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 )

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9259 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Excess vegetable production. Mrs. Wallace –– 9259

McDonald's bun contract. Mrs. Wallace –– 9259

Unemployment in B.C. Ms. Sanford –– 9259

Jem Productions films. Mrs. Dailly –– 9260

Cost of altering highway construction signs. Mr. Lockstead –– 9260

Government's deposits with credit unions. Mr. Barber –– 9260

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act (Bill 79). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9261

Mr. Barnes –– 9263

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9264

Mr. Macdonald –– 9265

Mrs. Jordan –– 9266

Mr. Mussallem –– 9268

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9269

Division –– 9272

Coal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 78). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

section 7 –– 9272

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Division on third reading –– 9272

Commercial Appeals Commission Act (Bill 43). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Mr. Lauk –– 9272

Mr. Hyndman –– 9272

Mr. Kempf –– 9276

Mr. Lockstead –– 9277

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 9277

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9278

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9279

Division –– 9281

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like the House

to join with me in welcoming the real leaders in the Cariboo, who are

in the galleries today: Mr. Roy Crosina, chairman of the Cariboo

Regional District; Ted Armstrong, one of the directors; and Glen

Laubenstein, the administrator.

Oral Questions

EXCESS VEGETABLE PRODUCTION

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Perhaps you

would allow me a

preamble to congratulate him on his appointment. In

recent weeks, vegetable producers on Vancouver Island and the lower

mainland have been forced to dispose of hundreds of thousands of

dollars worth of fresh vegetables because of a massive influx of

California produce. Why has the minister not taken steps to ensure that

B.C. farmers have an opportunity to sell their produce?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice.

MRS. WALLACE:

To the same minister, inasmuch as the federal Minister of Agriculture,

Mr. Whelan, is responsible for the production of extra produce,

particularly in the Saanich Peninsula, by refusing to allow potatoes to

be grown there, why has the minister failed to persuade Mr. Whelan to

impose seasonal tariffs?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, are supplementary questions in order?

MR. SPEAKER: It was a new question, I believe, hon. member.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: If it was a new question, I take the question on notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the same as the last minister.

MRS. WALLACE: He's worse, I'm afraid.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not.

MRS. WALLACE . No, he couldn't be any worse.

Is it

the minister's plan to reduce farm income assurance payments to

farmers, driving them into bankruptcy, by forcing them to destroy

thousands of dollars of good food, rather than ensure that they can

sell that food? Is that how he is going to save money for this

government — by forcing farmers into bankruptcy?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the question applies to advice not

yet given to the Crown. Is that in order?

MRS. WALLACE:

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Agriculture and Food

still retains his role of Speaker in this House in trying to hide

behind the rules.

McDONALD'S BUN CONTRACT

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a brand new question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Maybe he'll know the answer to this one. McDonald's restaurants have

decided to let their contract for buns to a Seattle bakery. This

decision will lead to the layoff of 44 workers at McGavin's in

Vancouver. Has the minister requested — now listen carefully —

McDonald's to meet with him in order to explore ways of keeping these

jobs in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I have not made that request.

MRS. WALLACE:

McDonald's gave the contract to Gai's of Seattle without asking any

B.C. company to tender for the contract. Has the minister decided to

tell McDonald's that B.C. business and B.C. workers should be given

first preference?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is: not yet.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can I have

the attention of the Minister of Labour, please, Mr. Speaker?

of this moment, 200,000 British Columbians are drawing UIC benefits. A

further 70,000 British Columbians are on welfare, and that figure is

likely to climb to approximately 100,000 by November. In total, 300,000

British Columbians will be living on public support as a result of the

Socred-caused depression. To date the employment-bridging assistance

program has produced only 1,300 jobs. Will the minister now concede

that this government's job-creation efforts have been a total,

unmitigated failure?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr.

Speaker, I wouldn't be prepared to even consider acceptance of the

statement made by the hon. member across the floor. There is no

government in the history of this province which has done so much for

job creation. The projects which have been approved and are underway in

this province, including northeast coal, which will be responsible for

some 10,000 jobs immediately, with 10 percent of the total construction

workforce now working on northeast coal — an exciting development and

one which is making British Columbia still a place in which there is

job security and employment security — B.C. Place and the transit

system, are all creating thousands and thousands of jobs for British

Columbians, and Canadians. In terms of further job creation, Mr.

Speaker, I think you can look forward, as can members on the opposite

side of the House, to more exciting, progressive announcements making

jobs within the next few weeks.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sure

that the 300,000 people currently looking for work will be very pleased

to hear about this government's record of employment. But the Minister

[ Page 9260 ]

Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) have said that there is very little

unemployment in the forest industry. Does the Minister of Labour agree

with his colleagues that the 50,000 unemployed forestry workers are not

cause for concern?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker,

I have no knowledge of such a statement being made. We are in the

middle of severe economic difficulties. The difference between British

Columbia and other jurisdictions is that British Columbia is creating

new jobs every day, and we intend to continue to do that.

JEM PRODUCTIONS FILMS

MRS. DAILLY:

My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Last week I asked the

Provincial Secretary if films being produced through the government

information services by a company called Jem Productions, using the

taxpayers' money, would be used for political purposes. The minister

replied: "Absolutely...." He didn't say "absolutely, " but his word was

"no." I want the minister to explain to the House why the clips which

are being produced are carrying exactly the same message as a

householder brochure from the Social Credit Party which is going out to

all the people in British Columbia as an obvious opener for their

campaign literature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's an

interesting question put forward by the member for Burnaby North. The

facts which she suggests are facts are not information which the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services is aware of.

It's an interesting concept which she puts forward, an interesting bit

of propaganda. I'm as interested as she is in finding out whether this

is a fact or not. In order to establish that, I will take the question

as notice and bring the question back to the member for Burnaby North

and all the other members of this House, who, I am sure, share her

anxiety in finding out just what the answer is to the question she has

just put. I hope to get that information at the very earliest

opportunity, which means I hope to bring the answer back to the House

within the next short period of time — hopefully within the next two or

three days.

MRS. DAILLY: In view of the unemployment

in this province and the restraint program of this government, which is

asking for cutbacks from everyone, I wonder if the minister would

explain to us where and how he manages to get more than $100,000 for

straight political propaganda.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr.

Speaker, that question is argumentative; I think you recognize that.

The figure that she so loosely throws around the House and the province

is one which I would have to determine. I don't know whether there's

been an allocation or, if there has been an allocation, whether it's

$100, $1,000, $15,000 or whatever. But as I said just last week, I know

that the member has an intense curiosity about this subject. It's

another question that I'll take as notice, and I'll bring back the

answer to the member at the very earliest opportunity so that I can

satisfy her curiosity and won't have to say again that I'll take the

question as notice. I hope to bring back the answer within the next few

days to satisfy the member.

COST OF ALTERING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION SIGNS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question

is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister

advise the cost to the taxpayers of adding the Social Credit logo and

the Premier's name, along with your own, to all highway construction

signs in the province? What's the cost, Alex?

HON. MR. FRASER: I haven't got the costs. I think it's a good idea, but I'll get the costs.

GOVERNMENT'S DEPOSITS WITH CREDIT UNIONS

MR. BARBER:

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the

House what policy exists in the Ministry of Finance in regard to the

maximum deposit on behalf of the government that may be put on hand at

any credit union at any given period in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

May I draw your attention to the questions on the order paper. This

particular question posed by the hon. first member for Victoria is but

one of a series of questions which that member has placed on the order

paper.

MR. BARBER: I'm well aware of my questions on

the order paper. My question is: what policy exists in the Ministry of

Finance regarding a maximum deposit that may be placed in a credit

union on behalf of the government of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member inquiring about policy?

MR. BARBER: That's right.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, that forms but one of a series of questions posed by the

hon. first member for Victoria. I would expect that, prior to the

conclusion of this session, that question will be filed with the House.

I have another one that is all ready for filing.

MR. BARBER:

If I had confidence that that would occur I would accept the minister's

reply, but I don't and I won't. I first asked him these questions one

year and one month ago. Why should I believe him now? For a year and a

month, I have been asking the minister about a curious transaction....

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period, hon. member, and you must propose the question to someone.

MR. BARBER:

In regard to a curious transaction between the Ministry of Finance and

Westcoast in favour of Ocean Falls Corporation and involving $36

million, questions which I put to the minister in writing more than a

year and a month ago being still unanswered, I ask the following: Is

the minister prepared to table a copy of the letters of intent and

agreement between and among the Ministry of Finance, Westcoast and the

fiscal agent for Ocean Falls concerning this transaction of well over a

year ago?

[ Page 9261 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The sum of the

preambles which the member has asked in his quest for

this particular information have caused, I must tell this House,

concern in the credit union movement.

MR. BARBER: Oh! It sure has — because of what you did! Favouring one credit union over the others.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I have listened carefully to the question and I simply ask for the

same. The attachment of the adjective "curious" by itself reminds me of

a statement made by another member of the NDP, a statement which was

regretted just a few days later. I stand available to discuss this with

members opposite, but some of the inferences which have been offered

have threatened to damage the credit union movement in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and

the House move to Motion 33 standing in my name on the order paper,

dealing with unemployment in British Columbia and the economy of this

province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

Before we put a question, first we must have leave that a question be

put. It is not appropriate, under the rules that guide us in this

House, to stand and move a motion. First we must obtain leave. Leave

having been granted or denied, then is the appropriate time for future

action. Hon. members, particularly members who have been in this House

for some time, should know the rules that guide us at this particular

time.

MR. BARRETT: Before you put leave, so I'll be

clear in the future on your ruling, you're suggesting that I'm out of

order when I talk about the motion that I want about unemployment and

businesses closing down. So I won't raise the unemployment issue; I'll

just ask leave that we discuss it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. First, as I outlined, the member must stand

in his place and ask leave to make a motion. No business can transpire

until that motion has been addressed.

MR. BARRETT: I will not say it relates to unemployment. I ask leave to make a motion.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 79.

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand in my place to congratulate you

as our new Speaker in the House. Also, in addressing this act that is

before us today, I would like to congratulate our new Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I would like to say also

that this act that we are discussing is the result of a lot of work of

the prior Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, (Hon. Mr. Chabot) as

well as of other members of this House, so I would like to congratulate

all of them in brining, forward a British Columbia home program which

will unlock a door of opportunity and which will be now available to

many British Columbians.

The problem that we have seen in

the housing industry in British Columbia has been the result in a very

strong way of the high interest rates we have had to have in the past

few months. The only criticism that the opposition has given over the

past days' debate on this bill is that we have not brought it in in

good time. The federal government's assent to have the mortgage program

and the bond issue for the mortgage program provincial tax-free has

only just been given within the past two weeks. This has been the first

opportunity that we have been able to debate it in this House, so I

think that our new Minister of Housing has worked very quickly indeed,

as has the whole housing ministry, which should be given a great deal

of credit for what is before us.

Again, I refer to the high

mortgage rates which we have seen in this province. We have seen people

who have had a very great lack of confidence over the past few months

and years because they don't know whether, the next time they go to

renegotiate their mortgage, it's going to be 2 percent or 10 percent

higher. They are frightened about the future, and a feeling of

insecurity has enveloped many of those people in these past few months.

What this program we are debating today and this bill gives to those

people is a sense of security for at least three years and possibly

four years and gives them room to plan and to move in terms of their

own household planning.

Even though economists can't agree

on where we're going in Canada and in British Columbia — we always get

a different story from each economist, depending on which one we ask —

the one thing each and every one of them across this nation agrees upon

is the lack of confidence and the negativism that has enveloped the

people of our nation, including the people in this province, about our

economy and where we are going in the next three or four years. That

lack of confidence and security gives a total lack of initiative to

purchase a home or to purchase any commodity, to look forward to the

next year with a sense of security, and that's what this bill is all

about: it gives that sense of security. So our timing, I think, is

absolutely right on.

It is also very important that this is

a repayable program. Throughout this nation for a decade governments at

all levels have tried in many ways to influence voters with giveaway

programs. That was not really the nature of Canada prior to that

decade. In fact, we paid our own way right up until that time. or just

about. But there has been. In the last decade, a tremendous amount of

competition among governments for the voter, and they have given away

programs until, frankly, a very large segment of our taxpayers has

said: "Enough is enough; we can no longer carry those giveaway programs

on our backs."

What I like so much about this program is the

fact that it has built into it responsibility. Given that it gives a

breathing space, it also says there is a payday, and that payday is your

[ Page 9262 ]

own

responsibility; it is not the responsibility of our taxpayers. That's a

very important element of this plan. Some say that the Saskatchewan and

Alberta plans are much more exciting because they simply take from one

taxpayer and give to a certain number of other taxpayers. I suggest

that this program, inasmuch as it gives assistance now, when it is

needed, but responsibility throughout, is a far better program for our

fellow taxpayers. That is one particular and very right part of the

program, but there are many other good parts of the program as well.

was interested in the opposition's saying that if interest rates come

down this program won't be needed. I think all of us would applaud

that. Let's hope interest rates do come down and that this program

won't be needed. We should all be enthusiastic about that, not negative

about it. We should be thrilled if interest rates in this country can

be brought down and our people can get back to work, and if we can

create a great deal of business for those people who right now are

burdened by taxation.

Let me name one of the obvious ways in

which this program can be used. One exciting thing is that it can be

used by each and every British Columbian who wishes to put it to work.

Persons having clear title to their homes will be able to use this 12

percent money to assist them in a renovation of their home which they

have put off because interest rates stayed at the high mark. Now they

are free to renovate their homes and to spend money on all those things

which come with the renovation. This will put small contractors to

work, as well as construction people, plumbers and electricians. There

are all the attendant things, such as landscaping and shrubs and that

sort of thing which will have to be bought. There is furniture,

carpeting, paint and wallpaper — all of those things which filter down

into everybody's lives in terms of creating jobs and activity in the

marketplace.

I was in a furniture store the weekend this

program was announced, and seven or eight people gathered around when

one person asked what it was going to do. The sales people in that

particular furniture store said: "This is going to be great for us;

people will be able to plan where they are going." At last it will

break that psychological log-jam which has frozen people's spending

habits and minds. They have been unwilling — not unable — to put

forward any dollars because they are afraid of what tomorrow will

bring. In the months of September and October, when you are looking

forward to January or February to renegotiate your mortgage and you are

afraid that mortgage rates will go up, you know very well that the one

you have just come out of is going to go up at least to the current

market rate. That fear grips you, and with that uncertainty you say you

are not going to go ahead. This bill takes away the uncertainty from

the people of British Columbia.

Again, if I'm to read what

has been said, there is yet another value to this bill. Not only will

it release money for people to purchase things for the home; it will

also release money to purchase other things. It may well be that

they'll want to put money into their own business, and very often they

use their homes as a guarantee or as collateral for their own small

businesses. Can you see what a relief that will give to many small

business people in this province — to have 12 percent money, and to

know where they're going for three or four years?

I was

interested in the opposition's point of view that we were going to put

an indebtedness on people for three or four years down the line. Mr.

Speaker, if nothing came in today or tomorrow in enacting this bill,

the same people that the opposition are talking about would still have

those obligations but would not have had the interest on the interest.

They will not have had the clear space of time, and there is no

question in my mind that the most important part of this whole program

is that they will have the satisfaction and the sense of knowing where

they are going which they haven't had prior to this bill being

introduced in this House. So that's a very exciting thing.

One

of the other things which I think we should all address is the fact

that new housing will come on stream — new housing, creating building

in the province for first-time home buyers, as $60,000 of the cost of

that home will be at a low interest rate. That's a security that they

haven't had up to this point in time — coupled with the $3,000 federal

initiative grant and our $10,000 second mortgage program, or our

outright grant of $2,500. If you put those elements together, the

result is what was said in the recent issue this past weekend of the

Real Estate Weekly:

"'First-time homebuyers in

Vancouver have it made,' a real estate agent remarked Monday, following

the Premier's unveiling of the new 12 percent mortgage aid plan. Many

would agree. Vancouver house prices, when adjusted for inflation, are

at the same level as they were in 1978, and the average selling price

last month was $50,000 below the level during the summer of 1981."

They

go on to talk about the federal government tax-free grant and the

provincial government's offer of outright grants for single buyers and

those with dependents — $2,500. They talk about the $10,000 B.C. second

mortgage plan. They finish by saying: "If all of the programs which can

be used in conjunction with each other, even for condominiums and

mobile homes as well as houses...it is certain that first-time home

buyers do have it made in the province of British Columbia with that

combination."

Further in this particular edition, the president of the B.C. Real Estate Association comments on the fact that:

"...if these reasonable mortgages were only allowed

on conventional mortgages, which would have frozen out thousands of Vancouver

homeowners who have created their own flexible financing in these days of high

interest rates, it would have been unfortunate. It is the most beneficial feature

of the program" — says Mr. Ray Rawnsley, president of the B.C. Real Estate Association.

They hail it in this paper and in other editions,

where people who represent 50,000 members of the B.C. Real Estate

Association said:

"The plan will be of most help to existing homeowners and

can qualify as well for first-time home buyers."

It's

an exciting plan in a number of points. Of course, as I said before, it

is probably the most exciting program, inasmuch as it should be able to

change the psychological climate in our province and free up the kind

of sense of security which is needed in Canada today, let alone in the

province of British Columbia.

I would also like to suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that it is very much "peace of mind" legislation. It

actually does reduce the worry for today. It does not put it onto

tomorrow, but it allows people the flexibility of three years — and, if

you wish, four years — to get all of that program together for their

individual spending. It's an exciting program, one which I think all

members of this House should applaud. I understand that the

[ Page 9263 ]

opposition

has said that they will vote for it. Since we haven't heard what they

would do if they had the opportunity to be government, I can say that

I'm delighted to hear that they're going to vote for it. And I can tell

you who else will be voting for it, Mr. Speaker: those many people in

this province who up to this time have not had a sense of security as

to where they are going in the days to come. They know that this

government has always believed in home ownership. It has always had in

the past a distinguished record of providing home ownership and making

home ownership as easy as possible for our fellow citizens. This is one

more time where this kind of initiative from the government will enable

them not just to have a home.... It could be called the "Have a home,

keep a home" program.

I applaud peace-of-mind legislation, I

will vote for this bill and I hope that the members of the opposition

will not only vote for the bill but also give it the kind of positive

initiative that the people of British Columbia are expecting from all

leaders in public life in this nation today.

MR. BARNES:

I think it's obvious that this side of the House wants to support any

initiatives by the government that will assist people who are in need

of homes. I think the critic for Housing on this side of the House has

indicated that we would certainly support any effort, even if it only

helped one person.

The problem we're having with this

particular piece of legislation is not that it has no conceptual merit.

It's a question of who it will affect. I feel that when you come up

with a housing program or a housing strategy to address the problems of

citizens of the province, it should be comprehensive. This program

seems to be selective, discriminatory, divisive and who knows what

else. We'll find out in due course whether it is as meritorious as the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Minister of Human

Resources, who has just taken her seat, have indicated — if this is a

bill of hope and one that will resolve the housing problems of British

Columbians.

The question is: is the bill a political

manoeuvre that will end up with no more impact for solving any problems

than BCRIC? I would not like to pan the bill in advance, but I do have

my doubts that it will stand up as the weeks go by. First of all, you

have to qualify for it; you have to own some property. If you happen to

own a home or are in a position to get sufficient funds together to

purchase a home, there is a possibility you could get some cash. In

other words, it's a straight gift.

Perhaps the bill would be

better called the Social Credit economic recovery program, because the

minister who has just taken her seat talked about everything other than

housing. She talked about the economy and how the money could be used

for just about any whim whatsoever. I'm sure that it would also be

available to buy lottery tickets.

It's a discriminatory

concept, Mr. Speaker. What about the apartment dwellers in the West End

and other places in the city of Vancouver, or people who do not own

their own homes or are unemployed and are not in a position to take

advantage of this gift of free money?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

Sure, it's a gift of free money. Anyone in their right mind nowadays

would take advantage of some free finances. But it's bribery, plain and

simple. That's the danger of this piece of legislation. Rather than

being a comprehensive strategy to overcome a serious lack of affordable

housing in the province, this is an attempt to confuse people who are

desperate, who have suffered economic woes — loss of jobs, loss of

homes, loss of businesses. In other words, they have suffered

mercilessly as a result of the lack of meaningful economic policies on

the part of the government. In a desperate attempt, as election

speculation draws near, they come up with a program that is a straight

giveaway. In other words, I doubt if anyone who owns real estate or

owns a home will not apply, because even if they did nothing but take

the money and put it in the bank, they could get the interest and

simply return the money in three years and be free and clear with some

cash. So what else is that but a bribe?

But what does it do

for the people really in need? What does it do for the people who do

not have access to sufficient funds to purchase a home in the first

place? What does it do, for instance, for those people who have been

living in hotels — pest-infested accommodation — for the last 10 to 15

years and are still treated as transients? They do not have sufficient

funds to move out of the district. It's sort of a last stop for most of

them. The government brought in a Residential Tenancy Act that was

supposed to change the designation of accommodation in these hotels so

that these people could at least have the benefit of being permanent

residents. Even something as simple as that hasn't been proclaimed by

this government. It's simply a matter of protecting people who have

made their contribution to society — in, for instance, buildings

sponsored by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

wonder if the the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing would be good

enough to give me his attention for a moment while I ask him whether he

has received a letter I wrote to him on September 5 about a B.C.

Housing Management Commission building and a senior citizen whose home

was forcibly entered at knifepoint — an 87-year-old woman living in a

government building for senior citizens who was robbed of her last $22,

that she was saving for food, and sexually abused. I wonder if the

minister would answer that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a

point of order, I don't know what relevance this can possibly have to

this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'd be delighted to take up that matter with

the member at any other time, but surely not here under this bill.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. I had hoped that the member was just referring

to that very briefly in passing, but it appears that the member is at

this time engaging in a discussion that does not fall within the

confines of the bill before us, Bill 79. I would ask the member to make

his remarks relevant to the bill before us.

MR. BARNES:

I certainly intend to do that. I am surprised that the Minister of

Housing, who is concerned about the welfare of people in need of homes,

finds my remarks about this incident that happened in a

government-sponsored building irrelevant.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Take it up at another time. Take it up in question period — any other time. It's got nothing to do with this bill.

MR. BARNES: Take it up in question period? I wrote this minister a letter....

[ Page 9264 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has advised the member that we

are currently on Bill 79 and that remarks must be relevant to Bill 79.

The member's concerns may be very real and genuine but, hon. member,

this is not the time for that particular discussion. I would ask the

member to now return to the principle of Bill 79.

MR. BARNES:

I don't intend to contest your ruling. I can appreciate that the

government — certainly that minister — has no intention of addressing

the real problems of this province. That's very obvious. I don't need

to labour the point. I've made my point that this is not a bill that

addresses housing needs in the province of British Columbia. It's a

political manoeuvre and, I dare say, a fairly clever one. Through this

bill, with a free gift of cash, the minister is attempting to appeal to

the desperate needs of British Columbians — plain and simple. He calls

it an assistance to mortgages, but in fact it's a gift of cash. It is

not just a bill that will help people who have legitimate needs; it

will help people apply for cash who may not even have thought of having

a housing problem, who will take advantage of this money being

shovelled out of the back of a truck, in order to exploit the market

for any number of reasons. I don't blame them. I don't blame anyone for

applying. This is why it's a suspect bill.

There is no need

to vote against the bill — that's not the question. I would advise

British Columbians to take free money, the same as anyone else. The

only problem is that the bill is not comprehensive; it's

discriminatory. It does not address the real needs of British

Columbians who are in need of housing. When you reduce it to its

simplest form, I think that every person who owns a home, or intends to

own a home, can get some free cash. That is the whole message. The

government is telling people that they have interest-free money for

three years — 12 percent money for three years. Are you going to send

them a cheque? By whatever means you do it, it represents an

opportunity for somebody to go and buy something for nothing. Because

you can draw interest on your monthly payments, is that not right?

Could a person not go straight to the bank, simply deposit the money

and let it accrue interest at the going rate, and you guarantee that

they will only have to pay 12 percent on it? What is that but free

money? It may be marginal; nonetheless, it will represent free cash to

some people.

That is a pretty good election gimmick. But

it's cynical, because the issues that we really should be addressing

are much broader — outside the scope of this bill. It is restricted,

and I don't intend to debate.... I don't think that the government is

sensitive to the real concerns of the province. But I would just like

to go on record as saying there are a lot of people in apartment

buildings who do not feel the government really cares about them as

their rents have doubled in some cases, or the government has done

nothing with respect to the pass-through increases, through the

rentalsman's office and the rent review system that this province has

undermined.

There are many horror stories with respect to

the housing problem, which this bill simply doesn't touch. In his

closing remarks, the minister should indicate to the House how things

are going at the rentalsman's office, where every day apartment owners

are applying to double their rents for various reasons and the tenants

— those you are supposed to be concerned about — whose homes are not

buildings that they own, whose homes do not represent land that they

own.... Home for some people in British Columbia may be the property

they have title to, and for other people it's merely the ability to

hang on in an apartment owned by someone else. But are we suggesting

that home is recognized for some people and not for others? Are we

saying that we are going to discriminate on whether or not you have the

ability to buy a home? This is why it's a cynical bill. What have you

got to do that will improve the situation for people who live in

apartments'? I suggest there are at least as many people in apartments

as those who own their own homes, or who are in a position to own their

own homes.

I would conclude by saying the government has

introduced a bill that perhaps is the closest thing to an economic

recovery program that they have had this session. Judging from the

comments of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), you

can buy just about everything you may need, this will stimulate all

kinds of economic activity; simply by this bill every British Columbian

who owns a home or who is in a position to apply for a mortgage will be

able to participate in the recovery of British Columbia's economy. I

think that's pretty profound. But there are a lot of British Columbians

who will find this an extra subsidy that they will have to support, and

it won't help them directly.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I

rise in support of the bill for some very obvious reasons; but I have

listened to the debate and the most obvious has not yet been stated.

Sometimes that which is most obvious is passed over, and the most

convincing argument of all is perhaps lost in the debate. I'm

anticipating that the minister, when closing debate, will refer to

these aspects that I'm about to talk about. But I would like to get in

there ahead of him.

I would like to let the people know that

the problem before us is not an imaginary problem. It's not something

that you have to read periodicals, financial bulletins, or even a

newspaper to know about. I think all of us, as members, know of

residences in which at one time there were neighbours, but which are

now vacant. There are homes that were in the process of being

constructed and they were already contracted, but these homes have been

abandoned. Contracts have been abandoned, folks have moved into

accommodation more affordable, and we see a real crying need for some

kind of answer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't believe that this

bill, former Attorney-General, necessarily has all of the answers, but

I think that it is "an" answer. I want to tell you why. The original

problem comes from this — please permit me, Mr. Speaker, to acquaint

you. There was abroad in the land a force which could no longer go

unchecked. The problem was inflation. Everybody talked about it,

everybody cried about it, everybody said something should be done about

it, but there wasn't any consensus as to what should be done. I think

that those who held the purse strings of the nation put their minds

together and said: "We believe that the cause of inflation is the

abundance of money, or the abundance of credit that's out there, the

easy access to funds." People could create buying-power money by simply

subscribing to a loan. That loan would then be put out into contract;

homes would be created, real wealth would be created. Lo and behold, it

was out of control and needed some kind of check — a solution was

required. Guess what? They said the only way to solve this problem was

by making money

[ Page 9265 ]

less

available. The first solution that came to mind was to raise the

interest rates and, by raising the interest rates, make money less

available, less accessible. Fewer people would then express their

demand in terms of need for credit, and maybe a check, a damper, could

be put on inflation.

Well, it was a good try. It may have

even been a partial answer for those who subscribe to that economic

theory. Another way that could have made credit less available, could

have put a check on the number of dollars going into circulation, would

simply have been by requiring a greater equity position in each of the

mortgages or loans that were going forward. That is not the position

that was taken; that is not the route chosen by the purse-string

holders. Instead, they thought the interest rate increase would be the

way to go. The fact is, when you raise interest rates in order to check

the amount of money in circulation, you simply inflame the problem that

you had originally wished to check. By making money more expensive, the

rate of inflation on any given contract — be it a mortgage on a home,

or whatever — was simply inflamed. A new problem sprang out of a

supposed solution to an original problem: interest rates were increased

on mortgages that were already in force.

As a result, those

commitments that had been made on the basis of financial strength or

earnings could no longer be honoured, because somebody moved the

goal-posts in the middle of the game. Those mortgages which no longer

could be paid for couldn't even be qualified for, should an individual

homeowner decide to bail out of his existing mortgage and try to find

another one. The problem which came out of the solution was

unaffordable commitments. You couldn't qualify for the mortgage that

you had under the new rates, and you couldn't make the payments on the

commitment that you had. This was not a problem just for people with

existing mortgages who owned their homes, but it made it almost

impossible for new homeowners, those who seek to get into their first

home. It made it impossible for them to move in that direction. The

whole concept, the whole dream, of getting into the first little

bungalow and an ownership position was made nearly impossible.

new solution had to be found to shrink the gap between what had been

affordable at one point, and what was no longer affordable. That is

what this program is designed to do. It may not be a total answer. It

may not fit everybody perfectly. It may not hit absolutely everyone in

the most desirable fashion. Nonetheless, it is a solution which, on

average and overall, will close that gap. That which is no longer

affordable can be put back to a level at which the commitments were

made. Through it, the fellow who earns X number of dollars a year can

still have enough, after paying for his housing, to meet his other

commitments. This will close that gap and make the entire thing

affordable again.

We could have done otherwise. At immense

expense, we could have said, okay, why don't we just take tax dollars

and create a program to give them an interest reimbursement? But do you

know what you'd be doing? You'd actually be taking tax dollars from the

people who are now paying mortgage payments and rerouting it through a

government bureaucracy, giving those dollars which they had already

paid back to them in an interest reimbursement payment. It is not

possible to do an effective job with that kind of a program.

think the program that's in place is the only reasonable one that's

available. It gives a three-year breathing spell. It doesn't give you

money for nothing, but what it does do is delay the debt of that money

for a three-year period at no further interest charge. It gives you

three years to do this: you can requalify, refinance, relocate, or

better your earnings. You can do any one of a number of things, but at

least you have three years to do it in.

A gentleman across

the street from me didn't have that option. In a house that was

three-quarters finished, he had to bail out of the program. The bank

came in and took the place. They sold it to a new owner who could

qualify. The new owner came in at a fire-sale price, as you might

expect. He finished the building. and although that building still is

not sold, it is finished, and hopefully someone can qualify for it. If

he couldn't qualify on the basis of 18 to 20 percent interest rates,

then under this program he will at least be able to qualify at the 12

percent rate. He can delay the balance that would have had to have been

paid under the 19 to 20 percent interest program for three years and

see if he can refinance it in some way. It gives him some breathing

room.

Mr. Speaker, that's what British Columbia needed,

that's what British Columbians needed, that's what I needed, and that's

what my neighbour needed. That's what this does. It returns us to the

conditions that were in place at the time that we qualified for our

mortgage in the first place. It takes away the penalties. It takes away

the disgust. It takes away the loss in confidence in our own economy.

It gives new hope to the guy who's now lying down in his bed saying:

"What's the use? There's no hope in it for me." It gives him new

breathing space. That's what this program does, sir, and that's why I

support it. I can see that it isn't a God-given answer that is 100

percent perfect, but it is a program that will give us a little relief

for a short while — three years at least. I support it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to say a few words about the bill. I agree

with my colleagues, and particularly our Housing critic, that the bill

should be supported, because there is desperate need out there.

The

speaker who has just taken his place referred to one of the many

examples of people who went under, but he didn't add this, and I will —

while this government did nothing. It looks so much like political

cynicism to bring in a bill of this kind just before an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know something we don't know

MR. MACDONALD:

All I know is what I hear from the campaign workers that the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is trying to line up.

They phone me and say they're to be held on tap to work for him in the

election. They say: "I don't really want to work for him, and why

should I be phoned?" So maybe there is an election coming.

The

budget, according to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is

supposed to be facing a billion-dollar deficit. You hear different

stories, and he has different stories every time a budget comes out,

and between budgets. Nevertheless, there were better times two or three

years ago when this government ought to have acted, if it really cared

about people. When the treasury was much fatter than it is today, did

you care about people whatsoever? The crunch in interest rates a couple

of years ago was worse than it is today, Mr. Speaker. The rates were up

to about 21 percent. They've come down a little bit, but not very much.

[ Page 9266 ]

It's

terribly cynical that the government destroyed our existing housing

programs like the Housing Corporation of British Columbia; you wiped it

out. It wouldn't have solved the whole problem, but it would have

created far more housing units and helped to bring down the cost of

housing and to some extent the interest burden on people. It would have

done something. You killed it.

You would not enact the

proposal that has come from this side of the House, and has been passed

by the House in the form of legislation, but has never been proclaimed:

the B.C. Savings and Trust Act. It would have helped the people in

terms of their mortgages directly.

MR. LEA: They voted for it.

MR. MACDONALD:

They voted for it, for putting something into a revolving fund so that

mortgage funds would be available at a decent rate of interest to the

people of this province. None of this was done. I'm repeating, I

suppose, what other speakers have said, and I'm not going to go on at

great length. I want to say something, though, about the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), whose speech I enjoyed, and his

reference to high interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, only certain

parts of the whole western world are not suffering horrendously from

high interest rates. West Germany, for example, under Helmut Schmidt —

and maybe that era is coming to an end in the give and take of politics

— has interest rates of about 8 or 9 percent. Unemployment is high for

them at about 5 percent. Inflation has never been more than 5 percent

in the last ten or twelve years. That's a social democratic, partially

planned society where the economy is run in the interest of the people

in a general way. It's not socialism but a pretty good approach toward

it. The economy is not run, as it is in North America, for the benefit

of those who own the money, the land and the resources.

They

just had an election in Sweden. What a contrast! When you mention

Sweden, everybody says that's bad. Rich people think the kind of social

democracy they had there is terrible. A big issue in the election in

which Olaf Palme was returned to office was unemployment. It was very

high for Sweden. It was 3 percent, and they thought that was high. We

are so primitive. I see no distinction whatsoever among the political

philosophies of the government of Premier Bennett, that of Pierre

Elliott Trudeau and that of Ronald Reagan in the United States. They

all basically support the same kind of system that has led to gouging

high interest rates and the forfeiture of homes by people and the

inability of other people to get them.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

When you mention these things, it's time for snide remarks from the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Those are just the facts of

life. There is a philosophical divide between this side of the House

and that side of the House. If there is to be an election, Mr. Speaker,

I would hope that people will turn their backs on the kind of thing

this government stands for: Reaganomics, to sum it up in one word,

which is in the interest of a few very rich people who control the

economy, but certainly not in the interests of the kind of secure

family, home-owning democracy that we want to see in this country.

The

bill is terribly vague. I've seen many bills, Mr. Speaker, but this is

almost all regulation. It sounds like an election plum with nothing

spelled out. I don't think that I could, with assurance, advise anybody

in this province whether they're going to get something out of this

bill. I hope they will. It's terribly late, but I hope they will.

Everything is to be done by regulations. There is only one

section 1n

the bill that has a concrete meaning, — and that is that whatever sums

are advanced shall not bear interest. Well, good. That's in there. The

12 percent isn't in there. The eligibility requirement is in there. The

bill even has the nerve — and I suppose it should be discussed later on

— to say that the cabinet can define the meaning of words and

expressions used in the act by regulation. So you're going to repeal,

if necessary, Webster's dictionary.

I remember the BCRIC

shares. I remember the giveaway of the five free shares which was

intended to re-elect this government — and which did help to re-elect

this government in 1979. Yes, I am cynical. Yes, I feel they should

have helped people far sooner than this. I think that they should have

adopted some of the things we've been saying about interest rates and

about housing and about mortgage relief on this side of the House for

the past three years of this government, going back to the last

election. There are a lot of people who have suffered and gone under in

the meantime. Now, with an election coming on, with your budget in dire

shape, you propose something. It's too late. Well, not too late —

better something than nothing — but, my God, it does sound so cynical.

So there are, as the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

said, broader questions that should be addressed to get some real

homebuilding underway in this province, and relief for all of the

people — including the renters, who are being gouged at the present

time as rental control in this province is being slowly dismantled.

There are so many other things that should be done in a whole program.

This is something, I hope, subject to the regulations, and on that

basis I support it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I

listened with great interest and really good humour, if a little

frustration, to the member for Vancouver East who has just spoken,

because he is a man of great wisdom, training and experience in the

mortgage industry. I thought that he, of all the members on that side

of the House, would come forth with some new plans and ideas of what

they, if they were government, would do to assist in the current and

long-term housing situation and concerns, or that he would at least

come up with some suggestions for this government, should there be an

election and they were re-elected. But I didn't hear anything new, and

I don't think other members heard anything new. It was just a recycling

of comments of cynicism, of the old NDP policy that they put into

effect, which, in essence — with all kindness — was virtually designed

to make serfs out of people in British Columbia. It was rejected by the

people of British Columbia, not just in the election but also in terms

of the utilization of the plan. We all remember Prince Rupert — and

that member is just getting up to leave, and I guess it hurts — where

the NDP government very benevolently put lots on the market for people

to lease, and, of course, I think only one out of a multitude of lots

was taken, because the the people of British Columbia have a very

strong desire to be landowners as well as home-dwellers. It's a

fundamental right and opportunity that we as government would like to

see preserved in British Columbia — and will fight to see preserved in

British

[ Page 9267 ]

Columbia

— the right to have the opportunity, with hard work and

perseverance...to see every citizen, young or old, have that chance to

buy their own home and be masters of their own little piece of land in

British Columbia.

That's what this plan does. It doesn't

remove the sense of responsibility of the individual, which must be a

very important and well-understood part of a free and democratic

society, which is designed to have a minimum of regulations and

government planning for people.

Mr. Speaker, this plan, as a

previous speaker said, has come into place not instantly — as the

opposition would have people believe — but has been under consideration

and design for some time. But it is not in isolation either, as the

opposition tend to think it is. It dovetails as part of a whole mosaic

in terms of the economic situation in Canada as it is reflected in

British Columbia at this time, and as part of a total new

economic-development picture for the province as a whole. It's designed

to be as fair as possible to the greatest number of citizens of British

Columbia — not only to those who are faced with severe instant problems

in relation to their earning capacity at this time, or the high

interest rates at this time, but also to all of those people who are of

a mind to own their own home.

It is correctly said that it

essentially gives relief for a period of three to four years in terms

of interest payments, and does not charge for that relief. Unlike other

programs in Canada and the type of program that the NDP have always

advocated, it is not a giveaway program. It is not taking the money of

those citizens who have been very frugal in terms of putting aside

other spending to pay down their mortgages, or who have given up other

opportunities and activities just to get started on owning a home, and

giving it away as a grant to others who have perhaps been less frugal,

or who have had other priorities. It means that those citizens who have

been harder-working, tax-paying citizens, who do own their own home,

who have set their priorities in such a way as to, perhaps, draw down

the capital investment in their home to keep their interest rates down,

get an opportunity to benefit as well.

It is very clear that

at the end of the time the benefiting people will have to carry on

their conventional mortgages, and, as has been mentioned, if the

interest rates are down at that time.... I fail to understand why the

opposition seemed to gleefully point out that if the interest rates are

down to 12 percent in three years or two years or four years, the

program won't look like a program at all. That is, in fact, what it is

designed to do and what we hope will happen. If the interest rates go

below that, then the program, I am sure, will be adjusted accordingly.

means that young people who have not yet purchased a home will be able,

even in this difficult time, to take advantage of the opportunities

that exist today, when the housing market has levelled out and the high

cost of housing has adjusted itself to a degree. They can still take

advantage of the federal government's first-home-buyer program, as well

as the B.C. government's home-buyer program. So it does put the first

home buyer, the family home buyer, in a unique position in Canada.

assists people of all ages who have existing mortgages. It means that

senior citizens who have sold homes in other provinces and who

previously have been excluded from any home purchase program will have

in British Columbia the same opportunity as other home buyers. Perhaps

they sold their home a few years ago and went into an apartment, and

now want to go back into private home ownership; they couldn't begin to

own a home when house prices were at the extremes they have just been

at. Now if they want to own a home, they will have the opportunity to

secure a mortgage at 12 percent. It means they can recapitalize in

part. It also means they can enjoy a lifestyle that they thought they

didn't want, but now find they do.

It means that those who

are frugal and want to take advantage of this can reduce the capital

investment in their mortgages over the three-year period. Certainly I

would encourage most young people to do that, and also many who are in

the middle-income area. Then when the adjustment comes, their overall

interest rates will be far less severe. It has a lot to do with

psychological attitudes. Last week, the Financial Post said the

housing market has been through a slump, that there has been a dearth

of sales. That is now changing and there's increased movement in the

housing market across Canada, a movement reflected in British Columbia.

But it pointed out the severe concern that, because of lack of

confidence or lack of available mortgage money, this wouldn't sustain

itself. This program in British Columbia means we can add the impetus

of confidence so that the public has a sense of security about moving

into the market, knowing that with careful money management they will

be able to see their way through in the future. In that respect it is

unique in Canada.

It was pointed out that many people bought

homes when the housing market peaked and, through other economic

circumstances, found themselves in a position where interest rates were

beyond their means. Or perhaps they had counted on unrealistic wage

increases. This means they will not have to give up their homes. Or if

they have decided that they have overcommited themselves, it will

stimulate the home-buying market so that there is a better opportunity

for them to sell their homes.

In essence, it doesn't have

the jarring effect on the marketplace that so many grant programs have

had in the past. When the NDP were in government, their lack of

understanding of how sensitive the marketplace is led to incredible

upsets, particularly in land values, and ultimately in home values in

this province. This won't have that jarring effect on the marketplace.

It will allow for an orderly, low-pressure stimulation of the housing

market. Hopefully we'll then see a stabilization of housing prices,

rather than a massive increase. As I mentioned, it does mean that many

citizens can take advantage of the situation now that housing prices

are down.

The member for Vancouver Centre, who really is

such a nice person, does distress this House and, I believe, distresses

the public when he looks at everything in terms of cynicism. He says

that the program is selective, discriminatory, divisive, worthy of

suspicion. If you read Hansard and the press you will see that

for years, any major program brought in by government, particularly if

it's a good one, is always described by members of the NDP in this

House as selective, discriminatory, divisive and worthy of suspicion. I

really hate it, and I'm sure members who are listening to this debate

at this time hate to see the member indulge in that type of incredible

statement. It can be very distressing and confusing to the citizens out

there.

It will increase the number of apartments available.

That member expressed a concern about renters. This is a concern of the

government on this side of the House. But we want to make it very clear

that present B.C. rental aid programs will

[ Page 9268 ]

stay

in place, and in B.C. we have one of the finest rental aid programs

anywhere in Canada. They will stay in place. The other benefit to them

will be that many people now living in apartments will be able to take

advantage of this program and buy a home, which means that we will have

an increase in the vacancy rate of apartments in British Columbia, and

there is nothing as effective in controlling the price of apartments as

a high vacancy rate. It also means that there's a greater opportunity

for construction. While it's certainly not the answer to all the

problems in the forest industry, increased home construction and

apartment construction in British Columbia will be of assistance to our

forest industry, not just in one part of the province but all over the

province.

I mentioned that in the debate the opposition have

said, "Well, it's in isolation," and suggested that the government

didn't move quickly enough and isn't doing anything else. But I would

point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the public that that's simply not

true. These last few years the government of British Columbia has been

designing a major, overall economic program for the province of British

Columbia. Northeast coal, Ridley Island and the newly announced

central-north development program for British Columbia are parts of

that. If you look at Vancouver, the redevelopment called B.C. Place is

a total revitalization of a derelict — if I may call it that —

section

of Vancouver, with a great deal of housing in it. The spinoff benefit

from B.C. Place, as it comes into its own, will be more money available

for other parts of British Columbia. We saw the first example of that

at the announcement in Burnaby the other day, where some of the

benefits of B.C. Place are already moving to other parts of the

province.

Southeast coal and the southeast economic

development program see not only an increase in the mining economy

there in terms of coal but also major development in the service

industries and the secondary industries. This applies to the eastern

part of the province. Wherever you look in this province there is

evidence of a total, well-planned, overall economic development program

for the future. It's not just in basic resources; it's in secondary

industries. It moves into the third generation in high technology. It

also has a facet of tourism. Each of these are job-creating. Each

aspect increases capital investment in British Columbia, which, when

added to this program, will give the home buyer or the person taking

advantage of the program the assurance that there will be jobs for the

future, that British Columbia will move ahead as quickly in the

economic recovery as any other province in Canada, if not more quickly.

It is not a program in isolation.

It's a part of the

philosophy of this government and this province to have the individual

citizen be as independent as possible and a part of owning his own

piece of land in British Columbia and able to meet his commitments,

even in difficult times. Along with that, to dovetail with this

program, is the restraint program of the government, which is making

one of the most concerted and realistic efforts of any government in

Canada to control the increased cost of government and services to

people at all levels.

So, Mr. Speaker, it must be clearly

understood — and I'm sure the public understands, even if the

opposition unfortunately don't — that it is not a program in isolation.

It is all part of a mosaic which is going to see people in British

Columbia have more job opportunities, businesses in British Columbia

more opportunities to grow and expand and new businesses to start,

capital investment in this province be more attractive and have more

opportunity in the free marketplace than anywhere else in Canada and

probably anywhere else in the world.

It's with this thought

in mind that I would encourage every member of this House to encourage

every eligible citizen to take

part in this program, and to speak

highly of the program. Perfect, no, but then I have yet to find many

things in life that are perfect. It's commendable because of the

government's effort, the thought that's gone into it, the fairness of

the program, and the stimulus it will give to job creation, increased

capital investment and increased use of many of our own products in the

province. I will be supporting the bill and encouraging every British

Columbian to disregard the repetitive charges of the NDP — bankrupt of

ideas, bankrupt of positive thought, bankrupt of the spirit of British

Columbia — and encouraging our citizens to get on in the spirit of

British Columbia. We have a very positive future and there's an

opportunity for every citizen. This is one of the specific

opportunities for every homeowner and people of all ages and incomes in

this province. It doesn't discriminate.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is anxious to close the debate,

but there's one fact of this bill 79 which I wholeheartedly support and

which has not, in my opinion, been stressed sufficiently. I'd like to

make my position known at this time.

Our bill not only

directs the interest of this government toward housing and home

ownership, but it is clearly an establishment of the philosophy of our

government which throughout the last 26 years has been directed toward

the building of homes and the ownership of property. It is contrary to

the principle of socialists who feel land should not be owned by the

individual, but rather by the state, as the members in the NDP

opposition have often said. The one member in the House at this time —

the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — has stated, clearly,

he's opposed to home ownership. We find the socialists saying they'll

go along with this; they'll agree to this bill. Of course, at a time

when they see no other way, they will go along with it. But the thrust

of the socialist opposition is that they are absolutely opposed to this

bill, regardless of what they do in this House.

I'd like to

make it clear that our position is not only for the building of homes

for the people, not only to make the homes possible — it will help

those in existing homes to retain them, and help new homes to be built

— but to indicate to the public that the necessity for the stability of

the community is the ownership of a home. Our forefathers left Europe

to come to this country because they could own land. From all over the

world to North America they came to own land. We must be very careful

that we do not fall back into the socialist slot again, which Europe

was in in those days and in which it still is in many places. The

system of the individual being the owner of his own piece of property,

king of his own home, is the philosophy that our party stands for. I

want to make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to us,

and to make this point clear: throughout the last 20 years, at various

times, we have brought out initiatives of this nature. It is not new.

The homeowner's grant, the home assistance grant — all of these things

at different times, to fill the need of the hour, to assist in the

ownership of homes, the philosophy that we stand for. I don't have to

prove it; it is historical fact. We

[ Page 9269 ]

have

existing programs where homeowners receive assistance up to $2,500 on a

first ownership. This has gone on for many years, and we continue along

this route.

In addition to this thrust of philosophy, I want

to say to you, Mr. Speaker, this very important point: the economy of

North America, strange as it may seem, rests on the construction of

homes. We do not realize how vital it is to North America. The great

United States of America, to our south, can control its economy —

either a depressed economy or a buoyant economy — by releasing funds

for home-building. I hope and pray the time will come soon. They've

tried in the last few years to increase the productivity of the country

by releasing money for home construction. It has been negated in their

parliaments at various times, but it may come through. But the control

of the economy can be done through home-building. In our own little

British Columbia of 2.5 million people, this grant, this bill 79, will

have an impact on 350,000 people. It's impossible for us to imagine the

thrust of this bill to the benefit of British Columbians.

just want to make this point clear — not only for the financial factor,

not only creating jobs, not only creating homes, not only making homes

possible for people to buy, not only the saving of homes that are

burdened with high interest rates.... I will not go into what this bill

does, because that's been said to you many times. Not only those

things, Mr. Speaker, but we made it possible for people to feel the

security of being part of the community. Not everybody wants to own a

home. It's not for everyone. But for most people, it is our philosophy.

I wish to say here, and clearly, that this opposition in this House and

this government are on diverging courses, because we stand for home

ownership. We stand for the ownership of property. This bill makes it

possible for those who own homes and who are on the edge to retain

their homes, for new people to come in. It will affect 350,000 people.

That's what we're here to say. This is our philosophy. This is our

intent. Although that opposition will say that they support this bill,

they support it in voice only and not in purpose.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank those of my colleagues who entered

the debate for their support, their encouraging remarks and the

indication of their understanding of the principles, the concepts, and

the intent of Bill 79. I would also like to respond to some of the

concerns raised by the members opposite. I am glad that, with their

keen interest in discussing economic recovery programs, a few more of

them have come into the House. I think we were down to two members at

one point, which I find a little bit difficult to understand, in that

they are making attempts to get this House to discuss economic recovery

and here we have an economic recovery program and very little interest

shown by some of those members. However, I don't want to get partisan

or argumentative.

Several of the members covered the same

points. so I may refer to one member or another, but I'm not going to

try and answer every question that was raised. I think I will respond

to most of the concerns raised by referring to some of them and

carrying that over to others who expressed the same concerns. I notice

that the first two members from the opposition side raised a few

concerns, but were quite supportive of the bill. I would imagine that

the word got around that this was not the way this opposition should

act in the House, so from that point on it seemed like the tide turned

and the other members, even though they claimed they would vote for the

bill, felt that they had to go on the attack and attack what wasn't in

the bill, what wasn't being done. rather than dealing directly with the

benefits that this bill provides. Because, of course, it does provide

many benefits.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann

indicated in his opening remarks that it's a good thing that we've come

up with this housing program because we've have had no housing program

as part of this government's policy. I do feel that I have to correct

an erroneous impression that may have been left by that comment,

because this government has considerable in the way of housing policy

and housing programs that have been in effect and which help people. As

nearly as I can gather, we have something like $500 million per year

going out to assist people with home programs. As far as purchasers go,

we've got the first homeowner grant to individuals and young families.

We have a second mortgage program up to $10,000. We have rental

assistance and the SAFER program, We certainly have the B.C. Housing

Management Commission, which runs thousand of units throughout this

province where people are not required to pay more than 25 percent of

their income, and that certainly assists the renters. Through various

others — intermediate-care homes and senior citizens' housing — there

are a great many housing programs that people benefit from as a result

of this government's policies and its ability to put them into effect.

I should mention that the homeowner grant program in itself — the $380

that people get back on their taxes — is certainly an assistance to

homeowners; also the $630 for seniors and disabled persons.

Speaking

of disabled persons, again, unfortunately, a wrong impression can be

left in that there was some talk about the cutback in assistance for

units for the disabled. I guess it's whatever you want to read in the

press or whatever way you want to look at it. In doing a little

checking on that I find that in 1979 this government provided about 50

units for disabled people. In 1980 they made available another 50 units

for the disabled. In the special year of 1981, where special effort was

made, it went up to 200 units. This year, in 1982, despite the economic

difficulties we're facing, we're at 100 units for disabled people. If

you take the normal program of 50 units per year, and go up to 100,

then I would say that is an increase rather than a cutback. If you

feel, as the opposition seems to want to, if you have a special year

with special funding from various sources, and then you cut back from

that special year, that that is a cutback. of course that is in your

best interest to show that. I would say that we have come up with a 100

percent increase in units for the disabled from the normal program that

had been going on.

I'm sure that there is no way that we

will ever be able to provide everything that everyone wants. But I'll

tell you something: at least we are doing something; we are providing

many units. In my own area and as I travel around this province I see

more senior citizens' housing projects opening — two next week, which I

may not get to, in the metropolitan Vancouver area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because I may be here in the House; we may still be discussing this bill.

Interjections.

[ Page 9270 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I will ask all hon. members to come to order, please, and perhaps if we

could get back to the principle of the bill, the Homeowner Interest

Assistance Act, we could remain in order and finish our business.

MR. BARNES:

On a point of order, I want to apologize to the House. I was out in my

office and I heard the minister make comments about the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. I think he was making reference to my speech,

and I hope he will address that concern that I mentioned about one of

the senior citizens.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would presume

the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre rose under standing order

42. That said, I guess the point of order is accepted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Getting back, as you say, to the bill, I suppose one tries to respond

to the accusations that are made and to correct what could be erroneous

impressions.

A comment was made about off-budget money and

about the denials. I don't know of any denials. I think it is stated

right in our news releases, in our program releases, and in our various

discussions that the money we are using is from the province's top

credit rating. We are using the housing development investment bonds to

provide this money that we will be loaning to people, in effect; in

other words, they will be paying it back. I don't recall any denials

about the fact that we may end up borrowing this money to provide it to

these people. However, the question has been raised: then why are we

not borrowing money to spend in other areas? I guess that is because

the members of the opposition may never understand the difference

between investing and spending on operating costs.

In other

words, many people will invest or consider it an investment to take out

a loan to buy a house, but if they regularly borrow money to make their

daily payments or their mortgage payments on top of it all, then of

course they.... In other words, if they are borrowing money for

operating rather than accumulating capital assets, that is quite a

difference. So we are putting out this money, which will be

recoverable. We are not simply spending the money where it is not

recoverable. So it does mean that we are not placing a burden on all

taxpayers in order to benefit homeowners. Those homeowners who benefit

will be paying back the cost; that is as simply as we can put it. Some

administrative costs may be incurred. They will be minimal. We feel

that those can be recovered from the revenue generated by the economic

stimulation, by the help to the business community, to individuals, to

the spending and investment that takes place as a result of this

program; and not only that, but from savings where the government will

not have to bail out in various ways people who now can carry on and

keep their homes; not to mention the jobs that will be created by this

program.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

It is always easy to ask how many jobs will be created by any

particular program. You can't put a number on those. We do know that it

is going to create jobs in the business community from the economic

stimulation. We do know that it is going to create jobs in the housing

industry. We do know that it is going to create jobs from the security

and confidence that people have. But to put numbers on them would, I

think, be a rather ridiculous comment. In other words, the type of

thing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Sure, I can make up numbers. But you wanted to know how many jobs it

will create. I don't know how many jobs it will create, and neither

does anybody else. No economist, nobody knows exactly how many jobs it

will create. But I'll tell you it will create far more jobs than any

program the NDP has come up with in this House.

There have

been comments that it won't help those at the lower income levels, and

in proportion it certainly will help them more. Everybody's always so

happy to use percentages. The savings that a person will get, or the

assistance they will get on a $60,000 mortgage would be a great deal

more percentage-wise than it would be on a $100,000 or $200,000

mortgage. So really, it will help those people at the lower levels the

most. It will encourage small homes, it will encourage small mortgages,

and it will certainly.... Even in response, to say that it will raise

prices.... It will not likely raise prices, because people will benefit

the most by being able to buy lower-priced homes. They are there now,

and people are going to use it where they get the maximum benefit. So I

can't see it raising prices.

There have been comments about

rent controls. Certainly my education is not complete in that, but from

the reading and studying I have done in various places around the

country and around the world, I think, as a general rule, they tend to

increase rental prices. It seems to have happened that way, that what

is set as a rent control maximum becomes the minimum, and that increase

is made. I can't see that that is a valid argument. Besides, some of

the members made comments about how rents are doubling and so on. It

would seem to me, from what evidence we are picking up, that they are

about a year behind; in many places rents have come down.

There

have been comments that it doesn't help those who cannot qualify.

Certainly we have other programs. The first homeowner grant and now the

federal program — that will assist. That will help people to get into

homes. This program, this assistance, this security that they have, and

the security for the lenders that these people can handle their

mortgage payments until times are better, will certainly help more

people to qualify, and there's already evidence of that from the

community.

This program doesn't provide all the answers.

Perhaps it does not make the impossible possible, but I'll tell you

that it makes the possible a lot easier, and the probable a lot more

likely.

There was some criticism about the program being

discriminatory. I have a hard time accepting that in that we have come

up with a universal program for all homeowners. This is a program to

help homeowners and to encourage more homeowners. Surely the members of

the opposition weren't suggesting a means test for people. I have to

wonder whether someone with a $150,000 mortgage in a middle-class

neighbourhood, if you want to use that term, in these difficult times

is better off than someone with a $50,000 mortgage and a lower-income

level. Those are the kinds of things that we did discuss — at what

level to put this in — and we decided that the best way, the simplest

way, to run this program without creating a bureaucratic or logistics

nightmare would be to make it a universal program. We were looking at

the other aspect as well, that it would also stimulate the economy and

[ Page 9271 ]

leave more money in the hands of people at all levels to spend and to put into the economy. Certainly that will be a benefit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

I heard that comment, that "it will help the Edgar Kaisers." For

heaven's sake, are these people on the other side not aware that the

Edgar Kaisers can now go to the financial institutions? They have the

top credit rating, they can get the best rate, so this program will

help them less than it will anybody else with only a normal credit

rating, if you like. So I cannot accept that argument either.

There

were some comments that this program will not help people if interest

rates dropped down to the 12 percent level. I would think that the help

they would need would be far less at that point, if they needed any

help. I certainly will not apologize for the fact that we won't have to

provide money to people if the interest rates drop down to 12 percent.

I think we should be happy about that, not upset that this program

won't have to provide money to these people. It's hard to believe that

comment was even made, that it won't help them if times get good.

We've

been concerned about possible abuses. I suppose if you're going to

provide benefits, there may be some risk involved. I think we've

minimized the risks in the fact that the people who benefit will be

paying back the costs of this program. If people benefit, and if we

leave more money in their hands to spend, and if they get a break in

interest rates and can use that to their advantage, and if they get a

break in income tax which this program provides in that the benefits

are not taxable.... If all of those things happen, then surely we

should be happy with that, not upset that people may benefit from this

program. Certainly we hope that everyone will benefit from this

program. We think that it will happen. There was concern that private

mortgage arrangements might enter into this and people may take

advantage of it that way. We have covered that, in that any mortgage

renewals are at the NHA rate, not at whatever rate people decide to

set. There were comments that it was political in intent. I think if

the members opposite will help us to pass this legislation, it will be

a fact. It will have nothing to do with whether I'm back after the next

election or whether I'm not. It will be a program that will be in

effect and will be handled to help people.

I'd like to go

even further: if helping people through these tough times, if giving

them this feeling of security and confidence, if stimulating the

economy, if creating jobs through this program, if that's political,

then I'm glad to be a part of it. This program, we're told, is supposed

to design — someone mentioned that, but I think they dropped the

argument — that it's designed to help the Social Credit three or four

years down the election or down the road in the next election. That

assumes that we're going to win the election previous to that one,

which is the very next one. Secondly, if you look at the argument that

that's based on, at that time we would have the repayment starting from

those people. If anything, it could be a political downer at that time,

but we're counting on the fact the economy will have recovered and that

interest rates will have gone down. I guess, in effect, they're saying

that they are going to be the next government in British Columbia and

times are going to be worse in 1985. I'd like to argue that we're going

to be the next government and we're going to continue in government,

and times are going to be better. If you want to stick with your

argument, I'm certainly happy to stick with mine. So in 1985, with

interest rates down, people's monthly payments can stay down at the

same level as they are when we're helping them through these years.

know the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) made comments to the

effect that it would be better to give it to people, rather than loan

it, in effect. Well, that might be true, if we were doing something to

all people using all types of taxpayers' money, but we felt it would be

unfair and irresponsible to take money from the total community of

taxpayers and provide benefits to certain people. Therefore we have

said those who benefit will be helped now. They'll get a very good

break, but they will also be the ones that will return it. The others

who paid off their homes or who don't hold mortgages should hardly be

taxed in order to give money away. I think this is a very responsible

and positive aspect of our program and makes it better than some other

programs that have been introduced.

I couldn't quite follow

the convoluted mathematical reasoning of the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson), so I can't comment too much on that, other than the

confusion that he created with his figures and his comment that he

would be giving sound advice to all his people to be very careful about

taking this program. Well, I guess all I can recommend is that they be

careful where they get their advice, because the mathematical footwork

certainly didn't work out and was premised....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

I know the member went to great pains to establish his mathematical

credentials. I don't argue with those. I'm quite willing to accept

those at face value. What I'm saying is that simple arithmetic — and

I'll go with the simple arithmetic — says that people are going to

benefit and are not going to be confused, and they don't want to look

at the worst scenario that you created, saying interest rates are going

to be up at 18 and 20 percent in 1985. I don't accept that. So my

simple arithmetic tells me.... If you want to go another way, what

about...? Oh, never mind. I'm sorry, I just don't want to get into a

mathematical argument. All of your calculations were based on worse

scenarios, facts and figures.

So to conclude, I'd like to

make the comment that we on this side of the House don't want to take

over housing in British Columbia — we really don't. We want the people

to own their homes. We want to encourage the private sector; and

there's all kinds of evidence that they can do it much more efficiently

than government can. We want to help people to help themselves. What

we're saying then is that this program, from all that we've looked into

in preparing it, all the feedback other than the partisan feedback that

we've had so far, is a positive program. There's a great deal of

interest in it. It is a program that will work. It's a helping hand,

not a handout.

I found it rather interesting to have the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barnes) sort of link us with the

federal Liberals, when we're trying to say that what money goes out to

help people will come back in. It's a recovery program. We don't want

to get into the $20 billion deficit of the giveaway type of programs

that apparently you've supported the federal Liberals on and want to

convert us to — that we should just be giving money away, borrowing

money to build up debts, because we not only pay back that money; we

also pay back the horrendous interest costs that have developed.

[ Page 9272 ]

This

program does in effect provide the greatest help to those at the lower

income levels. It does not put a tax burden on all taxpayers; those who

benefit are going to be paying the costs. The benefits are free of

income tax, and that in itself is of great value. They don't have to

fear that it's going to be in turn taxed by government.

The

B.C. home assistance program will stimulate the economy. I believe

people use their own money best, and what we're doing is putting some

of their own money back in their hands to use to get out of this

difficult period. We certainly feel that recovery will be here long

before the 1985 payback period, because we're taking steps to make that

recovery work. We also feel that interest rates will come down to a

much more sensible level.

Finally, for those who say that it

doesn't do everything for everybody, this isn't the total recovery

program of this government; it's only a part of that total program and

it's only a part of our total housing program, which I believe is one

of the best in the nation.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill

79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 78.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 78; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister give us some indication as to when proclamation might take place?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The ordinary answer would be, in due course. In due course will involve

some procedures for the recording system to be in place and ready for

announcement. There will probably be some short delay for that and for

the regulations to be promulgated, but I would not expect due course to

be a very long course.

MR. NICOLSON: To the new

Minister of Mines: before proclamation takes place, will the minister

give us an undertaking to learn the difference between chalcopyrite and

a schist?

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of overlooking that comment as unparliamentary and rude, I would certainly give that undertaking.

Section 7 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 78, Coal Amendment Act, 1982, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 43.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. LAUK:

I just have a couple of words, Mr. Speaker. I read over the Blues of my

last remarks on this bill. They were so succinct and covered all of the

points that I wanted to make so well that I'll let them stand on the

record.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is my first

opportunity, may I say, to extend congratulations to you, sir, upon

your election — and to the Deputy Speaker. So may I join with the man),

who have expressed pleasure and confidence at your election.

Mr.

Speaker, although Bill 43, the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, is

relatively technical and specialized in nature, it's a very important

and modern reform step for the British Columbia business community. For

that reason I would like to briefly outline the reasons why it's

important, and perhaps make a suggestion or two as to some future areas

towards which the legislation might be directed. The Commercial Appeals

Commission Act now before us is intended to provide the mechanism for

taking the place of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission.

The basic intent and object of this bill now before us is logical and

wise. It reflects the need for the commercial and business community to

have a place of appeal which has some advantages over a traditional

courtroom. I mean no disrespect to traditional courtrooms as places

where business appeals may be heard and settled. But as this

legislation clearly shows, there are a series of statutes which may

give rise to the feeling on the part of business persons, small

business or large business, that they have been incorrectly dealt with

in a decision from the public service. The feeling then on the part of

that person or small business is that that decision should be

appealable some place.

It's certainly a very important part

of the philosophy on this side of the House to recognize that none of

us is perfect certainly not governments. I think that those in the

public service would agree that they're not free from error. If from

time to time an individual business person, small business or large

business, feels that an error — unwittingly or innocently, but

nonetheless an error — has been made in the public service

decision-making process which affects him or her, it is first of all

fundamental that he or she have a right of appeal. In other words, it

is not proper, and we do not suggest, that business persons and

businesses should be denied a right of appeal in cases in which they

think a so-

[ Page 9273 ]

called bureaucrat or government official has ruled wrongly against them.

That

being the case, the question is then: to what body should an appeal

lie? As I say, traditionally our court system has provided the forum to

which, in these kinds of cases, a business person may take an appeal.

But there are some very good reasons, which do not involve disrespect

to the courtrooms of our province, why a commercial appeals tribunal

such as envisaged by this statute is a far better place to which these

kinds of appeals can be directed. Perhaps I should just pause and give

a brief

summary of the kinds of decisions that would be subject to

appeal under this statute.

Decisions under the Company Act

would be subject to appeal, where, for example, a businessman seeking

to incorporate a company with a proposed name particularly important to

that businessman may find or feel that the proposed name is vitally

important to the success of the business. He may feel further that the

rejection of the proposed name has been made in error, on the wrong

grounds, and he may want to pursue an appeal.

Alternatively,

perhaps under the Securities Act a securities representative may feel

that they have been denied registration for incorrect reasons.

Therefore they may wish to pursue an appeal under the Securities Act.

Under

the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, obviously there will be cases in

which an applicant feels that they have been wrongly dealt with and

that error has been made.

This statute sets forth the 10 or

15 essentially business statutes from which appeal can be made.

Pursuant to this statute, appeal will be made to a commercial appeals

tribunal, a so-called quasi- or semi-judicial tribunal. It's important

that our business community have access to that kind of tribunal for a

number of reasons. First, the appeal process should be as simple as

possible, and should, if possible, permit the business person himself

or herself to do most of the work, if not all of the work, of the

appeal and to appear in person if they prefer to present and argue

their own case. That is certainly possible under this legislation. By

contrast, when a business person proceeds to a more formal court of

law, they usually feel they must have counsel with them. So there is a

good deal of expense to be saved, a good deal of time to be saved, if

the business person can proceed to this kind of a semi-judicial appeal

tribunal, and to the degree that they can present and argue their own

case, Mr. Speaker, they additionally benefit. They are going to learn

far more about the system which is in part regulating them than

otherwise.

It's important to our business community that

there be a prompt and relatively inexpensive method or procedure of

appeal from a so-called bureaucratic or governmental decision which,

however well intentioned, it may be argued has been made in error. I

think we've matured enough as a society that the business people who

wish to carry forward these kinds of appeals do not worry or fear that

the public servants, the so-called bureaucrats whose decisions are

being appealed against will on account of an appeal being taken somehow

feel that there should be some kind of a black book with a black mark

that will haunt the career of this business forever.

I think it's important to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we've matured

in Our British Columbia society to the extent that very openly and through legislation

we can establish an appeal tribunal like this which clearly recognizes by its

establishment that there are going to be cases in which our citizens in the

business sector openly want to argue and assert that a mistake has been made

in the process of government which is going to hurt them, or potentially hurt

them. So this legislation very openly recognizes that. As I say, that's

terms of the staffing of the proposed Commercial Appeals Commission,

Mr. Speaker. I don't want to be too detailed here, having regard to

committee stage, which is coming up. It's important, I think, to note

that the legislation does not in principle stipulate or provide that

only certain kinds of people can sit on this tribunal to hear these

appeals, or that certain kinds of people are excluded from hearing

these kinds of appeals. I think it's fundamentally important that the

legislation, as it is, is flexible enough that there's going to be a

very broad range of choice as to the kind of person who may be

appointed to this tribunal to hear these appeals. For example, I think

it's very important that it does not specify that only lawyers and

accountants can be appointed to this tribunal. Now doubtless there will

be some lawyers and accountants appointed, and legal and financial

expertise is doubtless required in some of the deliberations of this

tribunal. By the same token, I think it important, for example, that

business people themselves, perhaps without specialized professional

training but with a lot of experience in business, are able to be

appointed as members of this tribunal. Equally, I think it's important

to recognize that it is going to be likely that female as well as male

members of the tribunal can be appointed. Increasing numbers of women

are starting small businesses, managing business and being employed in

businesses. It's very important to recognize that by virtue of

appointments to the tribunal, competent qualified women will have the

opportunity to hear cases involving appeals brought by women in the

business community. So, apart from the fact that the structure and

establishment of the tribunal itself recognizes a very important

maturing in the dialogue between government and commerce, additionally

the fact that there are no restrictions on the kind of person who can

be appointed to sit on the tribunal is fundamentally important.

Now

the legislation, as you know, refers to several of the other statutes

from which appeal may be taken in front of the new commercial appeals

commission tribunal. I hope the minister will recognize, and I'm sure

he will, that that list is not exhaustive. As a matter of principle.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that as the new commission is established and lets

to work, the minister will keep an open and growing mind as to the full

range of other areas of government that might be brought within the

jurisdiction of this new tribunal.

May I outline one as an

example, and leave this thought with the minister: I think the Motor

Carrier Commission legislation and the whole question of Motor Carrier

Commission appeals are a good example of an area which could usefully

be reallocated to the jurisdiction of this new commission. Clearly,

motor carrier business — large or small — is a very non-technical and

basic part of medium, large and small business in the province. Whether

it's a delivery truck, a fleet of taxicabs, a fleet of highway

transports, the business of licensing those kinds of vehicles and

regulating that kind of business surely is a pretty fundamental,

practical and simple example of basic business as we know it. It's not

horrendously complex or specialized.

Presently the appeals

that must be taken by business people in the transport business, under

the Motor Carrier Commission legislation, are — in my view — fairly

technical as to the route they have to follow, and the ultimate court of

[ Page 9274 ]

appeal

is a committee of cabinet. With all the demands visited upon cabinet

ministers, it would seem to me that a far better place for Motor

Carrier Commission appeals to be going would be to a body such as the

new commercial appeals tribunal — a body intended to specialize in the

practical and expeditious hearing of appeals, by business people on

essentially business-related issues, from decisions of public servants

and so-called bureaucrats affecting their business. For example, I

think that if on a given day the commercial appeals tribunal is to be

hearing an appeal under the Mortgage Brokers Act, on a further day an

appeal under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, and on a further day

an appeal under the Travel Agents Act, surely an appeal to do with a

Motor Carrier Commission licence generically falls within that kind of

appeal process.

As a thought for the minister to consider,

the reallocation of Motor Carrier Commission appeals from the present

system of appeals to a committee of cabinet to this new proposed

tribunal would be a very healthy step in the right direction. Not only

would it ensure that people wanting to bring appeals under the motor

carrier legislation would have a speedier chance to have the appeal

heard, not only would it ensure that the appeal process would be less

costly to those appellants, not only would it ensure that the

appellants could more conveniently appear and make their case; it would

also relieve from cabinet, from members of the executive council, what

is a very important present duty but a duty which, I think, among the

many which members of the executive council carry is yet a further one

taking more time; it obviously requires preparation. It would be a step

in the right direction in easing somewhat the load on the executive

council to move those appeals to this area.

I mentioned the

question of convenience to the appellant in the context of the possible

change in jurisdiction of Motor Carrier Commission appeals. Generally

speaking, under this legislation, I'd like to make a comment about

convenience to the appellant that again, I hope, the minister will bear

in mind. The hearings of this proposed new commission, as I understand

it, will take place in Vancouver. I would like to underline to the

minister that I think that's healthy, that hopefully there will be a

concerted effort not to have the high percentage of appeals heard in

Victoria just because it's the basic seat of government. For many

business people — particularly from the interior, the north and the

Kootenays — getting to Victoria is a whole lot more work than getting

to Vancouver for an appeal.

I would hope also, Mr. Speaker,

that the minister might give thought to the possibility of some of

these appeals being heard through the interior, perhaps on a circuit

system like the courts. For example, once this new commission gets

established, if it could be known in advance that panels of the

commission were going to spend several days in Prince George, several

days in Cranbrook and several days in Penticton over a given six-month

period, with some adequate planning those citizens and those business

people in those areas who wish to bring appeal could be saved

considerable expense by having those appeals heard closer to where they

live and where their businesses are located. Not incidentally, it would

then give the panel, if they wished, the opportunity in a community to

go out and take a look at the particular place of business. If,

therefore, an appeal was being heard under the Liquor Control and

Licensing Act and there were several factual issues at stake,

concerning perhaps the physical layout of a liquor licence premises and

whether or not there had been some transgression, it's a heck of a lot

easier and more convenient for the panel, if it's sitting in Prince

George and the appeal concerns a Prince George establishment, to

adjourn for half an hour, walk three blocks, look at the premises, come

back and finish the appeal, than to hear it in Vancouver with a bunch

of diagrams and pictures and decide it's really not practical to go to

Prince George to take a view, even though that would be helpful.

think our interior and northern business community especially the small

business community — has grown to a degree that few of us in Vancouver

and Victoria realize. It's about time that we began to decentralize

things in much of our commercial structuring of provincial government.

Why, for example, if you're a pub keeper in Prince George, a travel

agent in Nelson or a registered security salesman in Kelowna, and

you're so affected by a decision of government that you have to take an

appeal to this proposed tribunal, should you have to go all the way to

Vancouver? If you're going to hire a lawyer, pay his or her expenses

all the way to Vancouver or Victoria, as part of the appeal process,

why can't the appeal be heard in your home community? Certainly the

panel hearing the appeal are going to have a much better feeling or

handle on the issue if they are in that community.

My second

suggestion to the minister, apart from the issue of seriously

considering a move of Motor Carrier Commission appeals to the

jurisdiction of this body, is that he consider a circuit or travelling

system of panels under this legislation on a clearly advanced,

publicized basis, so that a number of these appeals can be heard around

the province in an efficient and organized way, but to suit the

convenience of the business and small business community. After all,

Mr. Speaker, very often under the kind of appeal that is going to come

before this tribunal, a business or a livelihood is going to be at

stake — perhaps the licence by which somebody has their firm do

business, the loss of which means the door is closed; perhaps the

licence by which a person individually is licensed to be a salesman of

some kind. If that is lost, their income is lost. With all that at

stake, surely it's not too much to ask that the government regulatory

process move to the community in question to hear the appeal.

Earlier

I made reference to the concept of panels. As a big step forward, and

an improvement over the existing Corporate and Financial Services

Commission, this legislation provides for panels of the commission, so

that if things get particularly busy, panels of three — perhaps three

panels of three each — can be concurrently at work, processing and

hearing three different appeals, as opposed to only one group of

members in the tribunal who must do all the work with a consequent

backlog arising. The concept here of panels is very much a step in the

right direction. It's not a question of increasing costs, because

nobody can predict or plan what the volume of appeals is going to be in

the future. It's going to be what it's going to be, given whatever the

crystal ball says will be the number of errors — or apparent errors —

made by public servants that business people want to appeal. That

quantity of errors being made, if you did not have provision for

panels, as you do in this bill, the single tribunal would have to get

through all those appeals. Ultimately they would. They would take much

longer and there would be tremendous cost to the small business sector

because of the delay, but ultimately the work would get done. If,

through the use of panels — and most of the appointees to the tribunal

are going to be per diem or paid by the hour or the month — the work

[ Page 9275 ]

gets

done in a third of the time, certainly the total cost in terms of the

administrative cost of running the commission will be no greater. There

will be tremendous savings in the business sector by virtue of having

these matters brought on for hearing at a far earlier time. So the

panel concept is very important.

When the minister closes

debate, I hope he will be able to give us some further comment, in

general principle, about the kind of person he hopes might be recruited

for membership to this tribunal. In distinction from the existing

Corporate and Financial Services Commission, it's important to note

that appeals from several statutes which you might think were going to

be heard by this new tribunal are in fact going to be heard separately

under the proposed Securities Act. I refer to appeals under the

proposed new Securities Act, the Commercial Contracts Act and the

Investment Contracts Act. Even though the bill before us essentially

provides for an appeal tribunal to deal with appeals of a business

nature from regulatory decisions by so-called bureaucrats, nonetheless

appeals from the Securities Act, the Commodity Contracts Act and the

Investment Contracts Act will not be heard by this new commercial

appeals commission; they are going to be heard under appeal provisions

in the proposed new Securities Act on the order paper.

That

is a very correct and wise decision by the minister. In its broad

scope, the new Securities Act is sufficiently specialized, technical

and complex that the three acts I've just mentioned have a far more

natural home, in terms of an appeal process, under that securities

legislation rather than here. I think the minister should be commended

for his foresight in carving out potential securities-type appeals from

the scope of the proposed new commercial appeals tribunal and

allocating them within the ambit of the new securities legislation.

Having done that, I again underline my hope that in some of the space

that remains he will give serious thought to reallocating the

jurisdiction over motor carrier commission appeals to this new

Commercial Appeals Commission Act. As the months go by, I suspect that

other members may have other good examples of kinds of statutes which

could also be brought within the jurisdiction of this new bill.

When

the minister closes debate, there are one or two other items on which

I'd appreciate his comments. There are a couple of very interesting

sections, one of them dealing with matters of evidence. To the degree

that he might in principle, without violating the spirit of second

reading, comment on

section 17, it would be of great interest. May I

say to the minister that in principle I like the intent of

section 17.

As I read it, it is an effort to get away from the sometimes overly

technical rules of evidence as they traditionally apply in courts of

law. If in fact the tribunal established by this bill is hoped to be

very much a practical place where business people themselves may feel

welcome and free to present their own appeals, to bring counsel if they

want but feeling equally free to hear an appeal themselves, I think it

is very important they they be able to understand the rules of evidence

that will apply. As I read it,

section 17 intends to make the rules of

evidence applicable to the hearings of this commission fairly simple

and straightforward to the average business person who brings forward

an appeal. Having said that, I expect that most lawyers could read

section 17 and find all kinds of reasons why it isn't a very good idea

and why the traditional, very complicated and technical rules of

evidence should apply. It's a tough choice to make; it's a judgment

call. But in keeping with the intent and spirit of the new bill, I

think the minister has chosen wisely in choosing the spirit of

section

Mr. Speaker, that probably summarizes most of what I had

to say. I want to, though, in principle make one comment about appeals

under the Real Estate Act, which again are referred to in principle in

this bill. Appeals under the Real Estate Act will be heard by this new

tribunal. I suppose this comment I'm going to make would apply to all

kinds of appeals that'll be heard by this new tribunal; it has to do

with the manner in which decisions are, in the physical sense,

announced.

Imagine, if you will, Mr. Speaker, that you're

perhaps a realtor in, let us say, a small community — perhaps

Vanderhoof. Let us suppose that through perfectly human error somebody

in the provincial government — perfectly human, innocent error — one

day caused your licence to be suspended. Let's suppose it was an

absolutely innocent error, but one day somebody from the sheriff's

office walked in, took your licence off the wall, and perhaps gave you

a letter saying that for the following reasons your licence was

suspended. Let's assume that it was a perfectly human error. Your first

reaction would obviously be to want to appeal that suspension under the

provisions of this legislation, among other procedures. Well, in a

smaller community, I'm sure that if your licence was lifted everybody

would soon know about it and you'd be very worried about the reputation

of yourself and your firm.

Let's assume that you followed

whatever the internal appeal procedures were with respect to the

suspension of your licence, and let's assume that you ultimately ended

up in front of this particular commission. Let us suppose that

ultimately you were successful, that you proved to the satisfaction of

the tribunal that an error, however innocent, had been made and that

your licence should be reinstated. Particularly in a smaller community,

I think, Mr. Speaker, if an error has been made that has led to the

prejudicial handling or treatment of a licence by which you or your

business make your livelihood, the damage can be very long-term and not

just necessarily financial. I hope that the minister gives some thought

to the physical manner in which, if an appellant is successful in a

case like this, the news of that, the announcement of that, will be

handled.

I guess, putting it perhaps differently, I would

hope that ways could be found to redress an injury that would be

clearly visited upon the business person. If a licence was lifted, or

suspended in error, and all kinds of damage were done to reputation,

particularly in a smaller community, how can you try to compensate

that, if at the end of the appeal process the appellant has his or her

day and is successful? It's perhaps six weeks later, and there's been

all kinds of talk about it in the coffee shops, but finally he's won.

In what ways, through the physical process in which the results of the

hearing are announced and made publicly known, can early damage be

undone? It's little help if some of the costs incurred by the appellant

are repaid to him or her; that's little help. How do you redress the

injury that's done? I think, in part, as I say, if the commission

through its panels is able perhaps to travel to communities and hold

hearings in those communities, that might be one way, for example. If,

in my example, the commission travelled to Vanderhoof and had the

hearing there, I'm certain that kind of event would be well known and

closely followed by the community, and assuming that the appellant was

successful, I'm sure that the results would be

[ Page 9276 ]

gladly

and importantly known. I suppose if the appellant were unsuccessful,

the appellant might prefer that the appeal was heard in the middle of

busy downtown Vancouver.

I think what is sometimes a problem

in the appeal process, in appeals like this where business reputations

and business profiles are at stake, is that while the business person

has had benefit all right of an appeal process, nonetheless at the end

of the process a lot of the non-financial injury to reputation somehow

can never be patched up. You can't quantify it, but you know it's

there. Let's suppose, to take a different example, it's a question of a

liquor licence appeal. A person had their neighbourhood pub licence

suspended wrongly, because in error it was alleged that they served

liquor to a minor, when in fact that never happened. If at the end of

the road the appellant's successful, how does that liquor licensee

correct the long-term damage in some minds that, "oh, yes, he was the

fellow who unlawfully sold liquor to a minor"?

I would hope

— and there's no magic answer — that as the commission gets established

and starts its work, the commission and the minister would give some

thought to, in the handling of the announcement, particularly if it's

favourable to an appellant who's been aggrieved unfairly, the most

benefit being done.

In closing, I'd like to say one word

about the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, Mr. Speaker,

which will be substantially replaced by this new commercial appeals

commission. I want to refer — and I think it's relevant to this

legislation — to the work done to date by the chairman of the Corporate

and Financial Services Commission, Mr. Kemp Edmonds, Q.C., who has done

a simply outstanding job in the years that he has chaired the Corporate

and Financial Services Commission. As I said in opening my remarks, the

type of leadership and work and jurisdiction which Mr. Edmonds has been

called upon to provide and deal in is relatively specialized and not

widely known. I think that any who have been familiar with his work

have known the utmost dedication, integrity and professional sincerity

which he's brought to his work. It probably is the case...but the

minister is not able to tell us what role Mr. Edmonds is going to play

in the future with respect to this piece of legislation in front of us,

or related pieces of legislation. I know the minister knows the

impeccable credentials which Mr. Edmonds brought to the Corporate and

Financial Services Commission, the great care he has always shown about

the integrity of the commission and its work, and the sense of fair

play which he has always demonstrated in conducting appeals before the

commission. I simply wanted to record the view of many as to the

quality of the leadership sho