, where at least one-fifty-fifth of this

Legislative Assembly was born. It doesn't really matter where it is. I

think that any time we become so desperately Provincial that we say

that the monies have to be — parochial, if you will, as well as

Provincial, using the larger sense of the word — where the monies have

to be used within this Province, for a rich Province like this, this

is, I think pretty greedy of us.

I do think, Mr. Chairman, that from that standpoint, bearing in mind

that there are great parts of this Bill, that while we think they are

coupled so closely, it doesn't really give one an opportunity to really

assess this Bill in its true perspective, because every time you look

at the good aspects of the Bill, then suddenly you come around and see

the bad aspects of it and it puts one in an awful dilemma.

Now, there's another thing that puts me in a dilemma about this

Bill, and that's where the Minister, he's giving up his discretionary

power, however, he's reinforcing that discretionary power, between 1968

and 1971, retroactively. It's a retroactive reinforcement of the

discretionary power that he had. I don't know whose ox is being gored,

but obviously somebody's is, because you don't put this kind of thing

into a Bill unless there's something in the wind or something going

on…. He says I'm too suspicious, Mr. Chairman. Then why would this

aspect, why would this part of the Bill be there at all?

Mr. Speaker, there's one other thing that disturbs me somewhat about

this Bill. We've broadened the base for the family home, those getting

relief, but the one thing that we've overlooked, and I think that there

are a great number of these people in our society, and that's brothers

and sisters living together and helping support one another. Maybe the

family home is in one name or the other, but they have both paid for

that family home over the years, and there are a lot of people being

hurt by this, particularly older people who'd rather pay it back to one

another at a certain time in life when they're more likely to die, and

I think that this thing should be looked at very, very closely. All

we're allowing on this Bill is antecedents or successors, and there are

brothers and sisters who are really being hurt. I know of some, and if I

[ Page 596 ]

know of some surely this House must know of many, and if that's the

case in our society then maybe this should be looked at as well, but I

know that we mustn't just make it the broad, easy system of just

getting around paying tax. But I do think that there is some way that

this should be logically looked at.

Now, we have broadened the base for taxation, according to the

Premier. However, I think we've broadened the base in the wrong

direction in some cases here. I think that we've hurt the wrong people

in some cases here. Let's take a look at maybe the taxation rate at the

upper end of the limit. That's where I'd like to see us look a little

harder, rather than looking at churches, foundations like the Heart and

Cancer and so on. Let us look at that aspect, let us look at that way

of achieving this greater taxation amount. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments

on this Bill, and in particular would like to express the thought that

this Bill now makes it possible for works of art and paintings, left as

part of an estate, to be donated to galleries and museums in British

Columbia. If there was one feature of this Bill, I think, which gave

many of us some concern, it was drawn to our attention by the many

individuals and organizations across the Province who wrote numerous

letters pointing out that, where the work of art was valued as a large

section of the total estate, the work of art would most likely be sold

outside of the Province to raise the very succession tax which was due.

In speaking on this point I would like to acknowledge all the

letters and the efforts made by the people of this Province who are

exhibiting an awareness of the value of our culture, and particularly

in relation to native culture in the form of carving and similar B.C.

art. The students in both Oak Bay schools, for example, showed a great

interest in this, and I would like to acknowledge the fact that they

encouraged me to follow this point forward. I think it is a credit,

also, to the democratic system that the Premier has reconsidered, and in

the second reading of the Bill has introduced certain pieces which I

think remove what would have been a very undesirable consequence of the

Act.

I, personally, would like to comment on the fact that the family

home is exempt and I feel, and this is strictly a personal observation,

that as long as the exemption of the home is guaranteed to the spouse,

I personally don't feel that sons and daughters should live in our

modern age and expect that, necessarily, the home should be theirs duty

free. This is purely a personal observation, but I do feel most

strongly that where the spouse is concerned it is a very reasonable

exemption to free the home, so that the burden of the survivor of the

marriage should be made easier for the survivor.

The last point I would wish to make would be that I wonder, and I

wouldn't challenge this, but I wonder if the 10 per cent donation

exemption for charitable donations is perhaps not unreasonably low. I

am aware of the fact that it is this figure which is quoted in the

Estate Act of Canada….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. WALLACE: No? Well, I'm incorrect on that point, but just

treating the matter as an entity in itself and not comparing those

examples, I feel that 10 per cent is perhaps lower than it should be

and that perhaps, for what it's worth, we should reconsider this and

perhaps introduce a more liberal exemption at a later date.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is the

most offensive piece of legislation, and that's saying something, that

the Government has brought into the House in all the years that I've

been here. It's not only offensive, it's unfair, it's punitive, it's

arrogant, it's robbing the poor of their legacies, it's challenging a

concept that has stood since the time of Queen Elizabeth the First and,

if you haven't gathered by now that we refuse to support this Bill,

that's absolutely correct.

We cannot support legislation of this kind and I say, to try and

give some reassurance to the people of British Columbia, that these

odious amendments will be removed by a Liberal government and

succession duties will be abolished altogether in British Columbia,

because this is not a useful or effective way of raising revenue for

the Crown. The amount of money you'd be gambling in this Province by

letting in this unfair and unnecessary tax is around $15,000,000 a

year. Many of the provinces of Canada are already seeing the folly of

two sets of death duties.

We have one perfectly satisfactory Act, the Estate Tax Act of

Canada, and at the time this offensive Bill was first brought into the

House, the one which is now being amended, we said it was going back to

the tax jungles of yesteryear, that we were putting an unnecessary

imposition on people of lower and moderate income in this Province, as

we do now, not with the tax itself but with the jungle of red tape

which requires people to keep changing their Wills again and again as

this jostling goes on year after year to try and bring some kind of

accord between the Federal and the Provincial legislation. That's the

general problem, and why succession duty should be eliminated

altogether and by bringing back our share of the Canada succession duty

revenues, we would have approximately as much money….

AN HON. MEMBER: What a hope.

MR. McGEER: …. as we get into British Columbia now through

our Succession Duty Act. In other words, we would not lose revenue, but

at the same time we would confer an enormous benefit on the people of

British Columbia by making their legal bills less, by speeding up the

period of probation, by removing much confusion which exists in their

minds.

But, in addition to that, we are now embarking on this regrettable

tack of beginning to tax charitable foundations, church

organizations,…. Oh yes, Mr. Member, it is, because it is these

organizations who become strangers, and these organizations who pay the

succession duty. Because when someone dies and the Will is probated and

the money is left to these charitable organizations, they are the

strangers who are the recipients, they are the ones who pay the

succession duties — if they receive them at all. The problem, Mr.

Speaker, is that people will be leaving this Province with their

objects of art, and we will not only lose succession duties and estate

tax duties, but we will be losing the benefits of these estates before

the people pass away, and that means the services they offer to British

Columbia by the spending of their estate during their lifetime, the

income taxes that they pay, and I

[ Page 597 ]

know of estates that have left British Columbia as a result of these new amendments to the Succession Duty Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them.

MR. McGEER: I don't intend to name then and I don't see why I

should, but they went into the millions of dollars, they went into the

millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't in effect today.

MR. McGEER: Not even in effect, no, but the Wills are being

changed, and the Attorney-General knows that. Anybody with any sense

will start changing their Will now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your advice to the citizens of this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: People are doing it.

MR. McGEER: It's my advice to the Government. The people will make up their own minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rich man's party.

MR. McGEER: The rich man's party, says the member from

Chilliwack. Mr. Speaker, it isn't the rich people who are going to be

hurt by this, it's the poor people, it's the legacies of the poor that

are being taken. It's the legacies of the poor, Mr. Speaker, not the

rich. They can't take it with them, but they can leave it to the

charitable, religious and educational organizations of their choice.

And that's what these organizations exist for — to serve the poor. And

when their legacies are taken, it's the people that they serve who

suffer. This is an attempt against the poor of this Province.

Incredible, says the first member from Vancouver Centre. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I am going to give to this House the opinion of many others

than myself, because I have been inundated with carefully thought out

positions as to what the consequences…. We all have, says the first

member from Vancouver-Burrard. Then you should be voting against this

Bill. Here's one, Mr. Speaker, I want to read the message from the

Social Service Council of the Anglican Diocese of the Cariboo, and this

is one which came today. "This Council views with alarm the action of

the Provincial Government to make legislation whereby succession duty

would be levied on bequests to charitable institutions, and that

decisions as to what constitutes a charitable organization cannot be

appealed beyond the Minister of Finance."

How about the Woodward Estate? The retroactive parts of it, the

parts of this legislation which deny access of people to the Courts of

this Province….

AN HON. MEMBER: Press gang tactics.

MR. McGEER: Press gang tactics? Is the Minister of Finance

afraid to defend his actions in the Courts of British Columbia? Afraid

to have his decisions as to what constitutes a charitable, religious,

or educational organization tested in the Court, because he knows that

no one would agree with his arbitrary decisions on this matter? Not a

chance that those judgments would stand up in Court, that the Woodward

Foundation is not a charitable organization with a record of helping

the poor in this Province. As long as the Minister of Finance is armed,

and he has the arrogance to use legislation given to him by this House,

with the full belief that there would be common sense on the part of

the Minister of Finance being used to tax those who would benefit from

that estate. One million six hundred thousand dollars taken from the

poor. Afraid to defend that action in the Courts of British Columbia?

Introduction of a Bill in this House giving him retroactive protection

from people with common sense, where they could be found in the Courts

of British Columbia and where the case could be argued. Distasteful and

reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, this aspect of the legislation before us

which will prevent that case from going to Court. Personal

vindictiveness.

The member from Kamloops has left and I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that

he has, because here's someone, "Local lawyer raps Bennett on appeal

veto. Succession Duty decried." This comes from the member from

Kamloops home riding. As an example this citizen from the Kamloops

riding states, "The Kamloops Senior Citizens Housing Society, which was

left an amount in excess of $60,000 from the estate of a former

prominent city resident, the Society was declared a non-charitable

organization, and the executor was required to pay 20.75 per cent of

the amount willed to it in succession duties,

whereas the Federal

Government considered it to be a charitable organization." Is the

member from Kamloops against the Kamloops Senior Citizens Housing

Society? Are they the wealthy? Are they the wealthy? Are we defending

the wealthy when we stand up here to condemn the Kamloops Senior

Citizens Housing Society? Because those of you who support this Act — you're against them. They're paying succession duties, 20.75 per cent,

of money that was left by a prominent city resident of Kamloops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under this Act they wouldn't.

MR. McGEER: They've paid it. Ten per cent, Mr. Member. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that he wasn't given….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member will allow the member to proceed.

MR. McGEER: Here's another one. The member from Shuswap. This

year. Salmon Arm General Hospital. The executors of the Salmon Arm

General Hospital were required to pay 20.75 per cent of the amounts in

succession duties recently. Are you against the Salmon Arm….

AN HON. MEMBER: What date?

MR. McGEER: It doesn't give the date that they had to pay or the date that the….

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't under this Act.

MR. McGEER: Under this Act, yes. This is what has been going

on in the Province of British Columbia, and what we are encouraging.

Now the amendments don't cover that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, they do.

MR. McGEER: Oh, no, they don't. Mr. Speaker, always in the

past the Courts are the final bastion that protect people from a

dictatorship, and here we have people who passed away believing that

they were leaving their estates to hospitals…. No. But they should

take it out of the Province of British Columbia, and when you stick

your talons

[ Page 598 ]

too deeply into the flesh of our citizens you are going to lose what

you try and gain, and this is where this Government, in its arrogance,

has become so short-sighted.

Here is another letter, Mr. Speaker. The constituency of

Vancouver-Burrard. The member there has had many letters he says. "I

have recently learned that the Succession Duties Act may be amended by

imposing severe restrictions on charitable gifts. These restrictions

are severe. No more than 10 per cent of the estate. I find this news

disturbing and would like to register my protest against such proposed

legislation. It does not seem right to curtail the act of giving to our

fellow men. Rather, these acts should be encouraged." Does anyone in

this House believe that allowing only 10 per cent of an estate to be

exempt from gifts to religious, charitable, and educational

organizations is going to encourage such acts? Does the member from Oak

Bay believe that? Does the Minister without Portfolio from North

Okanagan believe that? Does the member from Vancouver Centre believe

that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Believe what?

HON. P.J. JORDAN: Believe what?

MR. McGEER: Well, Madam Minister. I am reading what other

people say, and that's why I am bringing these messages to you, and I

hope that you will listen to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself, Mr. Member. Use your own head for a change.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one from the Vancouver Board

of Trade will impress the Minister without Portfolio…. The Board of

Trade doesn't impress the Minister. Well, that's news, because I don't

think the Board of Trade is made up of ignorant or selfish people and I

think occasionally they have some advice that the Minister without

Portfolio….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister was not accused of

making that statement. Would she please be seated and her opportunity

will come, in time, to speak.

MR. McGEER: Here's what the Board of Trade had to say, and I

would like the members to listen to this very carefully. "The

restriction," and they are speaking now of the restriction that all

money, even that 10 per cent which is to be exempt, must be used within

the Province of British Columbia. "This restriction creates practical

difficulties of controlling the use of the bequest to within the

Province of British Columbia. A bequest to the Canadian Cancer Society,

for example, may be used in research in the continuing search for a

cure for cancer. The research may not be carried out in this Province."

And that's right.

If a person wishes to donate his estate to finding a cure for

cancer, presuming that the wealthy individual did die of cancer, is it

wrong that he should want that estate to go where the most effective

job in research can be done in trying to find a cure, so others may be

prevented from the horrible death that many people suffer who die from

cancer, whether they are residents of British Columbia or residents of

Communist China? Is that wrong? This legislation says it's wrong.

Because it makes distinctions between whether it is left for use within

the Province of British Columbia or not. Mr. Speaker, that's bigotry of

the worst kind, and I don't see how any member of this House could

stand up and defend bigotry of this sort.

Because whether we wish to believe it or not, all of us in this

Legislative Assembly and our families and all the people of this

Province and this country have benefited enormously from charitable

donations that have been left all over the world for support of

research for cures of any number of dread diseases. Cures have been

found for some. Many are left still to be solved. The work of medical

research continues to be one of the most important humanitarian

activities that goes on in the world today, and this Act is against

activities of that kind because it discriminates against money which is

left for medical research.

I specifically point to the Woodward estate, where $4,000,000 was

left for that purpose. What was to be the crowning act in a life of

philanthropy for Mr. P.A. Woodward, and that money which would have

gone to medical research, confiscated by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance should not be judge and jury for everybody

in British Columbia, not how every penny should be spent. He doesn't

represent a majority of people in British Columbia, even though he

holds the loyalties of the majority of the members of this House. He

has yet to have more than half the people of the Province support him.

That's not the point. The point is that there must be means of dissent

in British Columbia, whether it is in the Legislative Assembly or

whether it is on the part of private citizens.

Some in this Province, Mr. Speaker, understand philanthropy in its

most generous and humanitarian sense, and when they leave the entirety

of their estate, whether it is to religious organizations or whether it

is for medical research, it is done in the belief that this money can

be best used in such endeavours. These are the people whose judgments

are to be denied by the punitive, confiscatory, and arbitrary actions

of the Minister of Finance who, I presume, will be supported by his

loyal followers in this House as far as this Bill is concerned. Well,

Mr. Speaker, we know the people that must be loyal to the Premier and

Minister of Finance, but we need to have more people in this Province

who can stand on their own feet, who can express opinions and undertake

acts on their own, and I take off my hat to the philanthropists of this

Province, and I think they are being unduly abused by this Act.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can make some impression on some of the

humble members of this House by seeing what the Neighbourhood Services

Association has to say on this subject. This is a message from the

present President of the Neighbourhood Services Association. They have

this to say. "To our knowledge, no other province or state on this

continent has taken such a retrograde step which in effect, discourages

bequests to charitable organizations through taxation powers." No other

province or state on this continent has taken such a retrograde step.

Not said by myself, or an Opposition member of the Legislature, but

said by the Neighbourhood Services Association. Are they speaking for

the wealthy and the privileged, or are they speaking for the poor and

the under-privileged?

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I can impress the members of the House. As I

look around I am discouraged up to this point, particularly since the

Minister of Finance, after introducing this legislation, has seen fit

to desert the Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a proper debate.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN: Your line of argument.

MR. McGEER: My line of argument, says the Minister

[ Page 599 ]

from Chilliwack. Well, Mr. Minister, you come from an area of

British Columbia that takes its religion very seriously, and I know

that in the Fraser Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: All areas.

MR. McGEER: All areas take it seriously, that's quite

correct. This is what the British Columbia Conference of the United

Church of Canada has to say. "The reason for the denial of exemption on

any part of a charitable bequest to an organization that carries on its

work both in and outside of the Province is difficult to understand.

Presumably, under this proposal, bequests to practically all churches

could be denied, because their expenditures encompass country-wide and

world-wide projects of the churches. As you know, under existing law a

proportion of the bequest to an accepted charitable organization

carrying on its work both in and outside of the Province is exempt.

There is provision for reciprocity with other provinces." Now this is

the key sentence, Mr. Speaker. "The principle that all the money must

be spent in our own backyard is repugnant to Christian ideals." I agree

with that statement. It is repugnant to Christian ideals, Mr. Speaker,

that we should be so parochial in this Chamber that we cannot see any

good works going on outside of our borders, and we would be unwilling

to support, with all the wealth that this Province has, activities that

take place in other areas less fortunate than we are, Mr. Speaker. No,

we're going to deny that. Chauvinism, yes chauvinism.

Well, I disagree with the first member from Vancouver-Burrard that

all that we get here in British Columbia should stay right here in

British Columbia. None of it should go for church work outside the

Province or for medical research outside the Province, or for education

of any kind outside of the Province. I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker,

and that's one of the reasons I am against this Bill. Just so long as

the Minister of Finance gets his pound of flesh first, then they can do

what they like with it. Not a very generous attitude. No, I agree with

the British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada. The

principle is repugnant to Christian ideals.

But they aren't the only church organization that feels that way. If

you are not from the United Church, how about the Canadian Bible

Society? Here's what the Canadian Bible Society has to say. "To state

that we are agitated and disturbed by the proposals of this Bill would

be an understatement. We oppose the Bill's basic philosophy, and urge

you to do what you can to delay its progress in the Legislature, giving

ample opportunity for parties vitally concerned to express their views

in opposition to it. It is impossible for us to understand why you

would be a party to

an Act which would make it impossible for legacies

which, for the most part, represent the life savings of concerned

people to be used to meet the pressing educational, cultural, moral and

spiritual needs of the people of this nation and the world." I am not

going to read the whole letter, but you will have an opportunity to make

your points. This particular letter, Mr. Speaker, was addressed to the

Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder if he read it.

MR. McGEER: I don't expect he did read it. But I must view

with amusement their optimism that, "urge you to do what you can to

delay its progress in the Legislature."

Nevertheless, we'll certainly want to hear what the member from

North Peace River has to say about the mail that he has received on this

particular Bill. Here is one from a private individual, an older

gentleman and his wife. "We protested still very strongly, as it seems

as though the money is being taken from the poor. Also charity and

church donations, which seems incredible that the Government would

think of taxing such donations." Just a single individual written on

ordinary paper, coming from an area of Vancouver that is not a wealthy

area at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's very possible that they have over $150,000 to leave.

MR. McGEER: I'm sure they don't. They probably have nothing

to leave. But Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the people who

aren't being affected, the ones who die, they had their money until

they died. It doesn't make any difference to them. It's the poor who

will receive their legacies that are being affected, and we cannot seem

to make this point to the Government members. They are completely

unable to see the facts, that the wealthy person has his money and uses

it up to the moment of his death, and it's how he decides to leave it

that counts, and when the Government starts to take its pound of flesh,

the ones who lose out are the poor people.

It just so happens that there are some in this Province who like to

be generous when it comes to death, who think it proper that some of

their wealth go outside their own families, to the poor, and as far as

those people are concerned — and I am sure this is a principle the

Minister of Finance cannot understand, because he brought this

legislation in — as far as some of those people are concerned,

religious organizations aren't strangers, and educational organizations

aren't strangers, and the poor aren't strangers, but the Minister of

Finance can't understand that, Mr. Speaker.

He understands very well his own family. How many times he stood up

in the House and talked with warmth about home-ownership, and how often

he spoke, and generously to members on all sides of the House, with

regard to their own personal families, and it touches all of us, Mr.

Speaker, because he is the House Leader. But for some that feeling of

warmth and generosity extends beyond their immediate families to the

family of man, and when they leave their estates, they do in death what

perhaps they hadn't been able to do in life, which is to contribute in

a generous way to these charities which for the first time since Queen

Elizabeth I, are to be taxed in British Columbia. "Repugnant to

Christian principles," is what the United Church Conference said, and

which I accept as truth.

Here's one from a chartered accountant, who has to do with advising

people on how they should plan their estate, and you know anybody who

is preparing a Will is going to seek professional advice, and it is

those who give that advice who are convinced that this is punitive and

wrong. They are going to discourage rather than encourage leaving money

to the poor, leaving more than 10 per cent of an estate, until advised

the other 90 per cent go to the family, where the deductions are more

generous, and perhaps they will advise indirectly the other members of

the family to leave 10 per cent. This chartered accountant had this to

say, "This is the first time that I have ever written to a member of

Parliament, but I am incensed at the proposed amendments to the

Succession Duty Act. I am interested in the work of several Foundations

and cultural organizations here, and the effects

[ Page 600 ]

will be catastrophic. To limit the course to such groups to 10 per

cent of the net value of the property passing on death, will make it

extremely difficult to attract funds the greater part of which are used

in such a manner as to save the Province itself an outlay of funds."

Mr. Speaker, can those Government members who are still left in the

House grasp that point? Here's a chartered accountant, he's also a

community-minded citizen who works for a number of Foundations. His

job, to encourage people to give their money to these charitable

Foundations, and his job to see that the money which is left is wisely

spent upon the poor. He tells us the results will be catastrophic. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that judgment….

AN HON. MEMBER: Baaa….

MR. McGEER: Baaa, says the first member from Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The Honourable Member will have an opportunity to speak.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I trust the judgment

of this chartered accountant is because he does give professional

advice to people as to how they should leave their money, which is

something the first member from Vancouver Centre does not do — I hope

he doesn't. He also works as a director for a number of religious and

charitable foundations. I don't know if the first member from Vancouver

Centre does that, but if he does he perhaps could then offer us some

kind of responsible judgment on the effects. But unless he does, I

wouldn't want to trust his snap judgment, because I don't think it is

an informed judgment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are talking for the urban poor, and you should be.

MR. McGEER: Well, there's another member who hasn't grasped

the point yet, but he never does grasp the point, Mr. Speaker, he never

does….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, can we get on with the debate, please.

MR. McGEER: All right, perhaps I can impress the member who

has just entered the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, with the letter from the

Vancouver Foundation.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Point Grey be seated please. There is a Point of Order.

MR. PETERSON: The first member for Point Grey is referring

to a number of documents, not in a general way, but quoting merely

excerpts from them without quoting the entire letter or the entire

document. I would ask him if he would, when he completes the address,

file all these documents, from which he has quoted merely excerpts to

the House, to lay the full document on the table so that we may know

whether he is quoting and giving the right reflection on the entire

document.

MR. SPEAKER: I question whether the honourable member is

violating any rule of this House by only quoting a portion of a

document, however he is at liberty to….

MR. PETERSON: I am asking him to table them.

MR. SPEAKER: He is at liberty to file them.

MR. McGEER: Let me say to the Attorney-General, I will be

delighted to table all these documents and I would be even more

delighted if the members of this House would study them, and perhaps,

Mr. Attorney-General, in order that this could be accomplished, we

could have an adjournment of the debate on second reading by yourself

at some time during the afternoon to give the members an opportunity to

study in full the documentation that I am trying to present to them.

I was trying to limit my remarks because I know that there are many

honourable members, particularly on the Government side, who wish to

speak at length on this particular Bill. It's a base mark and that's

why I think it is so important that we hear the views of all these

organizations. I would have thought it better, in considering this

Bill, had it been referred to a committee so that these church leaders

and foundation leaders and lawyers and chartered accountants could have

come and impressed on some of the backbenchers exactly what the

consequences of this legislation will be.

Once more, to all the members who still haven't got the point, the

wealthy have their money until they die, it makes no difference to

them, but it makes a difference to those who will benefit from the

wealth they leave behind them. The Vancouver Foundation is the largest

charitable organization in British Columbia, and I think the judgments

of the Vancouver Foundation are important, because the Vancouver

Foundation, more than any other organization in British Columbia, in

terms of total effect, will be hurt by this particular Bill. The

exemption provided in

section one is only to the extent of 10 per cent

of the net value of the estate, which is far short of 100 per cent

exemption, previously enjoyed by some of these organizations, including

the Vancouver Foundation.

Moreover, the excess of charitable gifts over the 10 per cent net

value of the estate is to bear at the maximum or stranger rate. This is

a severe hardship particularly on the smaller estates. The attached

copy of a Notice of Appeal filed by the executors in the estate of

Robert A. Mack, in which Vancouver Foundation has an interest,

illustrates the point, Mr. Speaker. You will note the rate of 17 3/4

per cent on charitable gifts of $41,453. You see that is a small

estate, a very modest estate, Mr. Speaker, so that it affects large and

small. Were the Minister to allow charitable gifts at the minimum rate

applicable to children and grandchildren of the deceased, that way,

there would be three per cent or only $1,200. If these charitable

institutions were just considered as family, instead of strangers, what

a difference it would make.

I must say that I find the amendment to sub-section two of

section

five of the Act, which is covered in

section five of the Bill, to be

repugnant in a society which prides itself on British justice, and the

sanctity of the Courts. It is tragic that the Minister has again

thought it necessary to inject this feature in his legislation.

Finally, the retroactive features in

section 12 of the Bill, seem

unreasonably hard, since they penalize the beneficiaries of deceased

persons, since April the 1st, 1968, who arranged their affairs in good

faith under conditions that had been approved by the Minister up to

recent date. The Minister

[ Page 601 ]

changes his mind. People make their arrangements in good faith. They

die. The Minister of Finance decides to move the goal post. His

backbenchers, I presume, will support him since they don't seem to care

where the goal posts are. Access to the Courts is blocked because, of

course, it is a violation of British justice and the sanctity of the

Court, the principle that each man shall be entitled to his day in

Court, and if he can't have it in this life then his executors should

have that day in Court on his behalf.

Now this is why I hope that when this document is tabled that the

members will read it, because it says, "If you and other members of the

Legislature are able to convince the Minister that my comments are fair

and reasonable, and can be incorporated in further amendments to the

Bill before a second and final reading, this would go some way to

meeting the widespread concern that we and other charitable

organizations have expressed respecting the Bill in its present form."

Well I know, Mr. Speaker, that I have been monumentally ineffective

at persuading the Minister of Finance of anything, but I know that

there are members in this House who can persuade the Minister of

Finance to do things, and I am glad that so many are here now, because

perhaps if they can be convinced, then you will be able to convince the

Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I have a carbon copy of an appeal sent to the

Honourable Grace McCarthy from the Vancouver Neurological Centre, and I

know that that Minister without Portfolio has made a great many efforts

on behalf of retarded children, and the neurologically handicapped. The

Minister with a heart, and yes, I think that's a very fair comment to

make. Mr. Speaker, this is the point made by the Executive Director of

the Vancouver Neurological Centre, in one paragraph, and the Minister

has the whole letter and she could read to us her reply to him. "A gift

will not be exempt unless it is to be used in the absolute discretion

of the charitable organization, that is to say it must be

unconditional. A gift, for example, to fit out the yellow submarine

project or to finance Dr. Kendall's research into the education of

cerebral palsied children would not be unconditional and could be

taxable. It is well known that gifts for specific purposes are easier

to obtain than general gifts. This limitation will dry up many sources

of funds, and so far as we can see it serves no useful purpose." Mr.

Speaker, do the honourable members grasp that particular point? Someone

wishes to direct their estate for the education and benefit of cerebral

palsied children.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or a monument to themselves. Don't forget that, too.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think if someone leaves his money

to the education of cerebral palsied children, he's not attempting to

leave any monument to himself. I am willing to accept that he is trying

to help handicapped children. If he does, Mr. Speaker, under this

legislation, not even 10 per cent gets off without tax. The man might

have wanted to leave his whole estate but will get advice now from his

lawyer or chartered accountant to leave it to his family and let them

dispose of it later in 10 per cent lots. I would call that a monument

to an individual, a dam or a lake, but not a gift to cerebral palsied

children. I wouldn't call that a monument to an individual. But, Mr.

Speaker, this Bill prevents a person from leaving his estate to a

charitable organization and saying it shall go for the education of

cerebral palsied children. He loses his exemption. As the Executive

Director of the Vancouver Neurological Foundation quite rightly points

out, it is easier to go to a person and appeal to him to leave his

money for some specific project such as cancer research or the

education of retarded children, than it is for some general purpose

that either the Minister of Finance or some charitable foundation whose

activities he doesn't understand will decide, and he is apt to leave it

to his profligate children instead.

Well, here's Knox United Church. "Please be advised that at the

Council executive meeting of our church last night we discussed the

implications of this Bill insofar as bequests to churches were

concerned, and I was instructed to write to you stating we disagree

with the proposed amendment." Here's another one, from a small

apartment block in Vancouver–Point Grey, "The passing of this Act which

serves only to deprive the poor and needy of this Province." Another

letter, Mr. Speaker, "Regarding the proposal to amend the Succession

Duty Act coming before the B.C. conference of the Legislature, in

connection with the United Church and other organizations. I would like

to add my appeal, through you to our Premier Bennett, for further

consideration before changing this amendment, as the passing of it will

greatly affect our poorer citizens in so many different ways, and

goodness knows they are having plenty of problems even now trying to

eke out their limited income."

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, not

the acting leader, made the comment that the poor of this Province had

enough burdens without the present Minister of Social Rehabilitation,

and we are to add to them burdens imposed by the Minister of Finance.

Here's one from Canadian Memorial Church, from the Minister there. "The

ruling that tax free gifts must be spent in the Province can have an

adverse effect on the work of the Canadian Bible Society's overseas

mission projects of the churches, as well as national funds

administered elsewhere in Canada."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've got a file much thicker even than that which

I've referred to today, and I'm not going to take the time of the House

making more and more points regarding the harmful, punitive, arrogant,

dictatorial, offensive and unfair aspects of this Bill. But, I stand

here to tell you that it is being universally condemned by those

organizations who have given service to the people of this Province, in

most cases unrewarded in a financial way, but getting their

satisfaction only out of helping the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged

and the underprivileged. Even Government has come to depend on their

activities, because so much of what is done saves efforts of our

Provincial Government to formalize it through our civil service, to

make professionals of people who have formerly been willing to donate

their time, their services, and their money, Mr. Speaker. The Act

denies British justice, it turns its back on the sanctity of the

Courts, it's repugnant to Christian ideals, it's harmful to the Poor,

it's cruel to the people of British Columbia, it's unnecessary as far

as the finances of this Province are concerned and, Mr. Speaker, I have

concluded that I should vote against it.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I don't have

too many comments to make, but I do want to make our party's position

very clear on this Bill. We are not for

[ Page 602 ]

abolishing all succession duties, as the member of the Liberal party

has stated. We don't believe in substituting the old noblemen's

syndrome for some kind of new wealthy aristocracy that passes on its

large bulk of its estates from one generation to another. We do believe

there should be some succession duties, but we don't want to be known

as the ten percenters, Mr. Speaker, we don't want to be known as the

ten percenters.

We believe that in a free society people have a right to make some

choices as to the disposition of their funds. Why have we reached this

conclusion? Because of a long standing philosophy of this party,

which I enunciated to the chagrin of the United Community Appeal last

fall, for I was opposed to the idea of begging for charitable work, Mr.

Chairman, begging for charitable work. I stated clearly on an issue

that most politicians, Mr. Chairman, run from. That there are many,

many private agencies that are doing valuable experimental work in

social service, in missionary fields and in other endeavours in the

community, but I don't believe that their work should be hampered

either by a commitment to any Government that gives them grants, as

they do in the United Community Appeal in British Columbia, or their

work hampered by having to go out on the streets looking for dollars

when essential services, Mr. Chairman, should be cared for by the

Government, by the Government.

But, there is a role, and I make that very clear too, there is a

role for the private agencies, the private care agencies, the research

groups, and those people who are truly doing experimental work that

most built-in conforming agencies stay away from. I heard the member

from Vancouver Centre get up in this House and valiantly put the

position of one of them, X-Kalay, Mr. Chairman. What's wrong with

somebody leaving their money to X-Kalay, I ask the member from

Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker? What's wrong with people leaving money

to the Cerebral Palsy Association? What's wrong with people leaving

money, any amount that they desire that's going to that kind of work,

Mr. Chairman?

This Government has never shown any kind of consistent record of

where to direct funds in terms of social services, Mr. Chairman, no

record whatsoever. Many, many times we've seen, and in the guise of

this particular Bill and in the explanation by the Premier of this

Province, who says the Government will decide what is charity, it will

go into general revenue. Mr. Speaker, the P.G.E. is not charity. The

B.C. Hydro is not charity, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Toll Authority is not

charity, and I have seen nothing in this Government's record to

indicate that money going into general revenue will go to charity.

That's the last priority on their list, Mr. Speaker, the last priority.

We don't have any faith in this Government, Mr. Speaker, we don't

have the faith that this Government, through this kind of rigid control

on the Succession Duty Act, would create whole new services for most of

the disturbed children in this Province. We don't have the faith, Mr.

Speaker, that this Government will take the aggressive action in the

field of senior citizens housing that relies on 10 per cent of its

initial drive from a private organization. Mr. Chairman, 10 per cent of

the money for senior citizens housing must come at the initiative of a

private organization before this Government will move, and any attempt

under the present circumstances of private enterprise, as this

Government represents, and the Liberals represent, to curtail a few

steps forward in terms of decent human services, will not be tolerated

by this group, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of the attitude of services outside the Province of British

Columbia it's true, it's true that we have a Government that

consistently talks about the beginning, the dawn of age of man starting

at 1952, confined to British Columbia. It's true that we have a

Government that has a divine right in its own opinion of rule, and

definition of the role of Government in British Columbia. There is some

dispute about the Premier, who says he didn't say he was plugged in to

God, Mr. Speaker. We don't claim that kind of divinity on this side of

the House. We are interested in human beings all over the world, Mr.

Chairman, all over the world, and if someone leaves a part of their

estate to some research work in the eastern part of Canada that brings

about some advantage medically or psychologically to other human

beings, then we are not opposed to it.

I don't want to participate in a Bill that truly conditions itself

to chauvinism and I agree with the Liberal leader in that sense. This

is a chauvinistic Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a narrow concept of the role

of human endeavour. Human endeavour and good works are not confined to

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke earlier of pyramids and the

member mentions Pharaohs?

I believe that there should be succession duties, but no one in this

House would dispute that there are some agencies and some experimental

drives under private auspices that enter fields that no Government

dares to tread, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, what about the area of birth

control? Mr. Speaker, a Federal Government in this country has had a

consistently bad record of getting on with some decent research in the

area of birth control. It is a much needed area of research. If there

were some charitable health foundation free of the concern of a

political overtone around this kind of issue, that would receive great

sums from the charitable donation by an estate, Mr. Speaker, only to

have it hampered by this foolish limitation in this Bill, then, in

effect, we would actually be hampering progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: Planned parenthood association.

MR. BARRETT: The whole concept of planned parenthood, Mr.

Speaker, those gray areas that politicians have consistently stayed

away from that only the private agencies, only the private

experimenters, and that is their only justification for existence. I

made that clear last August when I attacked the United Community

Appeal. The only area of justification for the existence of the private

foundation is to do those things that politicians, by their very

nature, are frightened to do, Mr. Speaker, reluctant because of the

reflection that may take place at voting time. I don't want to see the

whole role of that kind of daring experiment hampered by this

legislation.

I want to see the private agencies out of the business of begging

for dollars. I want to see the private agencies out of the business of

coming cap in hand to the Government. Let them stand and fall on their

own merits as defined by the people who give money to them, and by the

people who direct those agencies, Mr. Speaker. Their record of probing

and providing social legislation and legal measures that have moved

this country forward should not be hampered by politicians, should not

be hampered by politicians, and I don't believe or do I have the faith

in this Government or do I have confidence in the Liberals, and I'll

say it, too, Mr. Speaker, even in the New Democratic party. There are

some areas that should be removed from politics, Mr. Speaker, and this

is one of the areas, this is one of the areas.

There are some good sections of this Bill, as my

[ Page 603 ]

honourable friend, the member from New Westminster said, an active

church man himself. Am I still on the payroll of the John Howard

Society, said the member. The answer is No. But when I leave politics I

hope that I would be honoured again, I hope that I would be honoured

again to work for an agency like the John Howard Society. The John

Howard Society was — and if you're against that Association you stand

up and say so — is this Bill aimed at the John Howard Society, Mr.

Speaker? The John Howard Society, started by a Quaker some 250 years

ago when political prisoners were being held captive, were being held

captive, and John Howard who was a Quaker had the decency and the

courage and the moral fibre to stand up against politicians and fight

on behalf of political prisoners, Mr. Speaker. I hope some day no

Social Credit member is held as a political prisoner, but I'm sure that

in the great tradition of the John Howard Society we'd even fight for

the member from Burrard, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's going some.

MR. BARRETT: That's going some. Yes, that's going some. But

Mr. Speaker, he's not a charitable foundation. He's a real touring

phenomena. Mr. Speaker, it's like a comet that passes in the night — only the time space is capsulized in that member's particular record.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the rest of the Bill goes there are parts

that we agree with very, very much, but like so much of this

Government's legislation, it is juggled — the good parts for the bad

parts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quarter truths.

MR. BARRETT: The quarter truths that exist in their

explanation. Mr. Speaker, we have decided that no matter what the end

is, the means do not justify the end, because a wrong means corrupt a

good end, Mr. Speaker, and we have decided after true conscience of

examination of this Bill, that we will vote against the Bill, Mr.

Speaker, we'll vote against the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I really don't think all

the statements that have been made today on the floor of this House and

which have taken up such a great deal of time, really deserve any

comment at all, especially the statements that have come from the

honourable leader of the Liberal party. It was a grandstand play by

that leader, that honourable member, and when the honourable leader

suggests that our British Columbians would leave our Province in order

to escape this tax, I would like to ask him where will Canadians go if

Mr. Benson's White Paper, the Liberal policy, is enacted. Then our

Liberal leader, Mr. Speaker, suggested that this legislation was going

to rob the poor, and I suggest that this Bill that we are discussing

today will do more to help more than 95 per cent of our residents of

British Columbia than anything we will have before us in this

Legislature to discuss. I'm going to suggest to you that there have

been inequities in our system, and that in this Succession Duty Tax

there have been people who have had their homes, which have grown in

value, and they have been in jeopardy of losing their homes because

their home has become so valuable in our Province today that they have

sometimes, and in some cases would have had to have sold their home in

order to have paid the taxes.

The honourable Liberal leader paid tribute to the philanthropists of

our Province, and may I say that he is not alone, he is not alone, and

I don't suggest, either, that the Socialist party believe that the

Liberals are alone in paying tribute to those people who have given of

their time and given of their funds to build British Columbia and to

help those people in need in British Columbia. But he did give specific

reference to the Woodward Foundation. He did suggest — and I would like

to clear this up — he did suggest that the Woodward Foundation was

being discriminated against, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like to

pay tribute to the Woodward family who have given a great deal to our

Province. They have been very good to British Columbia and, Mr.

Speaker, British Columbia has been very good to them, and I don't think

for a moment that the Woodward family, or any family who has had the

privilege of gaining from the economy of this Province and gaining from

the tremendous potential that has been provided by the citizens of this

Province, would deny paying taxes, and I'm sure that no family who has

benefited, such as that family or any other, would deny paying taxes to

our citizens.

Then I would say this, that to pay tribute to those who are

custodians of our charitable dollar, I will go along with the Liberal

leader on that as well, and there's no one on this side of the House

who does not appreciate that which has been done, but I'm going to say

this too, that the honourable Liberal leader suggested, and I suggest

he misled the people of British Columbia in this statement when he said

that we would deny those people, those poor people of the Province from

receiving charitable donations, and it isn't true. It does not preclude

people from giving of the charitable dollar. This Bill has no reference

at all to that, and any reference that has been made by either Leader

of the Opposition parties in this House is misleading, in that they

have said that we are taking away from the poor people of the Province.

It is misleading for you to say that these people cannot give of their

money

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to pay taxes.

MRS. McCARTHY: Of course they will pay tax. It is a privilege

in Canada, Mr. Member, and it is a privilege in this Province to pay

taxes. It is a privilege to pay taxes in this country, and I suggest

that they can still, Mr. Speaker, after having the privilege of being

excused from taxes on 10 per cent of their estate, are still free to

give any amount beyond that. True, they have to pay a minimal tax on

that amount, but they are still free to give, are still free to give

any amount beyond that and, true, they have to pay a minimal tax on

that amount, but they are still free to do so.

I'd like to think that the people who are giving charitable

donations for the good works of our Province and our communities, I

would like to think that they are giving it for the charity itself, not

to do so in the light of escaping from taxes which the Liberals and the

Socialists seem to think is the whole idea of their giving, and I don't

believe that it is, truly, the true Christian way of giving, when we

are really and truly suggesting that they are doing so to exclude

themselves from taxes. So I still say that they have the opportunity,

Mr. Speaker, and that opportunity is that they can still give beyond

the 10 per cent amount. The Socialist leader did suggest that it was a

poor policy to have to give, that our senior citizens housing was a

poor way, a ten percenter kind of way, of initiating senior citizens

housing. The Senior Citizens Housing Programme of this Province is

[ Page 604 ]

one of the most effective programmes in Canada for senior citizens housing.

MR. D. BARRETT: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: My suggestion was that that programme which is good would be crimped by this legislation. Do not twist my words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It is a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, not in that manner. Proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: And Mr. Speaker, I would also like….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, just one moment, just one

moment. Order, please. If a point of order is to be raised, the member

should state that a certain statement made by another member was not

correct and then the member has to accept it, but not to go into an

explanation.

MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the senior

citizens housing, it was the honourable member's position, in bringing

up the subject, and this is why I am replying to it, I am suggesting….

MR. BARRETT: Don't twist my words.

MRS. McCARTHY: Listen, I don't have to twist your words, you do enough of that on your own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh….

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable member must accept my statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't….

MR. BARRETT: She did so. She just said "twisted" again.

MRS. McCARTHY: No, no, I said you manage to do that yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all twisted up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When a member has made a statement, any member in the House will accept that statement. Order, please.

MRS. McCARTHY: When the honourable Opposition Leader did make

reference to senior citizens housing he did so with reference, I think,

that senior citizens housing, and correct me if I'm wrong — you're so

quick to jump to your feet today on points of order, you seem so

sensitive about this senior citizens housing thing. We do, in senior

citizens housing, have a fine programme, yes, initiated by 10 per cent

contribution from the community, and it is a fine programme in which we

provide a one-third outright grant, and that 10 per cent is usually

initiated by service clubs or by church organizations, which have no

reference….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the members please watch the Chair, and

would all honourable members, if they have any remarks to make, address

their remarks to the Chair, not to each other. We are in formal debate.

Would the member proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also reply

to the Liberal leader's suggestion that objects of art would leave the

country, and surely he could not have been in the House when the

explanatory statement was made by the Minister of Finance in regard to

this Act. Surely he could not have been there. Because it's ludicrous

to say that objects of art will leave this Province when the statement

was made, and may I please just repeat what the Premier did say, "It is

the Government's intention to value objects of art at nominal value of

one dollar when the property is bequeathed to a public library, museum,

or art gallery and accepted for display and retention in the Province.

This will greatly encourage the granting of gifts to these Provincial

institutions."

We are, in this Province, one of the first provinces, and almost

solely responsible for cultural development within our Province within

our $10,000,000 Cultural Fund that was established some two years ago,

and this Government has shouldered the responsibility of contributing

to the cultural life and the cultural development of our Province. Any

government that would do that, Mr. Speaker, is not going to deny

British Columbians those objects of art that people would like to leave

to them, and this explanation of the Bill very clearly states that. I

can only suggest that as the honourable Liberal leader has been so

glaringly wrong in this

interpretation, surely the rest of his argument

is almost the same.

I would like to say this, too, in support of the Bill, that probably

one of the most remarkable and one of the most outstanding exemptions

in this Act is the exemption of the family home. I would think that for

that alone every member of this House should be particularly anxious to

stand on his feet and be counted positively in support of the Bill,

because in this regard, in this regard, Mr. Speaker, we will take away

some of the real concern of families who have lived in their family

home, for many, many years, and when they first bought it, it was a

very small amount of money. But now, with the values of real estate

which have increased because of the good economic climate in British

Columbia and because of the tremendous contributions of many citizens

in British Columbia, it is now a great asset to them. I would say that

on that alone we should be exceptionally proud to stand and be counted

in support of the Bill, and many, many other features of the Bill, Mr.

Speaker. I'll be voting with the Government, loyally, for the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the Bill

today, and particularly after the long hour and a half discussion and

references to the Bill by the leader of the Liberal Opposition, and I

make particular reference to the length of time that he took, Mr.

Speaker — an hour and a half he spoke on the Bill — and I make

particular reference because

[ Page 605 ]

he spent a long part of that time, Mr. Speaker, reading from a long

list of letters regarding the 10 per cent portion of the Bill. Now

isn't that correct?

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that has to be one of the most

hypocritical performances that I have seen in this House, because I

point out to you, Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that if that 10 per

cent portion was removed….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't attribute motive to anyone.

MR. CAPOZZI: I'm pointing out exactly, and bearing out my argument, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He cannot challenge the sincerity of a member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he cannot challenge the sincerity, but the word, some of the usage of the words are marginal, and not….

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes, and I point out why I used the word

"hypocritical," because he gave the inference to this House that this

was the portion of the Bill that he objected to, and I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that if that portion were removed he still would not vote for

that Bill. Now to me that is as hypocritical as standing and trying to

condemn this Bill, because what he really is trying to say is that he

is against succession duty in the Province of British Columbia, and to

me that is a very significant factor, because what we are going to deal

with here, Mr. Speaker, is his basic statement that what we were doing,

and I'll try and get his exact words, is we are robbing the poor of

their legacies, robbing the poor of their legacies.

Does he not appreciate that from the succession duties this

Provincial Government takes $17,000,000 that go to pay welfare

payments, payments for young people, for the welfare allowances? Does

he not appreciate that that money also goes, Mr. Speaker, to pay for

scholarships at the University of British Columbia? Does he not

appreciate that that same money coming out of that $17,000,000 goes to

the poor on a direct, on a direct manner? Not as he is suggesting, to

be left to the whim of some particular individual, some particular

individual who may want to decide he will build a clock tower on the

university campus to bear his name. Now if that is the legacy of the

poor, if that is….

AN HON. MEMBER: This doesn't apply. He's still alive.

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes, it does, because the university — yes it

does. This is the very position we're talking about. He's subject to 10

per cent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, again, again the hypocritical attitude opposing….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. CAPOZZI: No. It's the right word, and it's a correct word and as pointed out, it is not a word that is incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I just checked the words here and it is one of the listed words, and I would ask the member to cease using it.

MR. CAPOZZI: Paradoxical! (laughter) In contrast, in contrast

— because, if he believes that this is a legacy of the poor, what is

the difference then, when the man is living or dead. Why isn't that

same 10 per cent margin removed from the income tax that the Liberal

Government sets? Why is there a 10 per cent of what I want to give when

I am living, to charity? It is a limitation of 10 per cent, and to me,

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at here is a question of the decision

as to how the money that a man has attained is being used.

I would point out time after time that in his comments he made

constant reference to the question of what was Christian charity. He

implied, for example, that the funds given for use in British Columbia,

to the Cancer Foundation — doesn't he appreciate that these same funds

liberate money to be used in the other parts of the country? Doesn't he

appreciate that the funds that go into the Cancer Association are funds

which go into the common flow and do liberate use for any form of

research? The question that is down and the basic part of the Bill — and I point out and challenge the five members over there that they

would not vote for this Bill, even if they were removed. And to me, if

that is not hypocritical, it certainly is a terrible reflection on

their sincerity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member not to use that word.

MR. CAPOZZI: If that isn't, if that isn't….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member withdraw that word.

MR. CAPOZZI: I certainly withdraw it. I certainly withdraw

it, Mr. Chairman, I certainly withdraw it because in face of the

embarrassment that it causes them, I think that I should withdraw it,

and they pointed this out by their reaction to it, how sensitive they

are to this particular phrase, in the particular — I didn't say "Ugh."

I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain aspects

of this Bill, I think, that do bear some consideration, and I have to

support the member from New Westminster in his one recommendation. It

rather surprises me that at the same time that he is standing up saying

that it is a relatively good Bill and that he also stood up and

commented about one of the changes he would like to see in the Bill,

then the Leader of the Opposition got up a little while later and said

that their party is not going to support the Bill. No, the good member

— I listened very attentively to the member from New Westminster and at

no time did he say that he was not going to support that Bill. You did

not say that. You also said that there were many and various aspects

of the Bill. You didn't suggest that you weren't going to support the

Bill, and I would point out to you that perhaps you should make your

policies understood between the two of you on that side. Now I

understand that you are a little young to be going after the leadership

in your first year, you know, but it was

[ Page 606 ]

this point that I was trying to warn the Leader about, that the Ides

of March are on their way. It was this very concept that on the

fifteenth of March….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the Bill.

MR. CAPOZZI: I realize that, but I do have to suggest, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, he's hit them again.

MR. CAPOZZI: Now he's anti-Rome and anti-Italian, the same thing — terrible, terrible.

Mr. Speaker, I do think that the recommendation that should be

inserted as an amendment into this Act is where, in the paragraph it

refers to the deceased for the benefit of husband, wife, father,

mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, the words "or dependent

brother or sister" should be included because there are situations of a

brother and sister living together, the one looking after the other,

death occurs, the responsibility still remains either in name or for

the control and maintenance of the particular house, and I think as

long as it was limited to a dependent brother or sister, that that is a

recommendation that could be considered and one, I think, that would

meet with mutual acceptance and would have the member from New

Westminster support the Bill, would it not?

MR. D.G. COCKE: I'd support the section.

MR. CAPOZZI: Oh, I see, I see. You would support the

section

knowing that the Bill could never go through. I understand that. I also

think that there is one other section, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we deal with the principle of the Bill, now? Yes, the sections.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well, the principle of the Bill which involves a

particular reference to life insurance as one form of investment that

is exempt. It seems to me that there should be a broadening of this

area, and I cannot see the difference of an individual who has X amount

of dollars in life insurance to someone who may have it in mutual funds

or in some other asset that is left there for his wife. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, and I am not trying to either get into a discussion of the

advantages of one or the other, but I suggest that in the type of

economy that we have been experiencing over the past 50 years in this

country, that it might be a better investment for the remaining spouse

to have that investment in something like mutual funds rather than in a

life insurance.

I would also suggest that perhaps the wording, and this may be just

a bit of a misunderstanding, but when the suggestion was made today

that these works of art were available and accepted for display and

retention in the Province, I would certainly hope that the word

"display" did not apply.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member is going into too much detail, which is more properly done in committee.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, no. This is just the general principle. That is not in the Bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, this is properly done in committee.

MR. CAPOZZI: This is not in the Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not in the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well, I can't speak on it in committee if it's

not in the Bill. It was something that was put in as an explanation of

the Bill. I can't go into it. There is no specific area that it's

covered in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and if I don't mention it now I can't

mention it any other place. But I do hope that the message would be

brought along that certainly any works of art would be available for

display in any area throughout the country. I do go back — I wish the

good member, the leader of the Liberal party were here, because I know

that as soon as he finished, he had left at exactly five to four so he

could catch the four o'clock hot line and get his stand on, but I think

that it should be clearly pointed out to the press, to everyone in

this House, Mr. Speaker, that what he was really doing here today was

stating as clearly as possible their stand that there should be no

penalties in succession duties, that they are really saying that there

is no tax for the larger estates….

AN HON. MEMBER: No, No.

MR. CAPOZZI: …. and I think that is a shirking of their

responsibility. I think when they stand and we see them standing and

voting against this Bill, we'll know that they really are standing and

voting for the very large urban rich that they represent.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker….

MR. CAPOZZI: Would you vote for the Bill if the 10 per cent were out?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I would just like to assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that when we stand to vote on this Bill we will be voting on

this Bill and not on some other legislation that the member may have in

mind.

I am pleased that the honourable the Minister without Portfolio who

recently took her seat is still here in the House, and the Minister of

Lands, because during the comments that she made and the Minister of

Lands' reaction to it, it is quite obvious to me that they don't

understand what a Succession Duty Act is. Now I know that the

honourable the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, is a person very

skilled in the matter of estate taxes and estate laws, and I wish that

he would take the time to educate his members as to what this Bill is

all about. Because when the honourable the first member from

Vancouver–Point Grey said that the duties levied under the amendments

proposed in this Bill were taking from money from the poor he was

right, Mr. Speaker, because under the Succession Duty Act the duties

are payable by the beneficiary, not by the estate. And the Federal

Estates Tax Act is different in that respect, because it is the estate

that pays the tax, not the beneficiaries.

And the Madam Minister should realize that the benefits

[ Page 607 ]

that will go to any acceptable charity, once this Bill passes, will

be subject to duties levied at the rate of strangers, and those duties

will be paid out of the fund of money which would otherwise go to that

charitable organization, not out of the estate generally. And to make

such a fundamental….

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it to them again. Just say it again.

MR. WILLIAMS: ….basic misunderstanding of the Bill,

obviously in the case that the Minister should very carefully consider

whether or not she will support it. Because to misunderstand, to be

under the misapprehension that the Minister obviously has, is to

indicate that she can't have read the Bill and has reached her

conclusions on basis of information. Mr. Minister of Health, could you

take the Minister of Lands out into the corridor and explain to him

that if a gift….

Mr. Speaker, I'll have to give a slight lecture. Before you know the

rate of the duties that are assessed, you must know the character of

the beneficiary. So, if you take $100,000 and give it to a charity,

then the rate for the first time is determined, and that $100,000 gift

pays the tax on that $100,000 gift, and the charity gets what's left.

It's as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there you go. Therefore, the money that

would otherwise go to the charity, the full $100,000 will be reduced by

the amount of duties that are levied under this Bill on that gift. It's

as simple as that. So you reduce it by whatever the percentage is. If

it's 17 per cent, you would take $17,000 out of the gift to the charity

and take it into the Treasury of this Province. That's right. So you do

take the money out of the hands of the charity.

Well, the honourable the Minister was confused. I trust she is not

any longer. That it is the poor, the people who were intended to

benefit from a charitable gift who are really going to be suffering as

a result, not the estate generally. It doesn't affect the wife, the

children, the uncles, the aunts, or anybody else.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll deal briefly with what I consider to be the

principle of this Bill and my reaction to it. I am opposed to the Bill.

I think that any step such as this, which is a retrograde one, which

would in any way deter any person from philanthropic giving through

their estate is wrong, and I cannot accept it. The Government's record

of public philanthropy is shocking, and for them to take a step which

will deter private philanthropy is equally shocking.

I am sure that when we have a Minister of Social Rehabilitation who

considers that the poor and the needy may fall into the category of

deadbeats, that this Government probably looks upon those who would be

the beneficiaries of charitable donations in the same light. To find

such legislation coming in this Province when we should be doing all

that we possibly can to ensure the continued giving to the fullest

possible extent to charitable and educational foundations is

unthinkable, and for that reason I reject this Bill.

But there is another reason, and it is for the Minister of Finance

to come to this House and to seek legislative approval of the

discretion which he has already exercised in respect of estates,

retroactively, is a denial of and contrary to the principles of natural

justice upon which this Province, this country, is based. The members,

Mr. Speaker, should be under no misapprehension that

section 5 of this

Bill is before us today because the Minister in exercising an

administrative function has been wrong. At the moment his error is

subject to challenge in the Courts, and before the Courts he will be

shown to be wrong. And the Minister now comes to this Legislature in an

attempt, not only to change the goal posts, but to ask legislative

endorsement of the error which he has made. And this, to my way of

thinking, Mr. Speaker, is an improper and unacceptable use of

legislative power. What the Minister has done is wrong in the Courts

because it is a denial of natural justice and the Courts won't permit

that, even from the Minister of Finance. Therefore he seeks, by

section

5, to do that which he would otherwise be prohibited from doing, and

for this reason the Bill is wrong, and I urge all the members to

consider

section 5, and really to consider the effects of a succession

duty on charitable gifts before they express their vote on this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace.

MR. D.E. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few

minutes this afternoon speaking about this particular Bill. I sat and

listened with interest to most of the debate that has taken place this

afternoon, and with particular interest to the remarks that we have

heard from the honourable leader of the Liberal party who did a good

job of flopping up the situation, and reading from different letters,

et cetera, that he had received from different organizations and

institutions that were charitable in nature, and he said over and over

again, "I wish to make more and more points." But I think, really, in

the debate that has taken place this afternoon all he did was make the

same point over and over. It is fairly obvious from listening to the

position of the Liberal members in this House that they represent the

fat cats of the Province and that their prime interest is in the large

estates….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think that is the proper reference to

the constituents of any member. Now a member represents all the people

in the constituency, and that type of reflection is not proper.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I do not direct the reflection to

the members personally, but I would say that, as a matter of my

opinion, after listening to their debate this afternoon there is a

certain sentiment there for people who I would term as fat cats, so the

point that I wanted to make is that these people who represent the

vested interests and the people in the area where their estates will be

taxed, are certainly being well represented this afternoon by members

of the Liberal party. The leader referred to a letter, one particular

letter from the Canadian Bible Society and he read, not at length, but

a bit of the statements made by the letter to the honourable Premier

from the Canadian Bible Society, but he very conveniently omitted one

very important paragraph, one right in the middle of the letter, and

one which reads as follows, "The progressive policies" — and this is

directed to the Premier of the Province — "The progressive policies

which you have initiated and carried out over the past 18 years invoke

the appreciation of the people of this Province and far beyond. We are

convinced that you have the welfare of the people of British Columbia,

Canada, and the whole world at heart, and would not do anything to

militate

[ Page 608 ]

against their best interests." I think, Mr. Speaker I think that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say, but?

MR. SMITH: There was no but, or therefore, or why for, no.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is apparent that in a Bill like this,

that we do represent the majority interests in the Province of British

Columbia, because, Mr. Speaker, look at the Bill for a few moments and

see what it really means. I am told by the Department that handles

these matters, that we process in British Columbia an average of 12,000

new estates each year. Every estate in British Columbia, regardless of

how small or how large, has to go through the Department and they have

a record of those estates, and we have an average of 12,000 estates go

through each year.

Now it's a little difficult to get the breakdown on the size of the

estates, but in spot-checking it is fairly obvious to me, and I think

to all the members of this House if they do a little research, that out

of the total estates processed in the Province of British Columbia,

less than five per cent will ever be in a taxable position, because at

the present time, a person whose estate runs in size anywhere from 140

to 160 to 170 thousand dollars, depending upon the age of a widow, will

be tax exempt, tax free. There will be no succession duty levied

against that estate at all. Now, that covers, Mr. Speaker, that covers

better than 90 per cent of the entire estates, and every estate that is

processed through the Province of British Columbia. That's a fact, that

these estates will not be taxable, so we're talking about a Bill which,

with its exemptions, will allow the majority of the estates in the

Province of British Columbia to pass on without any tax being levied at

all.

This gets us down to that less than 10 per cent figure of estates

which will be taxable, and it's interesting to note that out of that

less than 10 per cent figure of total estates which may be taxable,

less than 10 per cent of them leave more than 10 per cent to charitable

organizations. Out of the total estates which will be taxable, which is

less than 10 per cent of the total figure, really closer to five per

cent, less than 10 per cent of those leave better than 10 per cent of

their estates to charitable organizations. So, what are we really

talking about in the terms of that? Are we talking about a great number

of estates? No. We are talking about a very small, select group.

There's ample provision within the Act today for anyone who wishes

to plan his estate properly to do so and take the advantages of the Act

that are before him, so that his beneficiaries will not have to pay any

B.C. succession duties. It would seem to me that in discussing this Act

the members of the other side of the House have picked on a very small

area of the Act about which they disagree, but because they are

prepared to disagree about that, they would throw the entire Act out.

This is one small area which you seem to find disfavour with.

I don't think that this is going to be nearly the problem that you

suggest to the public. As a matter of fact in the letters that have

been received, and all of us have received letters on both sides of the

House, there's been no one yet indicate just how many estates they

would have actually been involved in where the estate would have been

taxable under this new Act. Not one of them has even taken the time, so

what they are doing is throwing up a straw man, in effect. If they have

facts and figures, then they should have backed up their letters with

facts and figures. The $600,000 straw man.

I think that, in effect, this is a fair Act. That people who make

their living in the Province of British Columbia and are fortunate

enough to accumulate a large estate, will now pay their fair share of

the tax. It's open, everyone knows where they stand, and they can plan

their estates accordingly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, you know, when we look at a

Bill such as this, and when we talk about succession duties, the first

thing we think of, of course, is the wealthy, and the very rich, and we

believe that people that are very rich, some of them have made their

money by dubious ways….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. NIMSICK: And some of them have made their money out of

the sweat and blood of workers by paying them small wages and

exploiting them…. Wait a minute. Some of them, that's the very rich,

but succession duty taxes do not apply just to the very rich, and it is

easy for the Premier, it's easy for the Premier to set out a case when

it's a million dollar estate, but how many million dollar estates are

there in British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: Very few.

MR. NIMSICK: I know, you just told me that. Twelve thousand

estates go through the Department and there are very few of them in the

million dollar bracket.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out on a limb.

MR. NIMSICK: No, I'm out on no limb. You just wait. Mr.

Speaker, I hope the honourable member for North Okanagan will get up

and give her point of view, too, because I was very pleased with the

honourable member without Portfolio sitting had the courage to do it,

and I hope she does it, too, and tell her own story. This Bill is a

varied Bill and there are some very good points in it, good points in

it, I'll agree that there are some very good points in regard to

pensions and one thing and another, but when you come down to this 10

per cent exemption…. I don't agree with that because any one that has

come to the end of the line, I'm thinking, I'm thinking of those people

who have come to the end of the line. If you are trying to get at the

very rich, well then why didn't you make the 10 per cent apply only to

those in a high bracket instead of applying to everybody? Because if a

person is at the end of the line, he's got no relatives that he wants

to leave anything to, and he turns over his total estate, and I'm

thinking of the person with an estate of maybe $4,000 to $40,000, an

estate of $4,000 to $40,000, and he gives the whole thing to a

charitable cause. He doesn't want to leave it to any relatives if he

has any, and if he hasn't got any this is his last effort. He has

worked hard for that $4,000 or up to $40,000, so according to this

Bill, that estate would only be exempt by 10 per cent.

No, I'm not wrong, because the only other way that he gets

exemptions is by leaving it to his wife, leaving it to one of his

family, or leaving it any other way. But the 10 per cent, if he left

his total estate to charity, then the estate tax would apply to

everything except 10 per cent of that estate. That is exactly right,

that's exactly right, there is no

[ Page 609 ]

exemption….

Not if you haven't got anybody to leave it to. You can't leave a

basic exemption for charitable purposes, none of that, the basic

exemption only applies when you will it to somebody. So, your $60,000

is out there. And if you will the whole works to a charitable

organization only 10 per cent is exempt, and the rest of it is a

stranger, because you don't get the $60,000 exemption if you got nobody

to leave it to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can leave it to the Government.

MR. NIMSICK: No, you leave it to a charitable organization,

and I'm sure that the Government is no charitable organization, and

especially this Government, Mr. Speaker, has no charity at all at

heart. They think the most materialistic thinking of any Government we

ever had, is this Government. They think materialism, that's what they

think of. They haven't got any heart. What do you talk about, when the

Minister of Welfare is talking about deadbeats on social welfare and

punishing these people, and that. There is no heart in this Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the honourable member please relate to the vote.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I say that there are many, many

cases, and these are the cases I'm interested in, are those estates

that are small, anywhere, to say, up to $40,000, and they have got

nobody, they're at the end of the line as far as family goes and they

want to leave their whole estate to some charitable cause, and actually

you are going to tax them for everything but 10 per cent. There is no

exemption for those people. There is no basic exemption — he wills it

to a charitable organization, not according to this, not according to

this, the way I read it, and I think that there should be probably a

ceiling. If you want to just get at the very rich, then there should be

a ceding, over and above that your 10 per cent applies, and not below

it. And I'll vote against the Bill on account of those things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, some comments I would like to

make in relation to things that have been said thus far in the debate.

I think all of us could define what we consider to be an ideal charity

or charitable situation, and I share the sympathies of some of the

members who have stated their opinion as to motivations of charity. I

can imagine with some ease a society where charity would not be

necessary, Mr. Speaker, but I have no illusions and I do not believe

that we are ever going to reach that stage, and there will always be

people in our society who must rely on charity until that Utopia

arrives.

Mr. Speaker, as long as that is the situation, I also cannot accept

the position that appeared to be stated by the Leader of the Official

Opposition, and the position that any of us here, or any of us as human

beings, have the right to question the motivation behind an individual

disposing of his estate. I can't accept that. When you talk of a

nobility concept, in my opinion you are putting yourself in just that

position. You are attempting to judge the motivation of an individual

human being as he disposes of his estate, and I don't think any human

being has that right.

MR. D. BARRETT: I didn't say that.

MR. CLARK: Well, that's as I interpreted your remarks. If I

misinterpreted your remarks, Mr. Member, I apologize. That's certainly

as I interpreted what you said. Mr. Speaker, I further take exception

to a concept which was expressed across the way by the member from

North Peace, that if a bad law only effects a few people it is somehow

all right.

MR. D.E. SMITH: No….

MR. CLARK: That's exactly what you said, Mr. Member. You

tried to put forward the position that because it affected only a

certain small percentage of the people of this Province, that it was

all right. I called it bad law. You didn't call it bad law. In my

opinion if a law, Mr. Speaker, is bad in respect to one human being,

it's bad law. And that alone is justification to oppose this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you'd be for it.

MR. CLARK: Okay. The accusation from the member who has just spoken that somehow we represent the urban rich.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fat tycoons.

MR. CLARK: Okay. Fat tycoons. Mr. Speaker, there are those in

this House who know full well, because of their personal knowledge of

myself and my family, that that does not apply to me, and I have no

apologies to make for my family. But I do recall that when I wanted to

go to university at the age of 20 my family was not in a position, my

family was not in a position to send me to university, because they

didn't have the funds….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable members should not rise in another's seat.

MR. CLARK: But, Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to go to

university. I was privileged to be accepted by a college at the

University of British Columbia, so lest you think we are only talking

about the so-called fat cats, the college that accepted me and provided

me with a university education is Union College of British Columbia

which trains United Church Ministers for all of Canada, and that

college is financed, Mr. Speaker, to a very large extent by people who

are affected by this Bill. Two people I can think of in particular, who

not only give their estates to charity, not only give it to a church

but specifically designate it for one purpose of that church, the

training of its theological ministers. And Mr. Minister, lest the House

pay attention to the remarks of my friend from Vancouver-Burrard, that

people in this position wish to build monuments to themselves….

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking, absolutely shocking.

MR. CLARK: There are no members of this church that can

identify the two members to whom I've just referred, because their

donation is anonymous. I happen to know of it because it was that

estate that made it possible for me to get that education.

Mr. Speaker, another part of this Bill attempts to classify one

charity as being more significant than another or more worthy than

another. If the charity is within the bounds of

[ Page 610 ]

British Columbia, there are some of the most worthwhile charities,

with all deference, Mr. Speaker, that have no reference to British

Columbia, in this member's opinion, and I think of those people right

now in British Columbia who are donating to such organizations as the

Save the Children's Fund which, by this Bill, is specifically

designated as being more subject to taxation than some other charity

for children. What is less worthy about the Save the Children's Fund or

UNICEF or, for that matter, any other charitable organization connected

with the United Nations? What is less worthy about these charities? Are

we so selfish that we'll put special clauses in the Bill designed to

impose special taxation wherever money leaves our own pockets? I agree

with the Christian churches in this Province who say that is not in the

interests of Christianity. I don't belong to any of these churches, Mr.

Speaker, and I make no attempts here to speak on behalf of them as a

member, but I refer to a letter that I understand you all received from

the Reverend Cunningham. The Reverend Cunningham wrote on behalf of the

conference of the United Church. The Reverend Cunningham is the

Minister of Saint Andrew's Wesley United Church, for those of you who

don't know.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: He's a very fine man.

MR. CLARK: A very fine man, and he says, "The principle that

all money must be spent in our own backyards is repugnant to Christian

ideals." The member says we oppose only one section. I go to another

basic principle of this Act contained in another section, and again

quote the Reverend Cunningham, where he says, "In conclusion," in his

letter to the Premier, the Minister of Finance, "surely if your

discretion has been and is being exercised honestly and reasonably,

this retroactive denial of what we believe should be a basic right of

all citizens is unnecessary and should be struck out." Another reason,

for the benefit of the member from Vancouver Centre, why I oppose this

Bill. I will vote against it, and when you sit in the House and listen

to a member's contribution, then I'll answer your question.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have had a long-ranging

debate on this particular Bill, and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that

this piece of legislation is the last piece in a jig-saw puzzle of

financial control that was first developed by the Minister of Finance

way back in 1952. We find that he's the fiscal agent of everything in

this Province, and now he has waddled right into the charities, and

this is just another step into a monolithic economic state.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member not touch his microphone

while he is speaking, these side mikes here, always pick up the sound

and it becomes very difficult.

MR. GARDOM: It is another example, Mr. Speaker, of

socialistic centralization, and quite frankly this legislation is

nothing more than gall, utter gall. It hurts the recipients, and what

you are trying to do is substitute Government priorities over

charitable priorities, and

section 5 is particularly repugnant,

particularly repugnant. And

section 5 is the type of legislation that

one would expect in Cuba, Mr. Speaker, not in British Columbia. It's

machete legislation, machete legislation. It cuts off the right of

people to seek justice. It cuts off the right of people to seek justice

to go to the Courts and reminds you of real Castro stuff.

This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is jumping right smack back into the grave.

Two years back, by this particular Section, trying to by-pass the

Courts.

Mr. Speaker, the one fact that the Government members are failing to

understand is that the only bastion, the only bastion, that protects

the people and saves them from dictatorship, be it a benevolent

dictatorship or a militant dictatorship, is the Courts, and how you can

come here and just say, something that happened two years ago people

are going to be denied access to the Courts, why? Why are there rights

in one side in British Columbia, and not rights in another? Big Daddy

Government — we can do no wrong. We can do no wrong, they say, Mr.

Speaker. To heck with the little man. Don't even let him have an

opportunity to go to Court. Sell him out of it. Isn't that nice. What

nice Social Credit democracy that is, eh? Going back two years. Machete

legislation, that's exactly what it is.

Now someone came up with the great suggestion today in this little

thing that was circularized. "It is the Government's intention to value

objects d'art at a nominal value of a dollar." I don't give a hoot about

the Government's intention. You don't seem to give too much hoots about

your Government intention when you bring in a

section like

section 5.

What will happen in two years from today? You bring in another

section

5 and change your mind in this. If you would think you like this one

dollar bit, let's have an amendment to the Bill. We don't want to rely

upon your intention. No siree! We cannot rely upon your intentions. No

person in British Columbia can, when you start bringing in retroactive

legislation to prevent people having their free day in Court. Do you

think that's democracy? Do you think that's a fair way to live in

Canada? Today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. GARDOM: You think it's rubbish to hear this statement?

Well, boy oh boy, where does that put you, if you think that's rubbish?

You don't believe people have the right to go to Court. Talk about

justice being blind. You are blind to see it. You know there is not too

much difference between benevolent dictatorship and the other kind.

It's usually a step one to the other. You people don't believe in the

Courts. You won't even give the citizens their right at any time.

Mr. Speaker, in my view this Bill is rank, it's cheap, it absolutely

smacks at Statism. It hinders the charitable pursuits of many, and

without any question of a doubt, it hurts the little people, without

any question of a doubt, it hurts the people who would finally receive

this charitable money. What about something like the Red Cross, Mr.

Speaker? Are we going back two years in that, too? The Red Cross, I

don't think anyone will disagree, is one of the most noble

organizations in the world, but its pursuits are not entirely in

British Columbia. What about them? Mr. Speaker, once Government starts

bringing in retroactive legislation to prevent the citizens of a free

democratic country going to the Courts, what kind of a situation do we

have in society? Is that a democracy? I say not. I say it is not a

democracy, and this is an undemocratic Bill. This is an undemocratic

Bill. This is a highly undemocratic Bill, and those people who will be

voting for this Bill today, will not be voting for democracy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second

[ Page 611 ]

Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this Bill.

Basically, I am of the opinion that in the case of a large estate that

is being left to some charitable, or many charitable organizations, and

in many cases it is only fair that the Government should get a

percentage of that large estate which was presumably produced here in

British Columbia. I think there is some good reason for that, if I may

state something which I haven't heard this afternoon, and that is that

I think there is reason to believe that a great many charities today,

of those charities, there is quite a high percentage of their purses

going into professional fees.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. PRICE: Well, all right, I'll name one, and this is along

the lines which I think you would agree. Some years ago I was a

director of the YWCA in a certain small division