1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, JUNE 11, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8145 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Special Appropriations Act (Bill 11). Report. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8145

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 30). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 8145

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Davis

section 4 as amended –– 8146

Mrs. Wallace

section 12 –– 8147

Mr. Levi

Housing and Employment Development Financing Act (Bill 39). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8147

Mr. King –– 8148

On the amendment

Ms. Sanford –– 8152

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8154

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 46). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 8154

Mr. Barber –– 8154

Motion: Nuclear arms reduction

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8161

Mr. Macdonald –– 8161

Appendix –– 8162

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. R. GARDOM:

Hon. members, there are a number of distinguished guests in our

galleries from the People's Republic of China, who are members of an

auditing study team whose mandate is to establish the office of the

auditor-general in China. I would like to say to them: Hwanying Junggwo

pengyou lai B.C. sheng. Syiwang nimen feicheng kwaile chengji meihau.

Ching nimen daihwei B.C. sheng renmin dwei Junggwo renmin de youyi jufu.

These

gentlemen have spent a week with senior officials and the federal

auditor-general in our national capital. We are indeed honoured that

they have designated the office of the B.C. auditor-general for their

only provincial visit. Today they are meeting with Mrs. Erma Morrison,

hopefully the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Chairman and

Secretary of our public accounts committee and a number of B.C.

accounting and financial officials.

Leading the delegation

is Mr. Sun. His colleagues are Mr. Dzang, Mr. Tsu, Mr. Hsien and the

interpreter, Mr. Dzang. I am sure all members would like to bid them a

very cordial and special welcome.

MR. BARRETT: As the husband of a Chinese-speaking person, may I add

my welcome to the Chinese delegation by saying: Tonjer, meihau and hwanying.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It is a pleasure to present in the gallery today the winner of the 1982

Queen Elizabeth II B.C. Centennial Scholarship: Miss Marlee Kline of

Vancouver, a psychology graduate from Simon Fraser University. This

award is worth $20,000 and commemorates Her Majesty's visit to British

Columbia during our centennial. Marlee will be attending Oxford

University's Magdalene College this fall to pursue a two-year law

degree. Marlee has now won many scholarships, including the Simon

Fraser University award for her individual contribution to the social

and cultural development of her university.

In addition to

Marlee, we have one of the two runners-up in the gallery: from

Victoria, Ronald Niezen, an anthropology student from UBC who will

pursue his studies at Cambridge University. The runners-up receive

$4,000 each to further their graduate studies. Not here today but

attending the Courtauld Institute of Art at the University of London is

Bridget Elliot of UBC. I would ask all members of this House to make

these exceptional students welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Kungwok pang yow gung hay gung hay gum yat ho tin hay in British Columbia dojay, dojay.

Orders of the Day

HON R. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Report on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

Bill 11 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting amendment inasmuch as it deletes

the second part of this particular section, because there is a court

case presently being appealed. I wonder why the minister is so

inconsistent, because part of

section 1 is also being appealed. A court

case relative to the front-end loader tractors is under appeal as well,

I understand, thanks to the courtesy of the minister in replying to my

query. There was a previous decision that the exemption of the Bobcats

was contrary to the intent of the legislation. That particular court

ruling indicated that the intent of the legislation was whether or not

the equipment could be used for farm use, and would be used for farm

use, not whether or not it could be used for something else. In this

case, the court found in favour of the mushroom farmers, who took it to

court.

That was some time ago, yet the people involved in

that particular case.... A fair amount of money had to be repaid to

people who had actually paid sales tax on those pieces of equipment,

and it worked a considerable hardship on the dealers in that equipment.

In fact, I know of one firm that has had to close its doors because of

their inability to cope with the financial burden of that tax which

they had not collected but were forced to pay. In speaking on this

amendment, my concern is that different rules seem to apply to

subsection (

b) than to subsection (a). I'm certainly not suggesting

that the minister should take front-end loaders out of subsection (a),

but I'm wondering why he's using one set of rules for (

b) and another

for

section (a).

MR. CHAIRMAN: This debate might be more appropriate in discussing the section, not the amendment. But we've gone this far, so please proceed.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

As you wish, Mr. Chairman. There is no inconsistency. With respect to

the subsection that would be removed by the passage of this amendment,

it does not speak of litigation, which has been going on for quite some

considerable time. The committee will note that the subsection now

being debated for deletion was to be effective on April 6, the day

following the presentation of the 1982-83 budget. It does not speak

about a court case or cases which

[ Page 8146 ]

may be pursued by the parties. It simply speaks to the question of the deletion of that tax measure for this fiscal year.

MRS. WALLACE:

In the minister's news release, which indicated that he was going to

delete this — that this amendment was on the order paper — as I read it

he gave the reason that the case was before the courts; he was deleting

it because the decision would not be down, and he was going to wait

until that decision was made. Did I not read that correctly, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's

essentially correct, but I'm speaking in the narrow context of the

subsection before us. We are not proceeding with the taxation measure

announced in the budget and originally proposed in this bill. We are

not proceeding with that for this fiscal year. If the member seeks a

commitment with respect to the next fiscal year, I'm unable to give

that, because that would be the subject of a review of taxation matters

later in this calendar year. I'm not ducking the question, but all

we're doing is removing it as of today; therefore it is not active

within the 1982-83 fiscal year. I have no idea whether a tax of this

nature will be reintroduced in a year or two or three. I do not know,

sir.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I support the deletion

basically because had a tax of this kind been imposed I and I'm sure

many people would view it as a tax on resource processing in the

province — resource processing using electricity and electrolytic

methods. I think if we have a basic philosophy for industrial

development, it has to include resource processing as one of its

elements. This tax, had it been imposed, would be anti-development in

that sense. So I'm glad to see the minister withdrawing this particular

provision from the bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to

make it clear that I'm not asking whether or not the minister is going

to do this at a later date. I was asking why he did it, and whether or

not my understanding was correct. He has given me the answer as to why

he did it.

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

MRS. WALLACE:

Now inasmuch as the minister indicated that he withdrew the amendment

because it was before the courts, why then has he taken a different

approach in relation to the item of front-end loaders, which is on this

particular list that we're referring to in

section 4(a)? Why a

different tack? This one is also before the courts, according to the

minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have the

press release to which I believe the hon. member for Cowichan–Malahat

is referring. It is dated June 10, and it speaks of an amendment to

this bill — the amendment dealt with. It is four paragraphs long. The

third paragraph in full says:

"A recent court

ruling held that electricity used for these purposes was a direct agent

or catalyst, and therefore was outside of the taxing powers of the act.

The Ministry of Finance is currently appealing the decision."

That

is all that is said about any litigation which may be before the courts

at this time with respect to this matter, Mr. Chairman.

The concluding paragraph says:

"After

reviewing an extensive analysis of the industry in British Columbia,

Curtis announced that the government has decided to withdraw this

amendment, pending a final decision on the Ministry of Finance's appeal

in the courts."

The key phrase here is: "After reviewing an extensive analysis of the

industry...." That is the fundamental reason for the amendment which has just been approved,

and for the amended

section which is before us.

appreciate the member's point. In the case of court cases with respect

to another matter which is not before us in this

section — front-end

loaders or Bobcats — it may appear we are not being consistent. But I

submit that we are being consistent. Again, the subsection which has

just been deleted — I hope I'm not reflecting on that vote — was as of

April 6, 1982. It did not speak of any time prior to that date.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I note that the minister says that we're not discussing

the matter of Bobcats, but I think we are. This subsection reads:

"prescribed tangible personal property when purchased or leased by a

bona fide farmer to be used...solely for a farm purpose." The court

ruling I'm talking about indicated and decided that what this act

intended is that in each case these questions should be asked: is the

machinery capable of being used on a farm, and is it to be used by the

purchaser solely for the needs of his farm? That's saying almost the

same thing, although in different words, as this act, yet I have a

letter dated June 4 and signed by the minister which says he has

appealed that ruling. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

We have appealed both of them, in fact. What is dealt with in

subsection 4(

a) is the further exemption of equipment used by bona fide

farmers for farm purposes. The member may wish to meet with me on this.

There

are always cases before the courts regarding litigation on tax matters;

it's an ongoing process. Today in committee I am not going to speak

about the likelihood of success, or the diligence with which the

ministry, the government or the Crown will pursue those cases, whether

it applies to front-end loaders or to electricity used in the process

described in this subsection. That, I think, would be completely

inappropriate for the purposes of this section.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, this seems mighty strange and inconsistent to me. Here we

have coming into effect a piece of legislation that removes the sales

tax from front-end loaders effective April 6 of this year. At the same

time, the minister is appealing a decision that's almost word for word

what this legislation says for people who purchased those pieces of

equipment prior to that time. It seems to be discriminatory against

those people who purchased during that period of time in view of the

court decision, which evidently has prompted this piece of legislation,

because it's almost word for word from the transcript of the court

case. But the government sees fit to appeal that decision at the same

time as they're bringing it in and making it mandatory from April 6.

[ Page 8147 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I disagree with the member for Cowichan–Malahat. In the recent history

of tax matters at the provincial and federal levels, there must be many

instances where prior to a law's being enacted by the legislature or

the parliament, and in the absence of an exemption, as an example, the

responsible ministry — in this case the Ministry of Finance — would

take the appropriate action to recover the revenues in question. All

this

section speaks of is: as of April 6; forward from April 6, 1982.

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate in this context. Perhaps it may

be raised in my estimates, but I'm not going to be drawn into a debate

now as to the merits, or lack of merit, of court cases which predate

April 6, 1982.

Section as amended approved.

Section to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. LEVI:

I wonder if the minister could comment on the question of the sales tax

with regard to people who raised money on a voluntary basis. I provided

him with the material related to that particular effort. Some $9,000

was raised, and they have to pay sales tax. The federal government does

not require that. It was a gift to the Children's Hospital. I was

hoping that the minister would find an appropriate place or even be

prepared to say that he's going to add it to the

schedule exclusions. I

don't want to lose the opportunity to get him to respond to that. I

thought it might be under this section. He's evidently getting some

good advice from his official there. If the minister would care to

comment, I'll sit down.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam, I confirm that he raised this in second

reading of Bill 30 and has since provided me with material relative to

equipment which is purchased by a social club — certainly a non-profit

organization — and then made available to a hospital. I informally

undertook, as I undertake now, to review that very carefully within the

ministry for possible action at some future time. I do not feel that it

is possible for me, within the space of these several weeks, to make

that change. Certainly I would not want to make that change without the

very careful examination to which I've referred earlier. But I assure

the member and the committee that we have made full and complete note

of that which he brought to my attention. It should be pointed out that

the province itself, the provincial government, like any other

purchaser in the province, pays the tax on its purchases.

I'm inclined to agree with the member that

there seems to be some validity, but if an amendment were presented

today, then out of necessity, not because I disagree with it but

because I would be quite nervous about the possible implications and

how far it might reach, I would have to recommend that we not accept it.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, I'll watch and wait and see what the minister does. I

know that a large number of organizations do this and raise a lot of

money. I think the key thing that was brought out to me by the

particular group, the PH Club at Penticton, was that it felt it was

really a question of double taxation; they pay taxes as individuals,

and here they are in an effort to provide for a very worthwhile cause

and they suddenly find that they're being taxed again. So I'll look

forward to seeing an amendment from the minister either in some omnibus

form or a little later on.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

30, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with

amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I have a few remarks to make in respect to Bill 39, the

Housing and Employment Development Financing Act. I trust that other

members will assist in offering comments with respect to this piece of

legislation, which is, in fact, a companion to others that have been

presented in the course of this session or which are yet to be called

for debate. The purpose of this bill is to introduce an innovative new

financing mechanism for housing and employment development programs

within the province of British Columbia. The bill itself provides for

the issuing of up to $250 million of housing and employment development

bonds for terms of up to five years with the funds to be allocated by a

special cabinet committee, which is dealt with under another bill.

This

special funding, together with the fiscal injection provided by the

operating budget and the provincial government's substantial capital

investment program, will, we believe, provide a major stimulus to help

sustain employment during the current downturn in provincial economic

activity. The most innovative aspect of the proposed mechanism, the

bonds, is the concept of exempting interest on them from personal and

corporate income tax. If the interest rate were exempt from both

federal and provincial tax, it would be possible to issue these at a

rate of almost 50 percent below that which would be required for a

fully taxable issue. The benefit of this lower rate could then be

passed on in the form of low-interest loans for housing construction

and other employment creating projects. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as

you realize, full tax exemption of the interest on these bonds requires

the agreement and the cooperation of the federal government. I have to

say to the House that the federal government has not appeared to be

eager to accept the British Columbia proposal.

Contrary to

an earlier report which was carried in the press — and, I think, dealt

with in this Legislature very early in our spring session — we made

early contact, first in conceptual form, with the Minister of Finance

and his officials as well as the minister himself in Ottawa to discuss

this. Two direct communications to Mr. MacEachen have gone

[ Page 8148 ]

from

my office — one to Mr. MacEachen and one to the Minister of National

Revenue — and I have had further contact with other federal ministers

as well. In addition, officials of the Ministry of Finance in British

Columbia have been to Ottawa to discuss the proposal with their federal

counterparts and have participated in a number of discussions, both in

writing and verbally. Yet, Mr. Speaker, out of all this, we do not yet

have a specific response to the tax exemption proposal insofar as the

federal government is concerned.

I shall continue to press

for that agreement, and at an early opportunity would, in fact, want to

meet with the federal Minister of Finance and other appropriate

ministers to discuss this. Given the possibility of failure at the

federal level, the Ministry of Finance in British Columbia is exploring

alternatives to the tax exemption concept, and there are some options

which would be available to us within the ambit of Bill 39. I will

comment on those at some later, appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has permitted the raising of Canadian interest

rates to a height which certainly is of concern to every thinking Canadian.

That point has been made on many occasions. One would not want in the context

of this bill to discuss the interest rate levels in the United States versus

interest rate levels in Canada, but let me say that the interest rate levels

in Canada at this particular time are harmful, debilitating and threaten many

activities in our country. The federal government is in charge of monetary policy,

as members will know, and it cannot simply pass the blame for high interest

rates to the United States, as occurred as recently as the Versailles economic

summit. But having said that, it is not good enough for the provincial government

— for any provincial government — to simply fire off verbal rockets towards

Ottawa saying: "You must do something." That is the essence of this

legislation: this legislation would permit us, as a province — albeit with limited

scope, because we are a provincial rather than a federal government — to undertake

the kind of activity which I'm sure, and which my colleagues are sure, would

have a beneficial effect on the people of the province of British Columbia.

think that the federal government, having been presented many months

ago with this concept from the province of British Columbia, owes us at

least a chance to try this innovative and quite exciting proposal. At

least we are trying, Mr. Speaker. I say in this assembly that I hope

that these words, as well as the other words which we have mentioned

and which have been sent in one form or another, will reach Ottawa,

that we can have a quick and a positive response, because I believe

that the program could be a model for other provinces; indeed it could

be a model for the national government as well.

As I said,

I'm sure there will be comment by both sides of the House in second

reading of Bill 39. It is one of the initiatives being taken by this

government. The order paper will clearly indicate the others. It is

just one of several that have been developed by the government in these

difficult economic days.

I move second reading of Bill 39.

MR. KING: I listened to the minister's comments with great interest. I was intrigued by some of the comments he made.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Yes, I support the bill. I think that it's fine as far as it goes. But

by the minister's own admission, the federal government, upon whom this

bill depends to a great extent, is not eager to participate. The

minister said that given the possibility of failure at the federal

level, his ministry is exploring alternatives to the programs offered

in the bill.

This places the opposition in the position of

being asked to debate and vote on a highly tentative bill; it may

indeed proceed as the minister hopes or it may die aborning, as it

were. The minister commented on all of those things. He indicated that

the federal government should not pass the blame onto the United States

for the very high interest rates. I say to the minister: that is a true

statement, which I support. Similarly, the provincial government cannot

pass the total responsibility for the economic chaos in this province

onto the federal government. There is balanced responsibility. Any

fair-minded person would, I think, accept that. But there is a little

bit of a ruse involved here, in my view, when a partial remedy is

offered tentatively by the government, which is all highly dependent on

what the federal government policy may be.

Where is the

positive, unequivocal initiative of the provincial government to come

to grips with unemployment, with the economic chaos in this province,

with the business collapses — the bankruptcies of small businesses —

and indeed the foreclosures on both private homes and small businesses

that are taking effect on a daily basis at a very alarming rate? I see

no decisive initiative here in the bill to put forward a positive and

unequivocal program. That is the responsibility of the provincial

government. I wish them luck in obtaining assistance from the federal

government. But I am not prepared to let the provincial government

abdicate their responsibility to deal with the economic problems that

face us here in British Columbia by introducing a bill which is, in the

main, contingent upon federal government approval and participation in

the financial guarantees. That's not good enough.

We have

hundreds — thousands, indeed — in the province of British Columbia who

are now looking to this Legislature for some positive action, for some

hope, for some programs that would offer them the opportunity of

gaining employment through the summer, which would at least put them in

a position to earn enough unemployment insurance stamps to be able to

face what threatens to be a very difficult winter with some benefits

earned under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Many forest workers and

construction workers have now exhausted their unemployment insurance

benefits. Unless they are able to find some employment over the next

few months, even if it is temporary, they lack the opportunity to earn

any benefits to tide them over a long, cold and difficult winter.

my view, it's the responsibility of this government to come to grips

now with this problem in British Columbia on behalf of the people you

represent. The minister referred to other initiatives that have been

taken. There is indeed a cabinet committee set up to deal with job

creation. There is a pale initiative taken in the forest industry, and

I say "pale" because I do not know of one program that has yet been

approved under the program that the cabinet committee approved for the

forest industry. I have been checking the different regions of the

province of British Columbia to find out whether any of the bridging

programs have yet been approved. This is the program where supposedly

people on unemployment insurance will be hired in the forest industry

[ Page

8149 ]

to involve themselves in silvicultural treatment

and intensive forest management so that they can get back on UIC, and

not one program yet approved. Indeed, as far as I know, there is

no mechanism determined at the provincial level to finalize any of the

applications that are before the ministry. There has not been one job

created.

A very serious thing is happening as a result of

this delay and as a result of a lack of decisiveness on this

government's part. Even the planting program planned for this year is

not being fully engaged in, because there was no lead time with site

preparation to receive all the seedlings. Some of the seedlings marked

for planting this year will be returned to the nurseries because there

was no pre-planning by this government to make sure the sites would be

ready to receive the seedlings. That is an absolute shame and waste.

There are unemployed people out there prepared to go to work.

are talking about employment-creation programs, and I am pointing out

that there is no specific program offered in this bill. Indeed it

mentions employment and refers obliquely to the other program in the

forest industry. This bill is purported to offer itself as a mechanism

for financing the forest industry program. Even the backbenchers don't

understand that. I am saying to you that this government is offering

mechanisms which are highly tentative with no solid programs of

employment as an underpinning. We can't accept that. This government

has a responsibility to come out with some well-planned programs that

can be initiated very quickly to ease the tremendous trauma that

hundreds of thousands of people in the province of British Columbia are

facing.

It's not just a matter of putting those unemployed

people back to work; there is a multiplier effect that runs through the

whole economy when people are working, however temporarily. People who

are at work purchase more, will patronize their local small businesses

to a greater extent, and there is a stimulus to be offered by that kind

of investment by the government in priming the economic pump throughout

the regions of the province. This could well have the effect of saving

some of our small businesses that are going into bankruptcy at an

alarming rate in British Columbia.

We all know what is happening in the forest industry. Just to review some of

the headlines over the past few months concerning the need for employment in

the forest industry, let's have a look at what's happening. The Times-Colonist

of May 21 outlines a situation in Nelson, British Columbia: " 'Idle

forest industry workers who face going on welfare because their unemployment

insurance benefits have run out will not be eligible for a $40 million work

scheme now being introduced, ' says Forests minister Tom Waterland. However,

Employment Canada will soon begin other new programs to provide the 10 to 14

work weeks needed to qualify workers for the program." "Forest Job

Plans Limited," is another headline in Nelson. Another

article reads:

"Crown Zellerbach to lose Newsprint Machine. Thirty-five employees will

face layoff at the Elk Falls Mill in Campbell River." "Forest Industry

Layoffs Could be Double," is reported in the Vancouver Sun on May 21.

It goes on and on. "Macmillan Bloedel Lays Off Loggers." "Powell

River — 175 Loggers Laid Off," dated May 25. The Daily Colonist headline

is: "Banks Told to Back Off Sawmills by the Minister of Forests."

The

only thing that's happening of a higher activity in the province of

British Columbia are the activities of the receivers and sheriffs in

terms of foreclosures. It is a catastrophe. The headlines go on: "Two

More Mills to Lay Off;" "Temporary Plant Closures Due to Poor Market

Conditions at Crown Zellerbach Canada's Elk Falls Mill;" and "Plumper

Bay Now Bankrupt." The economic analysis by the B.C. Central Credit

Union, which this government has criticized, notes that there are

39,000 more men and 23,000 more women unemployed at present than there

were just one year ago. The surge in unemployment began during the

October-November period of last year and has been climbing ever since.

The

opposition warned the government last year that there was an economic

downturn facing not only the economy of British Columbia but the

economy of the nation. We moved to cut $81 million of the excessive

spending from ministerial travel and extravagance last year. The

government turned that down. We moved to introduce specific work

generating programs in the small business sector, forest industry,

mining sector and tourism. We have challenged the government to bring

some initiative before the Legislature that we could debate in a

specific way. All we get instead is a bill authorizing the government

of British Columbia to establish some interest-free bonds, but it's

totally contingent upon the federal government's acceptance.

It's

not good enough to go cap in hand to Ottawa and say: "You solve all our

problems in the province of British Columbia." This government was

elected with a responsibility to manage this economy. This government

was elected to offer some hope and some specific programs for the

unemployed in this province. To those businesses that are facing

heartbreaking failure after years of work on a total investment in

their enterprise, this is an abdication of the government's

responsibility. It's not good enough.

The glum details go on

and on: "MacMillan Bloedel Details Further Cutbacks and Layoffs;" and

"Layoffs Reach 25.7 Percent of the Organized Workforce in the Forest

Industry." And the best the Minister of Finance can do is come in with

a bill that says that if the federal government approves, we may do

something to help you. We want more specific programs from this

government. We want some specific initiatives brought before the

Legislature that can be introduced quickly and offer some support and

hope to those people out in our community who are suffering so

seriously. That's not too much to ask. We're not even asking for a

highly partisan debate in this regard. I'm sure the government members

are concerned about their constituents who are facing a life on welfare

unless they can obtain some work over the next few months. I'm sure the

government doesn't want that.

We don't blame the government

for the total economic circumstances that created this condition; we

simply ask for a human response to this condition. We ask on behalf of

not only our own constituents but on behalf of the people of the total

province who expect the provincial government to recognize the

emergency — and it is indeed an emergency — and to do something

positive and specific to mount some employment programs that will ease

the plight of these people now. They want something that will protect

them from the sheriffs hovering over their homes with foreclosure

notices, something that will allow them to pay their mortgages and

retain their business enterprise, and which will give them an

[ Page 8150 ]

offer

of employment and allow them to earn some unemployment insurance status

so they can at least live with some dignity over the course of the

winter months.

This bill is devoid of any specific program.

It simply says: "Hey, if the federal government approves, we might make

some interest-free bonds available for employment creation." We have

seen what the employment creation program was in the forest industry,

and I defy the Minister of Forests to outline one program under the

bridging plan, which is largely funded by the federal government, that

has been created by that particular initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: It wouldn't be in order under this bill, hon. member.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it deals with employment. It refers to the fact that

programs would be funded from the revenue generated out of this bill.

and presumably that includes activity in the forest industry.

I'm

pointing out that we should not be asked to buy a pig in a poke; we

have a right to expect some specific programs to be put forward by the

government. We are dealing with the here and now: we're not dealing

with some theory that can be held out as some possible, tentative hope

down the road. These are not just statistics out there; these are real

people who are suffering now. Surely the government can't sit blindly

insulated from the news that is coming out every day. Businessmen being

interviewed on television are actually weeping that they are losing

their total investment in an enterprise that they had spent a lifetime

developing and working for. Young married couples with small children

are being evicted from their homes because they have lost their income

and they can no longer meet the mortgage payments. That is the here and

now. That is the reality. These people cannot be treated like simple

cold statistics. The government has an obligation to bring in not only

a financing plan, tentative as it is, but we need something more

positive and firm than that. It's not good enough to tell those people

out there: "Somewhere down the road, if the federal government agrees,

we may have some additional money to invest in housing."

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not correct. "If the federal government agrees..." is not correct. That's not what I said.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, he said given the possibility of failure at the federal

level — that the federal government does not appear eager to

participate. What kind of a recommendation is that for the bill? In

introducing the bill the minister indicated that there is a highly

questionable possibility that the federal government will participate

in the guarantees. It is not good enough to say to the people out there

in the community: "Look, while you are suffering the day-to-day reality

of eviction, of business failure, of exhausting your unemployment

insurance benefits and being unable to meet your day-to-day commitments

and payments, we are offering a bill that gives us some financial

authority, depending on the federal government down the road, to build

some more houses."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not exclusively.

MR. KING:

There is not one specific program included here. What kind of

employment-creation programs will be mounted or initiated? Not one.

That's what we need a debate on. We need a debate on precisely what the

provincial government can do now and what kind of programs should be

initiated now. I hear many of the backbenchers over there chirping

away, Mr. Speaker, and very soon they are going to have an opportunity

to stand up and recommend what actions should be taken by the

government of the province to assist their constituents, who are

suffering as much as anyone else.

I support the bill as far

as it goes, but it is not nearly adequate. It fails to come to grips

with the reality of a stagnant and, indeed, a depressed economy in the

province of British Columbia. It seeks to transfer a major part of the

responsibility to the federal government. Maybe that's well enough;

certainly they are responsible for the high interest rates. But it's

not good enough for the people of British Columbia for you to simply

wring your hands and say that there is nothing that can be done here in

the province. Something can be done and something must be done, and

there is no reason why the government should not bring initiatives

before the House. In terms of them failing to do so, the opposition is

quite prepared to make some suggestions to the government for the kind

of specific programs I am referring to. I have pointed out that it is

too late in the year to mount a major planting program in the forest

industry, but it is not too late in the year....

HON. MR. KEMPF: It's too late to plant.

MR. KING:

The member from Omineca will have his opportunity, but the fact of the

matter is that you cannot run out and drop seedlings in the ground

without some site preparation, which has not been undertaken by the

government. That's the problem.

MR. KEMPF: Not so! You can't plant....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca will have an opportunity to speak in this debate.

MR. KING:

There is much that can be done in the forest industry that is

labour-intensive, that is a major investment in our future wood supply

and that bears good dividends as a result. That is the need to thin our

forests where we have over-thick growths of young, second-growth

timber. There are thousands of jobs that can be developed very quickly

without any lead time in that area. There are over two million acres of

forest land in the province of British Columbia that have not been

adequately restocked; consequently they have been taken over by weed

species. That has to be recaptured and has to be put back into

productive forest land.

We can put thousands of people to

work doing those jobs now. We are paying these people in any event to

stay home in idleness. We pay them either through unemployment

insurance or social assistance. Does it not make more sense to give

them the dignity of having a productive, worthwhile job that creates a

major investment in the future timber supply of British Columbia? Is

that not more desirable from a social and economic viewpoint? The

additional cost of paying a fair wage would not be much higher than the

cost of requiring them to stay at home in idleness on the dole. Workers

don't want that. They would like the dignity of earning a living and of

making a contribution to strengthening B.C.'s economy.

[ Page

8151 ]

These things can be done now. That is what I object to about this

bill: the lack of any positive program, the lack of a specific

initiative by the government to deal with employment opportunities for

people. That is what is at fault here. On that basis I feel that the

bill does not go nearly far enough. Therefore I move an amendment to

the motion that is before the House, seconded by my colleague, the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), that all the words after "that" be

deleted and the following substituted: "This Legislature views the

current economic crisis as completely unacceptable and calls on the

government to bring to the Legislature forthwith adequate measures to

deal with this crisis."

MR. SPEAKER: It will take just a moment to consider the motion itself, hon. members.

Before

I proceed I think it would be wise for all members to take cognizance

of the fact that the motion that is before us is one that occurs very

seldom in this House. It is called a reasoned amendment. Perhaps I

should acquaint the members with a couple of provisions associated with

reasoned amendments. Firstly, a seconder is not required. Secondly,

notice is required, according to Sir Erskine May. However a reasoned

amendment has been allowed without notice in this House on previous

occasions. Therefore I would like o reserve a decision on what the

practice of the House should be with regard to leave. I think that we

should allow debate to proceed. If, upon review, it becomes very clear

that the Chair is in error in this regard, then I reserve the right to

interrupt the debate at any point in time further down the road.

The

amendment does appear to be in order. Members might be interested to

know about things that would not be in order under a reasoned

amendment. An amendment shall not deal in detail with provisions of the

bill. It must not anticipate amendment which might be moved in

committee. It is not permitted simply to have additions of words to the

question. It is not permitted simply to have additions of words to the

question. It cannot be just a direct negation of a bill; that can be

done by voting against it. Matters of general or public policy are out

of order.

The amendment reads: "that this Legislature views

the current economic crisis as completely unacceptable and calls on the

government to bring to the Legislature forthwith adequate measures to

deal with this crisis." The reasoned amendment nearly encroaches upon

the last prohibition; however, I will permit the amendment to proceed.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it appears to me that the reasoned

amendment, if indeed it is a reasoned amendment, infringes upon the

rule of anticipation, because on the order paper, and in the hands of

the hon. members, there are a number of bills introduced into first

reading and awaiting second reading which certainly deal with the

economy of the province.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member,

the Chair of course has no knowledge of bills which may be anticipated

to be on the order paper and can only make its ruling on the basis of

bills presently on the order paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm referring to the bills that have been introduced and are on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently on the order paper?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On the same point of order, I believe, Mr. Speaker, I would draw Mr.

Speaker's attention to Bill 26, which leaves no doubt as to its

purpose: Employment Development Act. That will be called, one assumes,

for second reading at a very early date.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll accept one opinion from the other side.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the points of order raised by the

ministers, I would point out that this amendment pertains to Bill 39,

not to any other bill, and to the motion that the bill be given second

reading. As such, it bears no relevance to any other bill on the order

paper. It refers to our opinion under the motion before the House.

There is another point I would like to refer to Your Honour, in the Journals

of the House, dated Friday, May 9, 1980, on page 92, where indeed the

member for Shuswap–Revelstoke moved a reasoned amendment which I think

would be a useful guide in reviewing the orderliness of this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. Perhaps the way we

can look after the matter, it being rather novel to this House, would

be for me to reserve not only on the matter of whether leave is

required, but on the contents of the amendment itself, without

prejudice to the members who may wish to debate the matter. I will

bring a decision, perhaps even before the end of today's sitting. I

reserve on the decision. On a point of order not related to the

decision, the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on matters of privilege certainly it is possible to

reserve without prejudice. I submit to Your Honor that it is not

possible to reserve without prejudice on a matter which is now before

the House. That interrupts the flow of the business of the House and

completely frustrates the right of the opposition to introduce an

amendment which we submit is in order. I would suggest that the better

course, without throwing out of kilter the procedure of the House,

would be to recess until such time as the Speaker, in consultation with

his advisers, can bring back a decision. I would make that request to

Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we don't

require a debate on points of order. The Chair can, if the Chair

wishes, accept an opinion from either side. He has that opinion. I

would refer the members to Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 61,

subsection (6).

"In all matters of doubt, the

Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of members of

experience, or sometimes, instead of expressing his opinion on either

side, may ask instructions from the House or reserve his decision on

the point in discussion, or suggest that the House may, if it think

proper, dispense with the rule in a particular case. In doubtful cases

he will be largely guided by the circumstance."

Hon. members. upon reconsideration, if the House can provide the

Chair with enough authority to proceed, with the reservation on the

matter of leave and the matter of the content of the motion itself, and

allow the Chair at any point, even two days down the road should the

debate continue that long,

[ Page 8152 ]

interrupt the debate and declare the motion out of order, if it should

be out of order at that point in time, would that be sufficient? Would

the House be satisfied with that kind of delay and allow debate on the

motion itself now as though it were in order? I'm talking about the

amendment. Is it clear? So ordered.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, please give me some help. I

understand that you are now going to allow debate on the amendment to

the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what is happening

is that the decision of the Chair is being reserved on the two matters

that are doubtful. One is whether leave is required and the other is

whether the motion is in order. However, precedent has been established

in this House. At one point in time, debate proceeded for two days

until it was determined to be out of order, and at that point in time

the debate ceased. What the Chair is suggesting now is that we proceed

on that precedent with the full understanding and knowledge of the

House that at the point in time at which the amendment can be declared

out of order, debate must cease.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Further to your decision, Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us — the

original bill that we are debating — addresses the very thing that the

amendment is asking for a broader discussion on. It appears to me that

the amendment will delay a debate on the very important considerations

addressing the very economy about which the member for

Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) has placed an amendment before us. So, to

me, it's conflicting. In other words, we are in the midst of debating a

bill which addresses the adequate measures taken and the current

economic situation. This amendment simply delays the very important

passage of and debate on the very bill which will address those.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the debate on the amendment itself is as broad as the

debate on the bill. I would suggest that all hon. members perhaps take

a few moments to review the purpose of a reasoned amendment. I will

take the opinions expressed by both sides into consideration when

bringing to the House a decision on the two matters that I have

reserved. With that, we dispense with the matter before us. On a point

of order, the member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

As all hon. members in this House will know, I am certainly no expert

on the rules of this House, but as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, you

are now asking that we debate an amendment that possibly somewhere down

the road is going to be out of order. I fail to see how that's possible.

MR. SPEAKER: As the Chair has already noted, it has happened before and it will happen now. Please proceed.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment, I would like to bring to

the attention of the government the fact that people throughout this

province are looking to them in the vain hope that something is going

to be done to improve the economy, the problems of unemployment and the

despair and desolation they feel at this time as citizens of the

province of British Columbia. The approach that the government has

taken to this economic crisis and these high levels of unemployment is

deplorable, because they have virtually ignored the problems. Even this

morning they did not wish to proceed with a debate that dealt with the

economic issues that are causing so many problems and so much friction

in this province today.

Do the government members not

realize the despair that people are feeling? Do they not realize what's

happening to families out there as a result of the lack of action with

respect to the economy and unemployment? Does the government not

realize that when people are unemployed month after month after month

they become depressed, mental health problems develop, there is a

family breakdown, and wife-battering occurs? There is an increase in

alcoholism, in juvenile delinquency, in drug addiction; there is even

an increase in the suicide rate when unemployment levels are as high as

they are today. This government is so obsessed with balancing the

budget that they are unwilling to come forward with any proposals that

will deal with the problems immediately. That's what people are looking

for: for the government to bring something forward today that will

assist them. They don't want some debate months down the road; they

want solutions today for the short term. They also would like the

government of the day to do some long-term planning so that this kind

of situation does not develop again — families losing their homes,

bankruptcies at a rate that is unprecedented in this province. A common

sight in our communities today is the boarded-up windows on shops.

The front page of this morning's Times-Colonist

carries an

article that refers to another layoff by MacMillan Bloedel,

4,000 people, and what is this government doing? It's bringing in

legislation that is completely inadequate in terms of dealing with the

critical problems that are out there. People want to work, they are

desperate to find jobs, and yet the government is determined it's going

to balance the budget. It doesn't matter how many more people are laid

off, or what the cutbacks are doing to the services to people. No

matter how many bankruptcies there are or how many people lose their

homes, they are determined to proceed on the course that they have set.

The

inadequate programs that they are introducing to this Legislature give

no hope to the people of British Columbia, who are suffering so much

these days. In B.C., the last available figures show unemployment at

148,000 officially, and when you include the hidden unemployed, which

is the real total, you have 220,000 people looking for work. That's

before the 4,000 who are being laid off at MacMillan Bloedel. The

highest unemployment rate and the greatest increase over the last three

years is in the Prince George region, where they now have a rate of

19.2 percent. And that's after a lot of people have left Prince George.

Some 14,000 people who were employed last year are not employed in

Prince George this year. Many of those have moved away to try to find

work somewhere else.

It's the young who are becoming very

depressed and dismayed by what's happening. They are the ones with the

highest rate of unemployment — close to 20 percent — and they are the

ones who feel that our economic system has absolutely no place for

them, that we don't care about them. They are turning to juvenile

delinquency in some cases, drug

[ Page 8153 ]

addiction

or alcoholism in other cases. Just this last week I had a phone call

from a mother here in Victoria asking if she could come and see me

because she was so concerned about her young son. He sits at home all

day, having given up after searching for work month after month after

month, and he is reaching a very serious stage of depression. She was

so concerned about him that she asked if she could come and visit with

me in the hope that he might somehow get a job or into a pre-

apprenticeship program or an apprenticeship — something. She was

pleading with me because of the despair that this young man felt.

Doesn't

the government understand what its lack of action is doing to people?

Doesn't it understand what it feels like to be a family about to lose a

home? I know several; I've met with them The strain and stress, and the

trips that the mother has had to make to the doctor's office because of

the tension she's under because of the loss of their home — how do you

measure that? The costs on the health-care system to treat the people

who are suffering because of the lack of action of the government in

the economic field means that it only creates more pressures on the

finances of the province. But they're so obsessed with this balanced

budget and continuing on the course they've set that the plight of

people doesn't seem to register with the group that's in government

right now.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In fact,

any of the actions the government has taken have increased the problem

significantly. The huge increases that people have faced in user

charges, licences of various kinds, medicare premiums, hospitalization,

Hydro, ICBC and ferry rates simply add to the problems and hardships of

the unemployed and those who are losing their homes. When we make

cutbacks in hospital programs, health service and education, we're

going to have yet more people in the position of looking for work and

not being able to find it.

It's the women of this province

who are suffering particularly, because whenever there is a tight job

situation, it's the women who find that they're not able to find work

and that all the avenues normally open to them are not even open to

them any more. This government has determined that women who are on

social assistance shall be reclassified as employable if they have a

child over six months. It doesn't matter that there is no work for

them. They're to be put under the extra pressure of having to apply

every month for their assistance in order to try to survive and feed

their children. If they can find work, they can't find day care. It's

the women who are hit particularly hard. They can't find work; the work

they are able to find is low-paid; they can't find day care; and of

course those who have been on Human Resources assistance are

reclassified to ensure that their life is made a little more miserable

every month by having to go and plead again for some assistance in

order to survive. The unemployment totals for women in May of this year

— I think they're the last available figures — were 11. 2 percent,

whereas men were at 10.7 percent. Again, it's the women who always get

the short end of the stick when it comes to difficult economic times.

What

has the government done? First of all, they cancelled a youth

employment program which was established last year at 10 million. Back

in 1975 when the budget was much smaller than it is today, the youth

employment program was set at $30 million. Last year it was $10

million. This year they decide to cancel it, only to reintroduce it a

week later in the hope that all the announcements surrounding that

youth employment program would give the impression that they're doing

something new and different about the problems the young people are

facing in getting work. There's nothing new or different. It's the same

amount as last year. As a matter of fact, the people who are going to

be on the youth employment program, in large part, are going to be

receiving far less than last year in income for the same amount of time

that they work.

What did the government do? It introduced

seven press releases announcing the program that they had cancelled the

week before. Seven times they had to tell us, in a different way

through a different minister, that the youth employment program was

going ahead, in the hopes that it would appear as though there were

seven new programs when, in fact, it was the program that was in place

last year at the same level of funding, except that those people who

are working in the program this year will be earning less money, in

spite of the fact that the cost of living has gone up and in spite of

the fact that increases in fees and for accommodation — increases

everywhere — are going to be faced by those young people.

The

forestry program was referred to by my colleague, the former Minister

of Labour and member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King). He pointed out

that there is still not one person who has been hired under that

program that was announced with great fanfare some time ago. The

government is so inefficient, so incapable of drawing up any kind of

program that all this time has gone by since the program was announced

and still there is not one job that has been created under that

program. They don't care enough. Even if they did care, they are so

inefficient that they are incapable of drawing up a program and putting

it into effect.

As one of the foresters said: "The snow will

fly before they ever get the program in place if they are going to

continue at this rate." Even if the program does go ahead and there are

jobs created, I don't know how many will be created, because I don't

think the program is going to be as successful as the government would

have us believe. In Ontario they have had a very difficult time with

that program. The same program that has been subscribed to here in

British Columbia, by the government signing a federal-provincial

agreement, has not been that successful in Ontario. Ontario got in on

this program months before B.C. did. Yet the Institute of Forestry says

that in Ontario the program hasn't been successful. Here in British

Columbia the institute is concerned about the success of the program.

There is so much red tape. There have been very few takers for that

program in Ontario, according to the information that's available

through the Globe and Mail .

It is tragic. People are

despairing. They are becoming very depressed. They want to work. They

cannot feed their families. They are losing their homes. Shops are

being boarded up all over this province. They look to their government

for assistance, guidance and programs — at least, immediate short-term

programs that will do something about the problem. What do they see? A

group of wine-swilling, Broadway.... Maybe I shouldn't even get into

that. It makes me too angry. That is what they see out of this

government. The people are desperate in this province. They need

employment. They are looking to this government, and this government is

refusing to act, refusing to do anything about the serious problems

that are facing British Columbians today. Mr. Speaker, I support this

reasoned amendment.

[ Page 8154 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Speaking to the amendment, I want to comment briefly on a couple of

matters which have been raised by the mover of the amendment and the

member for Comox, who has just taken her seat. At a time such as this,

government members and opposition members in a province such as British

Columbia clearly would want to express concern. I feel it is

unfortunate that, in the remarks that have been made so far on the

amendment, we have a tendency to view the circumstance in British

Columbia in isolation. Other government members and members of the

treasury bench, I'm sure, will want to comment in due course on the

amendment which is before the Chair and which will be commented on

later. But let no member of this House suggest that the circumstances

in British Columbia are that bad when compared with other provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't make that speech in 1973.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've listened quietly, Mr. Speaker.

Let

no one, in a debate of this nature, ignore the desperate problems which

are being postponed by deficit budgeting in other provinces. In

Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario — particularly speaking of those

provinces, the major population centres — we see the layoffs and

business closures we have spoken of, and we have seen governments

simply throwing money they don't have at a problem, hoping somehow that

they can inflate their way out. So if we're going to have a debate such

as this on this topic, then let us have it in the context of Canada,

the United States, the free world economy and the recession in which

all of us find ourselves to a lesser or greater extent.

This

province would be in much worse condition if we as a government had not

earlier identified the problems which were coming. We did not know the

depth of the recession as it eventually developed. But if we had turned

a blind eye and tried to throw money at the problem, as members

opposite have advocated on more than one occasion, then we would have

the reason for a very serious and protracted debate in this House.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to participate further in this debate. I move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I again draw your attention to

the problem with the bells. I understand through the grapevine that the

wrong button was pressed. I want to assure you of the entire

unreliability of the system, and this Whip cannot be responsible for

assuming that all offices have received the signal. I want you to know

that I may rise at any time and request that a division be held until

such time as these matters can be assured.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to congratulate the New Democratic Party on the relatively fine turn-out for a Friday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order, hon. member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, somebody said the wrong button was pushed and there are fire engines outside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker,

this amendment is small but significant. What it essentially does is

give flexibility to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing to adjust

its portfolio of second mortgages that are administered under this act.

At the moment we're tied to the National Housing Act on the mortgage

rate that we can apply to our portfolio, and this amendment allows us

to lower our interest rates on old as well as new mortgages issued

under this act.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR., BARBER:

I rise as the designated speaker on this bill. We support the bill but

recognize its limitations. We support the bill but recognize that it

goes nowhere near far enough to deal with the housing crisis that

afflicts the people of British Columbia. We support the bill but

recognize that it does not deal with the questions of economic collapse

in the housing industry. Some small benefit is better than none, and on

that basis we support this measure.

However, there are other measures that should be taken, and I wish to offer them now in the hope that the government

[ Page 8155 ]

may

offer amendments to its own statute that would assist us and the people

of British Columbia in dealing with the staggering rate of home

mortgage foreclosures and the staggering rate of related personal and

business bankruptcies. This bill is good as far as it goes, but it only

goes a foot when it should go a mile. Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker.

The

rate of bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures registered at the

supreme court in Vancouver now sees an average of three persons a day

losing their homes and their businesses; often, Mr. Speaker, the same

person loses both. The reason they can no longer finance their home is

because their business has failed; the reason they have to file for

business bankruptcy and, for all practical purposes, have no defence

against a foreclosure by a bank or a lending institution on their home

mortgage, is because of the general economic collapse in the housing

market of British Columbia. We support the bill because it goes a small

distance; what we would rather do is support an amended bill that goes

the whole distance.

Let me give a bit of background, Mr.

Speaker. The New Democratic Party was the first government to introduce

a Ministry of Housing in the province of British Columbia. We did so

because we are committed to the principle of home ownership. We did so

because we believe in the home-ownership principle as it may benefit

individuals and families across British Columbia. We set up the first

ever Ministry of Housing as an attempt in the early- and mid-70s to

deal with a housing crisis that was created by the problems of success.

From 1972 through 1975 the economy was booming in British Columbia.

Employment was up, bankruptcy was down, housing was being built, and

the Ministry of Housing was helping to do it.

Regrettably,

when the coalition came back to power, one of their first and most

foolish acts was to wipe out the Housing Corporation of British

Columbia. By 1977 they had accomplished this altogether. Shortly

thereafter they managed to wipe out an independent and full-time

Ministry of Housing, and we are now dealing with the problems of a

part-time ministry and a part-time minister. The reason this bill does

not go far enough is because the minister has clearly been preoccupied

with other matters.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria is straying quite

substantially from the principle of this amendment. He's going into the

question of HCBC. He's going into the question of whether the ministry

should be the Ministry of Housing or the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing, which I suggest to you is not relevant to this debate. This

bill addresses the question of mortgages and the question of the

ability of this government to lower mortgage rates in the portfolio.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The minister

is now clearly entering debate, which cannot be permitted.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

It's either a point of order or it's not. It's either relevant or it's

not. Is his debate relevant? I'm asking you that question. Can he

wander into the whole gamut of housing? If you want a full-fledged

debate, you'll get it, but I'm suggesting he's out of order in

discussing HCBC and the Ministry of Housing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. You'll have to allow the Chair to make the decision on a

point of order. The point of order from the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing was well taken by the Chair. After a certain time of

hearing the point of order, the Chair decided that the minister was

entering into debate, which the minister will be clearly allowed to do

when he closes debate. That is my ruling.

With respect to

the point of order, and to the first member for Victoria, the Speaker

must advise the House that debate in second reading is allowed some

scope, but it must be relevant to the principle of the bill. The

principle of this bill is to reduce interest rates on mortgages. There

is much scope there, but I would advise all members of the House to

maintain relevancy to the principle of this bill, which is to reduce

interest rates.

The hon. first member for Victoria continues on Bill 46.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling and support it.

am attempting to establish the history of public policy and its recent

failure in such a manner as to bring us to the debate here today. I've

already advised that the official opposition will support this bill: we

do so because it's better than nothing. Nonetheless it's very thin

soup. The collapse of the housing industry in British Columbia is a

matter of public record. The reasons for that collapse are contained in

some measure within this bill.

Let me tell you how, Mr.

Speaker. This government has waited seven years — seven lean years for

the people of British Columbia; seven fat years for members of cabinet

— to make any effort at all to act on the principle which our party

enunciated in 1975 when we passed, with the support of Social Credit,

the B.C. Savings and Trust Act. That bill is law not yet proclaimed,

although it was voted for by the Social Credit Party as well as by its

authors, the New Democratic Party. It would have provided seven years

ago a powerful engine to help the housing industry of British Columbia

maintain its speed, purpose and success. This powerful engine — voted

for in 1975 by New Democrats and Socreds — was never proclaimed into

reality by Social Credit. Instead, seven years later we see this bill,

which in the explanatory note permits the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to reduce the interest rate on mortgages

to secure loans, granted under

section 7. In a moment I'll read

section

7, so that there should be no concern about what it constitutes. The

regrettable fact is that even though this bill, which we will support,

takes some small step to reduce interest rates for a few people in the

province of British Columbia, it will do virtually nothing for the

great majority of homeowners who are faced with the triple tragedy of

unemployment, high interest rates and bankruptcy. The triple tragedy of

unemployment, high interest rates and bankruptcy has led the industry

that built housing in this province to a period of collapse. The

response of the coalition has been this small bill, as the minister

himself indicated when he introduced it, and nothing else except a

series of negatives. They shut down the Housing Corporation of British

Columbia. They abandoned the concept of a full-time Ministry of Housing

with a full-time minister and incorporated it within the fields of

lands and parks as well. This is not appropriate; it's not useful and

it's not timely. We need, in fact, a full-time Ministry of Housing, and

we need a full-time examination of the problem of interest rates

contained here in this bill. We need it because the people of British

Columbia need it.

[ Page 8156 ]

The

federal government has clearly betrayed the national interest. The

interest rate policies of the national government are a horrendous

mistake, are a human mistake and are a body of mistaken ideas that are

defeating the economic interests of our own people. We need a made in

British Columbia interest policy. This act is a very small step toward

it, but it's a small step in a period when heroic steps are required.

In that, it is disappointing. In that much, it is hardly anything at

all. Of course we'll support it, because it's better than nothing,

which is what we've seen for the last seven lean years. Nonetheless, it

does not, for instance, have the same kind of imagination or courage

that was shown by the government of the day when the B.C. Savings and

Trust Act was established. It does not have the same courage shown by

the government of Saskatchewan just six months ago, when they decided,

in order to protect home ownership in that province, to establish a

moratorium on foreclosures of home mortgages.

New Democrats

believe profoundly in the social benefit of home ownership. We believe

it strengthens families and neighbourhoods, and we believe it adds to

the cultural integrity of our society. New Democrats believe profoundly

in the human and social value of home ownership. How do we afford homes

these days, Mr. Chairman? Well, very few do. Most people cannot

assemble the equity necessary. If they are to do so, they have to save

for years and years in a period when a market is inflating rapidly.

Even if they are lucky enough to be able to put together the equity

necessary to finance a mortgage, they are then stuck with today's

interest rates.

What does this bill do for the people who

wish to buy a home today? Precisely nothing. What does it do for people

who bought a home yesterday and have to refinance at today's interest

rates? Precisely nothing. What does it do for young families and young

couples just getting started or for singles interested in entering the

market of housing? Precisely nothing. On those counts, this bill is a

failure.

However, it will deal with the lucky few who are

identified under

section 7 of the Home Purchase Assistance Act. Let me,

if I may, read for a moment

section 7.

"Subject

to this Act and the regulations, a loan may be made to a person who is

the owner in fee simple, or of another interest authorized by

regulation, in a strata lot under the Condominium Act, or in a parcel

of land, shown separately on a land tax roll, and having on it not less

than one self-contained dwelling unit, the cost and size of which in

either case is within the limits prescribed for the class of residence

it is and for the region of the province where it is situate."

That

benefits people who already have an interest in a strata title or have

an interest in a bare lot title that has been used for single family or

other purposes — duplex or triplex — in the past. It does not benefit

persons who do not live in a geographic region of the province where

the finance formula currently attached to it excludes them.

For

instance, Mr. Speaker, in Victoria there are a great many people who do

not come under the regulations established under the Home Purchase

Assistance Act. Why? Because the home that they may wish to buy or may

be required to buy is far too expensive in today's market and the limit

set is far too low. I know the limit has been changed twice in the last

eighteen months, and that's good. We've called for that, the government

has responded, and we congratulate them for doing so. However, it needs

to be changed again and, regrettably, it has to be changed upward. Why?

Because the market is pushing the price of homes upward. This program

is of no value if the ceiling it sets is below the current average

market value of average homes in greater Victoria or any other place.

Obviously, it is key and important to look at those two questions:

first of all, the interest rates and, secondly, the value set on the

average cost of the home in a given geographic area of the province, as

is provided for under the regulations.

If the government of

British Columbia had the courage, they would introduce a statute far

more powerful than this one. If they had the will to listen to the

opposition, they would do so by way of amendments to this act, and we

would give leave to have those amendments introduced. We would vote for

them if what they did was favour the principle of home ownership and,

simultaneously, reduce the cost of interest — the cost of borrowing the

money in order to obtain the benefit of home ownership.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of public record that in 1975 the Barrett

administration introduced the B.C. Savings and Trust Act. It's a matter

of record that that act was voted for by the minister who introduced

this bill. It was voted against by the Liberals of the day;

nonetheless, it was voted for by the Socreds and the New Democrats.

What that act said is what this legislation almost says. What that act

said was that in British Columbia we believe so deeply and urgently in

home ownership that we are prepared to make low-interest mortgages

available in order that you, Mr. and Mrs. Citizen of British Columbia,

may obtain your own home. What that act said and what the government of

Mr. Barrett said was that we will defy the interest policies of Ottawa

and of the United States. We will create our own here in British

Columbia, in the name of home ownership and in the name of our

citizens. We believed then and believe now that interest rates must be

forced down in British Columbia. Preferably, they should be forced down

to 8 or 10 percent today. This legislation, regrettably, does not

specify a percentage. All it does is allow the government —

specifically, the minister — to indicate what that percentage must be.

When the minister winds up debate, I hope he indicates what percentage

figure he is looking at. I hope he would be prepared to consider the

endorsement of the opposition in lowering that to 8 or 10 percent.

couple of years ago 12 or 13 percent seemed appropriate. That was the

argument being advanced at that time by our side in regard to an

interest rate policy. Regrettably, since that time the situation has

only worsened in a predictable way. A couple of years ago an interest

rate policy forcing mortgage costs for the people of British Columbia

down to 12 or 13 percent was useful. Today we have to force it down

further.

I note, for instance, that the chairman and chief

executive officer of Macmillan Bloedel, Mr. Knudsen, was saying two

days ago that 8 or 10 percent is what is necessary now in order to

revive the Canadian economy. We have reached such a point of collapse

and failure that without the powerful injection of 8 to 10 percent

interest rates — he specified for commercial and residential purposes —

our economy may not recover at all. If it does, it will take many

years. Eight or 10 percent — according to the arguments advanced by the

chief executive officer of Macmillan Bloedel — may be the interest rate

figure that we have to apply now. We might have been able to afford 10,

12 or 13 percent a couple of years ago. Clearly, 8 or 10 percent is a

more desirable target today.

When the minister winds up

debate, I wonder if he will tell us, first of all, what his interest

rate policy will be under this act amending

section 7. Secondly, will

he tell us what the

[ Page

8157 ]

cost to the taxpayers will be. It is certainly the case that when we move to

force down interest rates below the commercial value of them, someone has to eat

the difference. When we move, as a matter of public policy, in the name of home

ownership, reduce interest rates below the commercial value of them — to, say,

8 or 10 percent — someone has to make up the difference between this policy

rate and the commercial rate. Obviously that subsidy will be made by the people

of British Columbia. On this side of the House we believe that is a useful investment

and a worthwhile public subsidy. It is in the public interest to use the general

resources of the Crown to aid the specific problems of hardship and foreclosure

that the people of British Columbia face nowadays. We don't mind paying

for that, asking the people to pay for that and asking everyone to have a hand

in forcing down interest rates in British Columbia. I think most people would

support and agree with that policy.

Regrettably,

this policy will not be one of general application. Regrettably, the

law we are amending today will not apply generally to all the people of

British Columbia. Rather, it will only apply to those few who, under

section 7 of the Home Purchase Assistance Act, meet a number of fairly

strict qualifications through regulation. It is better than nothing and

of course we support it, but I wish the government would consider a

policy along the lines that we wish to offer, a policy that would take

the principle enunciated in this bill many steps further.

The

first policy that we ask them to consider is immediate proclamation of

the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. The creation

of a new financial institution, operated through the credit union

movement of British Columbia, with no additional overhead, would be a

practical means of advancing the principle of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, it is totally in order. Mr. Gardom did not vote for it, because he was a Liberal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The Chair will decide on points of order, and the hon.

member will not use another hon. member's name. We are referred to in

this House as....

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry. The member for Point Grey. I call him Garde, actually. We get along quite well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair must intervene when personal

names are mentioned. To the principle of the bill, please.

MR. BARBER:

Isn't it strange, Mr. Speaker, that in the House we work in we can't

call one another names because that is nasty. But we can't use one

another's names because it's friendly. It is really hard to know

sometimes how to carry on in this place.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey voted against the B.C. Savings and Trust

Act. The member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) voted for it. I wish the

member for Kootenay would summon up his courage to persuade his colleagues to

immediately proclaim that act. After all, he did vote for it. If it were proclaimed,

we would have a means of executing this bill far more competently, rapidly and

helpfully than would otherwise be allowed.

Let

me illustrate how we could advance the principle of this bill by

proclaiming the B.C. Savings and Trust Act. What we asked in 1975, and

what the Socreds voted for but never proclaimed, was that we use the

resources of the credit union movement to assist in making home

ownership more available to more people in British Columbia. What this

bill does is allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to reduce

interest rates. The way in which that will be executed is, of course,

through the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

The way B.C. Savings and Trust would have worked was by creating no new

bureaucracy, but rather using the existing services, facilities and

functions of the entire credit union movement, and, through their

offices, which already exist and don't have to be paid for twice,

making those reduced interest rate mortgages available. Regrettably,

what will happen here is that we will continue to rely on an expensive

bureaucracy in Victoria. What we should be doing here is using the

authority, connectedness and history of the credit union movement to

help us put this into law.

Section 1 of this bill, for

instance, could be amended — I wish the government would consider it

and offer it as a proposal now; as they always ask to be notified of

these things in advance, I'm doing so now — to include the proclamation

of the B.C. Savings and Trust Act and to use the facilities envisioned

under that legislation to make reduced interest rate mortgages

available to the people of British Columbia.

Secondly, we

also propose that the government, when it announces what the reduced

interest rates are, determine them to be in the area of 8 percent to 10

percent. I think Mr. Knudsen has a good point. When even Mac-Blo has to

shut down facilities and lay off people — the mightiest forest company

in this province is in a period of real cutback and in danger of

partial collapse — and says that interest rates should be reduced to

between 8 percent and 10 percent, obviously something is desperately

wrong and powerful measures have to be taken.

We did not

hear in the opening remarks of the minister what interest rates he

proposes to set under this section. Again, I, for our side, ask the

minister to take seriously the recommendations of leading business and

trade union leaders, and to reduce these rates to between 8 percent and

10 percent. Again, it will of course require a subsidy. The minister

knows that and so do we. That subsidy will be met by an appropriation

in his estimates when we get to them. That's another debate. But we

certainly don't try to deceive anyone, any more than he does, in regard

to where the money comes from to pay for this. Of course it requires a

public subsidy and appropriation and expenditure by this Legislature.

We think it's worthwhile.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: By who? I didn't hear what you said.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) to come to order.

MR. BARBER:

The second proposal we make, apart from the immediate proclamation of

the B.C. Savings and Trust legislation, which would have allowed us to

do seven years ago what this bill proposes to do in part today, is to

[ Page 8158 ]

announce an interest rate policy reducing it to between 8 percent and 10 percent.

Thirdly,

we ask the minister to go to Ottawa — if only by long-distance phone

call, to save travel cost — and urge his federal counterparts to

initiate a policy of the forcible reduction of home interest rates in

British Columbia. Why, for instance, could this province not advocate a

policy which sees a two-tier system for interest rates? If the

government believes that as a matter of social priority it is more

useful to advance the interest of home ownership than it is, say, the

interest of industrial development, and they wish to establish a

two-tier policy, that's okay with us. That again is the half-loaf

that's better than none.

British Columbia cannot go it

alone, although we can take certain steps by ourselves, obviously. We

can proclaim B.C. Savings and Trust. We can force down the interest

rates to between 8 percent and 10 percent. But we can also try to

persuade the national government and all the other provinces to join us

in doing so simultaneously. I don't like the idea of being held hostage

to Ronald Reagan's interest policies. I don't like the idea that the

people of British Columbia are held in a kind of serfdom to the

interest policies of the United States. That hostage position is

unacceptable, I'm sure, to every member of the Legislature. At the

moment, though, because we've taken no steps to the contrary, we

continue to fall victim to the national interest rate policies of the

Trudeau government, which, of course, powerfully set the interest rates

that people in British Columbia have to face when they have to deal

with the question of home ownership.

So the third positive

proposal that we make to this provincial government is that they go to

the other nine in Canada, and to the national government as well, and

ask those other administrations to declare that we will no longer be

the captives of American interest rate policies. We ask them to declare

that we will free ourselves from that bondage and tyranny, and we will

go it alone. If this bill, for instance, does not do that and no other

bill does as well, what's the consequence? The tragic consequence in

human terms is that the people continue to lose their homes.

together with my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson),

run a community office. For the first time in the seven years that I've

been running that office we have been forced to deal with people who

are faced with foreclosures on their mortgages. These are people who

have often had both partners working, and one or both of them in a

couple of instances have lost their jobs. In the collapsing economy of

British Columbia, when a person who is paying the mortgage loses their

job, it's self-evident what that consequence will be. Unless they have

a bank that's willing to abandon interest, or a credit union that's

willing to do the same, they lose their homes. The fact is that for the

first time in my political experience — going on now into seven years

in Victoria — we are now seeing citizens coming forward and asking us

to help them with their problems of foreclosure.

community office handles about 300-plus cases a month. I would guess

that between 5 percent to 10 percent of those nowadays have to deal

with questions of foreclosure, personal bankruptcy and the related

issues of economic crisis. I've never seen that before; I never

expected I would have to. It hurts to sit in the office on Blanshard

Street and deal with people who are 40 and 50 years old — 20 and 30

years older than I am — who stand there, sometimes crying, and indicate

that they don't know how to tell their wife or their kids that they're

going to lose their home, because they have to refinance and it is

impossible to pay today's interest rate. It is humiliating for them. It

is embarrassing for me. It is a tragedy for all of us. Why should

people who have worked for 10 to 20 years to build up equity in their

home be forced to lose that value because they cannot refinance their

mortgage at today's interest rates? What have these people done wrong?

Does anyone say they haven't worked hard enough on the greenchain at

B.C. Forest Products on Gorge Road? I wouldn't think so. Does anyone

say that they haven't saved enough to finance their home? I wouldn't

think so. Canadians save a higher portion of their earned income than

do the citizens of all but one other nation in the western block.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought it was Norway.

MR. BARBER: Apparently Norway is higher. We're very near the top.

Canadians

in fact save a very high share of their income in various ways —

through pensions, RRSPs, savings accounts and other matters. They use

that for home ownership. Surely no one would say that Canadians don't

save enough in order to benefit for home ownership. Mr. Speaker, if you

cannot argue that the guy on the greenchain is lazy, and if you cannot

argue that the family that has saved has not saved enough, then what

can you say to these people when they come and ask you to help them

deal with the problem of foreclosure? The fact is that they have worked

damned hard for many years. The fact is that they have saved a great

deal — proportionately more than almost any other group of citizens in

the western block. So when they've worked hard enough and they've saved

enough, why is it that they are losing their homes?

The

evidence is that they're losing their homes for three reasons. Firstly,

because interest rates are far too high because we are being held

hostage to American interest rate policies. The second reason is that

some of those families have the person who helped pay for the mortgage

in a position of losing their job through layoff or permanent

unemployment.

There are many couples today who decided two

or three years ago that they could only afford a home at today's prices

and today's interest rates if both partners worked. So for all

practical purposes the husband is paying the mortgage and the wife is

paying for the costs of running the home. That is how many young

couples have to do it. Good for them that they were able to do that.

Hurray for them that they were able to do that two or three years ago.

So the two- or three-year mortgage is coming up for renewal this month,

Mr. Speaker, and what's happening? The wife is being laid off at the

retail business which is suffering a collapse in its level of activity.

The wife is being laid off in the business on Fort Street that hired

her because things were good three years ago and things are bad today.

The husband is laid off because he works in one of British Columbia's

resource-based industries that is also a victim of the economic

collapse that victimizes all of us. Let's say, for instance, that he

works at Victoria Plywood, which is shut down, or he worked at Sooke

Forest Products, which is largely shut down, or he worked at B.C.

Forest Products, which is shutting down. Let's say that he worked at

MacMillan and Bloedel, which is shutting down. What are these people

supposed to do? The wife is laid off, and she was paying for the cost

of running the household. The husband is laid off, and he was paying

for the incredible cost of the mortgage that they took a risk on three

years ago. What are

[ Page 8159 ]

they

supposed to do? What they do do is come to my office, Mr. Speaker — and

to yours — sometimes literally with tears in their eyes. They ask us to

help, they ask us to do so immediately, and they ask us to do so

because they do not wish to lose the equity they built up in their

homes, because they do not wish to move away, because they do not wish

to admit to their children and their own parents that they have failed

to provide for themselves. They are too proud to do that. Well, I would

hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia are too proud to

let it happen. I would hope that we are too proud to stand by and allow

these people — hard-working and hard-saving citizens — to lose their

homes and their investments.

We support this bill because it

goes a tiny way toward protecting a few people under

section 7 of the

Home Purchase Assistance act, and that's okay. We're happy for those

individuals. Good for them! But the practical consequence is that

continuing the vast majority of our homeowning citizens — now and

potential — are disfranchised.

What ate the human

consequences of that disfranchisement, Mr. Speaker? When kids grow up

in a home that's too small because the parents lost the larger and more

appropriate home, when they grow up in a neighbourhood that's too

crowded and when they grow up in an economic circumstance that's too

poor, sometimes human values suffer, sometimes family relations suffer,

sometimes families break up. We then end with a situation wherein you

and I pay the costs of dealing with family collapse, as we are now

surely paying the costs of economic collapse. Those costs include, of

course, the human relations services, the counselling services and

sometimes, when they get into trouble, the probation and penitentiary

services.

We all know these things have happened in other

periods of economic downturn. However, since the thirties there has not

been a period of economic collapse equivalent to what we now face in

this province. It just didn't exist; it wasn't found in 1975, in 1954

or in 1946, the other great periods of economic downturn.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's across the country.

MR. BARBER:

Of course it is across the country too, which is why the third positive

proposal that we made to the minister who introduced this bill is that

he deal with the principle of interest rates across the country as well

as here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we

have a right to tell the people who some to your office and mine — in

Prince George and Victoria — that we can't help them. I don't think it

is good enough simply to blame Ottawa either. We are all responsible We

all have opportunities to exercise power and imagination.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

reiterate, the most powerful engine for economic revival in housing

that has ever been designed is the B.C. Savings and Trust legislation.

I think the value of restoring and recovering the housing industry is

self-evident. When you lower interest rates you can build housing. When

you build housing you use the forest resource of British Columbia and

you put those people back to work. When you build housing you put the

construction industry back to work: plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers,

stonemasons, glaziers and roofers. All the people who work for local

government get put back to work when you build housing: the people who

lay the services, sewers and transmission lines. When you get housing

moving you get the economy moving and you help human beings who should

enjoy the benefits of home ownership. Housing is one of the most

strategic second levels of engine for economic recovery in British

Columbia.

When the Leader of the Opposition laid forth a

series of 26 positive proposals for economic recovery three and a half

months ago, one of the major elements of them was in the housing field.

We recognize that when you build housing you employ people in forestry

and in construction. We realize that when you re-establish the housing

market in British Columbia you do a lot of other things on several

fronts at once. It is strategically useful to get housing going again

because of the many interests it serves. Obviously that is not the case

in other areas. Obviously that is not equally the case when you attempt

to stimulate other areas of the economy. The happy benefit of

stimulating housing is that you simultaneously work on several fronts,

those which I identified earlier.

The fourth positive

proposal that I would like to make to this government is that they

accept the principles we enunciated in our proposals for housing three

and a half months ago. I would be happy to outline them again in this

debate, and my colleagues will later on, I know. The New Democratic

Party made a number of positive proposals for economic recovery in

housing. Those proposals remain valid, timely, useful, affordable and,

I think, urgently worth public consideration.

Let me ask the

questions again, Mr. Speaker, so that when the minister replies, he can

reply to these as well. When your constituent comes to you in Columbia

River, having worked for 20 years, and says: "How can you help me deal

with the problems of refinancing my mortgage?" what will you say, Mr.

Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. BARBER:

Through you, Mr. Speaker, observing the formality. That constituent in

Columbia River says to the minister: "I've worked hard and so has my

wife. We've both saved a lot. We've tried hard to guarantee a home for

our kids, and now we cannot afford the made-in-Washington interest rate

policies that here in British Columbia we have to follow. What will you

do for me?" that constituent asks the member for Columbia River, and I

ask him as well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll answer that.

MR. BARBER: I know you will when you wind up debate, but debate won't be over for a while yet. This is an urgent question for us.

The

government may have felt that this was a bill of minor importance which

would pass through the House in relatively short order. The opposition

doesn't feel that way at all. We propose to debate this bill for some

time. Why? Because this is our first opportunity during this current

session to debate housing initiatives in British Columbia. It's the

first chance we've had, and we don't propose to avoid or ignore it.

It's the first chance we've had to debate it because the minister's

estimates haven't come up, nor has any major housing initiative.

There

have been other bills of lesser order. This at least, for the first

time, deals with the question of interest rates. We haven't had that

chance before; we take it now, and we will

[ Page 8160 ]

use

it to the full. We will debate an interest rate policy here in British

Columbia as long as is necessary in order to make the government aware,

I think with absolute accuracy, that we speak for all the people when

we say: force interest rates down. We speak for all the people when we

tell you: bring down interest rates for home ownership. I don't think

there is a rational person in the province who would take any position

other than that which the New Democratic Party takes. We ask the

government to take such steps and initiatives as this bill to a small

extent recognizes and as many other bills or amendments to this bill

should also recognize, which would force down interest rate policies.

What

choice do we have? Currently, if I recall it correctly, in excess of 40

percent of all people in the forest industry of British Columbia are

out of work. This is June, a time when ordinarily 100 percent are at

work; sometimes 105 or 110 percent because they hire people over and

above the complement that they would otherwise consider their ordinary

workforce. Forty percent are out of work in the forest industry of a

province like British Columbia. That is a terrible indictment of

economic policy here and abroad. It is a terrible indictment about the

way we manage that resource.

How do we put those forest

workers back on the job? Clearly one of the initiatives we can take is

in housing. Obviously, if we still had the Housing Corporation of

British Columbia, if we still had a full-time Minister of Housing and

if we had had the B.C. Savings and Trust for the last seven years, we

would have ways to do it. But we don't. Social Credit didn't proclaim

the one, and it shut down the others. Because we don't have them we

have to look for new avenues, although we do urge the government to

take a famous Socred second look and immediately proclaim the B.C.

Savings and Trust legislation. How do we put the forest industry back

on its feet? We do so by helping to recover the industry in British

Columbia. This will not totally, but it will to some extent — at our

own initiative — help restore the fortunes of that industry. Obviously

it is better than nothing and more than has been done.

Let

me talk about the related problems of economic collapse when interest

rates are too high. In April 1981 there were 282 foreclosure writs. In

April 1982 there were 979. In May 1981, 359 foreclosure writs were

served by the sheriff's office in Vancouver. In May 1982 there were

1,301. As of June 8, 1981, there were 377. As of June 8, 1982, there

were 1,433. I should also point out that that includes business as well

as home mortgage foreclosures. Bankruptcy in business is surely no

better than bankruptcy at home. No one will defend these figures on

either basis. The collapse of a business is as tragic as the collapse

of a home mortgage. There were 979 in April, 1301 in May and 1,433 as

of June 8, this month. What will the rest of the month bring?

the next 22 days, how many hundreds more foreclosures will be served by

the sheriff in Vancouver? How many hundreds more bankruptcies in

business and bankruptcies at home will be faced by the people of this

province? Is there a greater social tragedy than the tragedy faced by a

family which loses its home? If the family loses its home because they

cannot pay the mortgage rates, you and I are also to blame, Mr.

Speaker. We have the power to reduce those rates; we have that power in

our hands, and we have the power to exercise it now. We can do so as a

statement of public policy, public interest and public benefit.

This

province can bring down interest rates. It would be better if we could

do it with the other provinces. It would be better if we could do it

with the national government. But even if all nine other provinces

refuse, we should do it ourselves. Even if the national government

refuses, we should do it ourselves. Our job is to protect the interests

of the people of British Columbia first. How can those interests be

protected when people are losing their homes? How can those interests

be protected when we stand by and allow the costs of a mortgage to kick

people out of the homes that they had earned, that they were entitled

to enjoy?

Let me read from the Times-Colonist for May

8 of this year a brief

article that illustrates another case why we

should be, through this bill, bringing interest rates down, as I've

suggested, to between 8 and 10 percent — a suggestion, again, made by

the well-known New Democrat, Calvert Knudsen, who mentioned the same

figures.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, this

debate is really straying far and wide from the principle of this bill.

The principle of this bill, essentially, is to reduce interest rates

for those people who qualify under the Home Purchase Assistance Act for

mortgages or for grants — and we're talking about mortgages in this

particular instance. All it does, essentially, is give the flexibility

to the minister to reduce interest rates. I don't think it allows you

to go into the question of foreclosures, B.C. Savings and Trust, HCBC

and things of that nature. Those kinds of debates, Mr. Speaker, are

more appropriate in the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing.

This bill is very restrictive in nature, and this

debate has wandered all over the ballpark. If you're to allow — and I

don't think you should — this kind of debate, which is irrelevant and

beyond the scope of the bill, to press on, then I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that it's in error, and that you're going to bring on a

full-fledged debate on the part of this government and the minister

about B.C. Savings and Trust and all those kinds of things, because I

can speak till adjournment hour about why we should never have had HCBC

in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that his debate is not tedious and repetitious, but it's irrelevant to this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I think that we're all aware of the rules of relevancy in

debate. This is the first objection that has been made, and I would

suggest to hon. members that while full debate on certain matters would

not be in order, an occasional reference to those matters may be

allowed. I think that every member should accept for himself the

responsibility to be sure that he is in order according to the

relevancy rule.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I agree with

your comments entirely. I know that if I tried to raise the question of

interest rates during the minister's estimates he would say it was out

of order because he had no interest rate policy and, therefore, we

couldn't debate it then. So I'm debating it now, when we can debate

interest rates. However, I'll do that on the next occasion. Because the

Government House Leader indicates that there is other business, I move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 8161 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to proceed to a motion moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Leave granted.

NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, the motion is that this assembly, recognizing the horrors

of nuclear war and holocaust, urges all world governments to increase

their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally

eliminate all nuclear weaponry.

A resolution such as this is

always timely, but particularly. As the United Nations schedules its

most critical session ever on nuclear disarmament, all mankind will

recall that 37 years ago, in Hiroshima, the world witnessed the

beginnings of a new and terrifying era, one which perhaps could be the

beginning of the end of civilization. On August 6, 1945, a nuclear

device was employed, its purpose being to win and terminate a world

war. It wasn't until many years after that ghastly explosion that it

began to register with people what really had been done, what really

had been set in motion, and just how, when, and indeed if, its

frightening and frightful consequences could ever be checked.

general terms, people of the world have divided essentially into three

camps, or some combination thereof: those who are convinced that

everyone eventually will be destroyed through the use of nuclear

weapons; then those who believe that no one would ever be insane enough

to initiate a thermonuclear conflict; finally, those who believe that

every effort has to be expended to end the nuclear arms race and reduce

and eventually eliminate all nuclear weaponry.

Many events over the past few years have illustrated that the danger nuclear

conflict is much more real than anyone ever imagined. One has to question whether

these technicians and laboratories of death are under proper control. Witness

the advances in so-called conventional weaponry alone that are now all a reality

and, regrettably, in active use; as recently as a decade ago they would have

appeared probably only in science fiction.

Nuclear

statistics must be heeded. Forty-four nations now have, as one writer

says, "the mad technology." Fifty thousand nuclear weapons are

estimated to be fused and ready in the countries of the world. That

amounts to three tonnes of NT for every man, woman and child — enough

to eliminate just about everyone and everything. Civilization could be

destroyed. It's madness. It's contrary to every philosophy, every

dictate, every religion and every basic concept of the dignity of man,

animal or of natural justice. There can be no winners, only losers.

Mr.

Speaker, there has to be an end to the proliferation of nuclear arms

and an end to nuclear arms. Until all the nuclear devices of war are

dismantled, there has to be a most carefully developed and meticulously

monitored balance of nuclear power. Everyone must heed the cries of the

men, women and children of peace, all of whom demand that entitlement

for all of society. That level of dedication and good will has to be

attained, for only that will ever save the day.

Man has long

practised sabre-rattling, but for the first time in the history of

mankind the sabre has become a potentially uncontrollable monstrosity.

All this has happened in just less than half a century. That sabre has

to be sheathed as soon as possible and finally eliminated forever. That

is the call to, from and by all people of good will and rightness of

purpose in every country across the globe. I move the resolution.

MR. MACDONALD:

I am pleased to second a motion where the subject matter is of such

grave import as to transcend political partisanship. We don't know it

in ourselves, really, but the fact is that about one-sixth of the human

family are now at war, not just in the Middle East and in the Falkland

Islands, but in the Horn of Africa, Cambodia and South Africa, leaving

a trail of starvation and impoverishment. People talk of peace,

governments pay lip service to disarmament and yet every year the arms

budgets grow. The merchants of death, who are now not private arms

munitioneers but governments, are selling arms in increasing quantities

to all the countries of the world, including poor Third World countries

which, in this mad arms race, elect to spend their resources on guns

instead of butter.

Somebody wrote to the paper the other

day, and I thought it was very dramatic. He said that the two

superpowers are like two men standing in a game of confrontation in a

basement with gasoline up to their knees and matches ready to strike.

One has seven matches and one has five matches. The discrepancy is of

no account, because either can destroy themselves and the whole planet

earth as we have known it.

There have been very wise men and

women giving attention to how to check this race. They include people

like Cyrus Vance, the former Secretary of State of the United Nations.

They have a program called "Freeze." It's not pulling back, as we would

like to see, but it is a start. There is protection in it for all

concerned because there is the ability to check violations and to begin

to turn this thing back by saying: "No further growth in this arms

race." That is the kind of practical program that appeals to me as a

first step. It is very logical and well thought out. I hope it wins

support throughout both East and West. We in this Legislature — I hope

unanimously — will send a signal to those who are walking for peace

tomorrow and who have walked for peace in all the countries where that

is permissible that we are unanimously supporting what they not only

feel in their hearts but think in their minds.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I thank the hon. member for his moving comments. In closing debate I

respectfully suggest, and if leave is required ask leave, that we all

stand — or sit, as we may prefer — and observe one minute of silence

for reflection, prayer and guidance, each in our own way, on this most

difficult and frightening of all issues of all time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House to observe this?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we stand?

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members.

The

question is that this assembly, recognizing the horrors of nuclear war

and holocaust, urges all world governments to increase their efforts to

end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally eliminate all

nuclear weaponry.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57.

[ Page 8162 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

30 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 30)

intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 4 , by deleting paragraph (

b) of

section 4.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada