[ Page 9241 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Coal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 78). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Mr. Howard –– 9241

Mr. Levi –– 9242

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9242

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

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9243

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9244

Mr. Ritchie –– 9246

Mr. Stupich –– 9247

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9249

Mr. Hall –– 9250

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9252

Mr. Nicolson –– 9252

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9254

Ms. Brown –– 9256

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Third reading –– 9258

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning are two very good friends who are frequent visitors to this building. They are supporters of the British Columbia Social Credit Party and very hard workers for the party. I wonder if all members would welcome Ursula Forrester and Lee Mesker.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 78, Mr. Speaker.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: I thought he was rising in his seat to resume the debate, but he appears to have been rising to close the debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I can only recognize one member. The member has concluded his remarks.

MR. HOWARD: No, I say that if I had not risen...an assumption on my part, Mr. Speaker. I assumed the minister knew what he was doing, but apparently he doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the debate was adjourned by the minister, at which time, prior to the question, the Chair would have to put the question before the debate would be concluded.

MR. HOWARD: I'm just trying to protect the rights of the minority, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the assistance, hon. member.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I did move second reading and I have concluded my remarks.

MR. HOWARD: Then I don't know why we didn't have the vote last night. Maybe the minister hadn't yet received the proper instructions. I have just a few brief comments to make about the bill before us. Tell the minister that the remarks I'm about to make were based upon notes prepared for me by the same person who prepared the notes for the minister in his remarks yesterday.

This affords us the opportunity to examine briefly why it is that we in British Columbia have always — and more so lately, especially with respect to northeast coal — come off second best in our dealings with other countries, particularly our dealings with Japan. I think we need to appreciate what goes on here in B.C. with respect to resources. That's partly what this bill is about. It talks about licences, leases, exclusive rights to mine; exclusive rights to prosecute to the full authority that the holder of a lease or licence has under the act. What that does is say that the Crown, presuming to act on behalf of the people who are the owners of the resource, would give some private group, some corporation, a licence or a lease to do something with respect to coal. It would give them the exclusive right to mine that coal.

In the followup of selling the product, in this case coal, to some other country — and I'm referring to Japan in this instance, because that's the most notable recent one that we need to examine — the government or the Crown, on behalf of the people, takes a detached view of the procedures relating to the sale of the product to the other country. In other words, there is not a companionship between government on behalf of the people, and the coal companies on behalf of themselves, to ensure that the best possible advantage accrues to the people of British Columbia from their resource. That detachment, that aloofness of government on behalf of the people from the coal companies is what gets us into difficulties.

In Japan they have a different philosophy, policy and structure with respect to how things occur in dealing with other countries on either an export or an import basis. Following the end of the American occupation of Japan, shortly after the Second World War, the Japanese government, the Japanese people, the Japanese corporations established thereunder, and the trade union movement to a large extent, although not exclusively, decided that they would work in a cooperative way for the benefit of all of Japan — not just for the benefit of a particular corporation, whether a steel company, an automobile manufacturer or a camera company, whatever the case might be. They determined that cooperation between government, business and the workforce in Japan was necessary to serve the interests of Japan to the full. It was that cooperative spirit, that cooperative policy, that declaration of intent to work for the benefit of all of Japan that has seen Japan arise from the ashes following the Second World War in which they had very little industrial capacity — it was war-oriented — in probably the most dramatic rise in industrial production, standard of living and wealth production anywhere in the western world. They did that because they had the cooperative approach.

This bill perpetuates a set of circumstances which doesn't believe in the cooperative approach to dealing with the resources of this province. We give the licence to a private corporation to explore, find and develop mines, and produce the product called coal. The holder of that licence is the one that strikes the bargain with Japan, in this instance, with respect to the sale of that coal. Japan, on the other hand, has this combined cooperative spirit between government and industry to serve the interests of Japan. Here in British Columbia the coal companies do not have that combined cooperative interest. They have the interest of their balance sheet, and I'm not denigrating that. I'm not saying that's a bad sort of thing. It's a fact of corporate life — they have the interest of their balance sheet to serve. I submit that that is one of the major reasons why we made such a bad deal on northeast coal. It's one of the major reasons why it's going to cost the taxpayers of this province somewhere between a billion and a billion and a half dollars of subsidy over the next 15 years — basically a subsidy to the Japanese steel industry. We entered negotiations on the basis of a couple of coal companies having a licence or a lease or whatever, but with control over the coal in the ground that belongs to the people of the province, and their foundation was to serve the balance sheet of those corporations. The government, having granted those

[ Page 9242 ]

licences, sat back and said: "Well, look, you go to it; that's your business." That point has been made time and time again by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. We in British Columbia are the losers because of that kind of policy.

We do not appreciate that Japan operates on a different basis: they operate to serve the interests of all Japan, not just a segment of it. In this province we operate to serve only segments of the population. The segments in this instance happen to have received licences or leases to look for, mine and sell coal. That is no foundation upon which to say that this bill is inappropriate. It's simply a housekeeping bill, as the minister said. In order to tackle the problem — and it is a serious one.... We are going to continue to be the losers as long as we carry on doing things the way we have up until now. It takes much more than just changing around a few words in an act and saying that we don't like the words "assign, transfer, sublet," etc. any more, and replacing them with some word in the interpretation — not called "dispose," which says basically the same thing, or expands on them.

I want to put the point to the minister that if he is going to embark on this new profession of his with any hope of accomplishing anything worthwhile for the province of British Columbia, then I think he should attack the problem from the foundation that I put to him a while ago: namely, that if we carry on the way we have been in the issuing of licences, leaving the holders of those licences to make deals to suit themselves, all of British Columbia will be the losers, as long as we follow along that particular course.

I don't know whether the minister has been in his current office long enough to find his way around in the ministry and to find out where the components and pieces are, where the key to the washroom is, and the other things necessary to find out what's going on within a department. I submit to him that it would be a tremendous service to this province if he would appreciate what I've been saying to him and this House, and would tackle it from that point of view. Set up mechanisms and procedures which serve the interests of all the people of British Columbia who are basically the owners of the resource. We in this Legislature, and the government, are only the custodian of those. As custodians, we and government should not dispose lightly of those assets and that ownership, simply giving away a licence and then washing our hands of it, saying: "Well, we have nothing more to do with what occurs once you have that particular licence." Our objectives should be much higher and broader than that.

If we need a lesson at all in how government, business and labour can cooperate and work together for the common good of all, we have only to look to the people on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, in Japan, to find an example. Not that we can adopt that example here; I'm not suggesting that. They have an entirely different cultural and familial base. But we can certainly learn from them as to how they conduct their affairs to serve the interests of Japan, and adopt the valuable parts suitable to our structure here in B.C.

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the minister, which I hope he will answer when he winds up. For two years we've heard about the development of northeast coal. When he spoke yesterday, the minister said: "I anticipate that the members opposite will be supportive of these changes and progressive reforms in the legislation, and will be anxious to expedite the passage of Bill 78, the Coal Amendment Act, in order that this project which is the bright light on the economic horizon in this province...may continue and flourish, and ensure that the final arrangements of the project will go forward unimpeded."

What actually happened? We're now making some changes to the act. There's been an investment of billions of dollars — a commitment of billions of dollars, certainly taxpayers' money as well. What happened? Did somebody find out that the whole thing was actually constructed on such shaky grounds that the minister has to come in today and ask us to make some amendments to the act in order to make the deal safe? We've asked many times on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, for the reports and the various commitments that both sides have made in respect to this. What we have in this bill is a suggestion that the whole thing was constructed on very shaky legal grounds in the sense that we have to make some changes. I understand about the recording of leases. But what happened? Who suddenly discovered that the whole thing could possibly collapse because it was not set up right in law?

The one other question I have for the minister is in respect to leases. Does the government have a philosophy about use-it-or-lose-it, the kind of thing they have in the forestry act? Also, what's the value of the transfer of the lease? Has that suddenly become a tremendous asset which can be traded back and forth? Or once this is vested within this act, that stays there; you can't trade in these things?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, the thing is, we want to be able to understand it. You're not the minister. We have to deal with the minister behind you — the new minister.

Just what happens in respect to the leases, and are they suddenly going to become an asset that can be traded back and forth? Or when you say that it is in perpetuity, is that the thing? That's what I'd like the minister to answer.

In the first part of the question, I asked how they could suddenly realize that they needed to rearrange the act to make it more secure for what is the largest single investment, as the government has said many times, in the province. Has it been set up on such shaky legal grounds that we need to do this?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, briefly dealing with the comments from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), it would seem that we have a very slight philosophical difference between us on the two sides of the House. The thrust of the member for Skeena appears to be that the government should be the agency and the body that negotiates and enters into agreements to develop coal and be the holder of the licence, and that would promote the best interests of the province. I hope that I heard the member wrong, but it seemed to me that it was the usual statist argument that emanates from the other side. In any event, this government has a commitment to have private enterprise publicly responsible and, with the checks of legislation, have private enterprise develop these projects.

My friend the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who just spoke, raised a couple of questions. No, hon. member, the project is not in any way in doubt or in jeopardy. It's a long-term project, as you know — a 15-year project. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that lenders have the kind of security for their loans that they would have if they were lending money for the development of land or for

[ Page 9243 ]

the development of petroleum or natural gas. In those areas, there are registration systems and licence systems.

These leases will not become trading assets to be shifted around, but a mortgage on a lease can be given to a person who advances the money to the company which is in charge of the development and holds that lease. It's the security of the mortgage that we're talking about. We're not talking about trading around the asset, or selling the asset. We're talking about giving security to lenders who will be advancing the money to the coal companies and will allow this great project to proceed.

Motion approved.

Bill 78, Coal Amendment Act, 1982, 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: Second reading of Bill 79, Mr. Speaker.

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 79, the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, I would like make a few brief comments of explanation regarding the bill, and then look for the support of all members of this House. Bill 79 provides the legislation necessary to implement the new B.C. home program. It provides the authority for homeowners to be reimbursed for a portion of interest charges on their mortgage payments on their principal residence. The reimbursement will be in the form of a loan repayable on the sale of the home, or as prescribed in regulations. This loan aspect is a new, responsible and very positive feature of this program. It provides a hand to people who need it, not a government handout. In effect, those who benefit from the program will be the ones who will pay back the assistance they get when times get better. There will not be a long-term burden on other taxpayers. It would certainly require a very negative outlook to assume that the economy will not have improved long before September 1985, or that interest rates will not have gone down to a reasonable level by that time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to inform the members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that in preparing the plan we met with representatives of the financial community and we got very valuable input from them as to what would work, what would not work, what can be done and what can't be done. We are not upsetting the existing mortgage structure in implementing this plan. What we are doing is providing assistance direct into the hands of the homeowners. We did get the support of the financial community and their valuable input.

Since the program was announced and briefly described, we have had a great deal of interest. The phones in our offices and many offices have been ringing steadily. The public is very interested. We have had a great deal of support from people in the financial community and from many other people in our province.

The program would work basically as follows. The government would provide interest relief to all existing and new or renewed mortgages, effective as of October 1, 1982, and until September 30, 1985. That relief will come on the first $60,000 of any homeowner's mortgage plan on their principal residence. It will bring the effective interest rate down to the 12 percent level, up to a maximum of six points. Perhaps a brief example might help. If a person in the next three years, or last month for that matter, renewed a mortgage at, say, the 18 percent level, through this plan we would bring their payments down to an effective 12 percent level. If their mortgage rate is higher than the 18 percent, we have to put a top limit on it. With interest rates actually coming down, we assume that the 6 percent margin will definitely cover the program. As I indicated, the interest assistance program will apply to all homeowners — all those who hold mortgages, including chattel mortgages on mobile homes. The $60,000 is a maximum, and there is no minimum. If we look at what help it provides, it is universal, so it will provide this assistance to anyone with any size mortgage, but only up to $60,000. However, the low-mortgage holder — someone with a $20,000 or $30,000 mortgage — in percentage terms, of course, will benefit at the highest level.

We estimate that of the more than 405,000 principal homeowners in British Columbia, perhaps 350,000 will take advantage of this assistance program. We know there are some long-term mortgages that are below the 12 percent rate, and naturally this program will be of no benefit to those people. lf they come up for renewal they may apply at any time during the program, but all payments will cease in 1985. We are naturally assuming — and I think it is a very reasonable assumption — that the economy will have improved by that time. I think it is reasonable to assume that the interest rates will then have come down to a reasonable level. So in September 1985, when people renew their mortgages, their payments may well be down to the 12 percent level anyway, and they will not be going up.

In the event of the worst scenario, which many people seem to prefer, we are allowing people an extra year of interest-free grace to make the adjustments if they do have to raise their payments at that time. We are allowing a flexible repayment program, in that it may be to their benefit at that time to roll it into their existing mortgage to repay it. It may be to their benefit to pay it off in a lump sum. It may be to their benefit to spread the payments, which of course are interest free in that fourth year, as well as in the three years when they are accumulating the assistance on the loan. If they so choose. they may spread it out over the 12 months, because they're not paying interest on it. After September 30, 1986, we will further assist people who can't roll it into the program by working out a mortgage repayment scheme, which we can handle ourselves.

What the program provides is security for homeowners for the next three years. They know their monthly mortgage payments will be at the 12 percent level. We have every reason to believe they will improve after that time, and so will their own situations. It provides the type of security that we believe will create consumer confidence in the housing industry. That consumer confidence will of course allow people to buy homes, to remain in their homes, and in that sense will probably encourage, to a considerable degree, the acquisition of new homes. When some people are acquiring new homes then we need other homes, and when we need other homes that of course stimulates the house building industry.

We also feel that this imaginative program will stimulate the economy. By leaving more money in the hands of homeowners, more will be spent in the rest of the economy, and

[ Page 9244 ]

that will stimulate activity in the business community, creating some indirect jobs. The direct jobs we look for in the housing industry and associated trades; the indirect jobs we look for from the money going into the economy because people spend. If people choose to save or invest that money, we feel that too can stimulate the economy, because it provides investment funds which are available to the rest of the people in our economy. That in turn will indirectly create other jobs. So whether they spend this money during the three years, or whether they save it, it will certainly stimulate the economy.

Some people have questioned how this is a benefit if in fact it is a loan that must be paid back. I would suggest that anyone in our society can tell you that when you get interest-free money into your hands for four years, it is a benefit to anyone at any level; in other words, anyone can benefit. We are of course, in keeping with our philosophy, allowing freedom of choice here. It's up to people whether they want to get in on the plan.

Perhaps I could use another example: if someone right now is locked in for the next few years to a 13 or 14 percent mortgage, is comfortable with those payments and does not want to receive these benefits, thereby incurring the loan or the debt, that person doesn't need to get into the program. It's their choice. I'm sure the money the people get will be used in many and imaginative ways. We do not apologize for that. We considered whether people might take fair or unfair advantage of the program, and we don't see how they can take unfair advantage. We want to help people, and we want them to stimulate the economy. Whatever way people use this money, we feel that is going to happen.

I suppose we should make a brief reference to how it will be funded and the costs. The Ministry of Finance will handle the program through the normal capital funding sources and, of course, supplement it by the recently approved housing and development bonds. What we're doing, in effect, is using the top credit rating of this province, carefully and deliberately established, to help our people get a benefit which might not otherwise be available to them.

Some people have tended to criticize the program by asking why we are borrowing money to put into this program when there are restraint measures in other areas. We're trying to help people through this difficult period and, in fact, help them to help themselves. I think we have to remember that the imaginative and different part of this program is that the money will be recoverable. When they are better off, we will be getting the money back. So it is not money that is just handed out, spent and which will not be recovered.

We're estimating that perhaps in the first year the money put out to homeowners will be up to $300 million. It's estimated that anywhere from $860 million to $1.4 billion will be put out in this assistance program, depending on what the interest rates are, say, a year or two down the road and on how many people apply. You also have to remember, as I indicated earlier, that that money will go into the economy in one form or another.

The only costs that will really be incurred by government are what that money might cost if we don't recover and the interest that might be forgone if the money had been used in other ways. I feel that with the stimulation that this puts into the economy, which will generate more revenue to the government, and with the savings that it will create from other assistance programs the government might have to provide if this program were not in effect, we will recover all of those administration and actual costs of the program.

I conclude by saying that this program is to provide security and consumer confidence. It will stimulate the economy in various ways. The program will be creating jobs directly. It will also be creating jobs indirectly through the stimulation it will provide to business and industry. The program will work. Those who benefit will be paying it back, so we're simply using the credit of the province to help them through these difficult times. There is a great deal of interest out there. It is not going to place any long-term burden on the taxpayers of this province. It appears that the program is getting very enthusiastic acceptance.

We hope, with your cooperation, that we can pass this legislation and put it into effect. The application forms and particulars are being prepared now.

Incidentally, I might add that with the cooperation of the existing mortgage lenders and our ministry staff we're working out a program so it will be worked through the existing structure. We will not need a large bureaucracy to run this program. The lending institutions have agreed to waive any application fee costs. We are not charging any application fees, and members will see from the bill that we're providing the structure of government to avoid any extra costs associated with this. With the way we have designed the program we can avoid restructuring mortgages — the legal costs and so on that are incurred. I'm sure questions will come out in that respect in committee. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. GABELMANN: Before beginning debate on the bill, I'd like to express my congratulations publicly, as I have privately, to the new minister in his new role as Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Since this is his first opportunity to perform in the Legislature in his new role, I thought it would be appropriate for me to say: congratulations to you. While I don't wish you a long term, may it be productive in the short while.

We're going to vote for the bill, Mr. Speaker. Now that I no longer have to deal with the new Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in this job, we're going to try to turn over some new leaves.

There are a number of things I want to do in responding to the legislation. I want to talk a little bit about the history of housing over the last six years and some concerns we have about the inaction of the government. I also want to express some concerns that we have about the impact of the legislation. I'll do that a bit later on.

I wish we had been debating this bill all this week. I think the minister wanted to do the same thing. It seems to me that we were called back on Monday of this week to deal with economic recovery programs. So far we've spent the whole week wasting our time dealing with the gerrymander. This bill is one step, one aspect, of what should be a legislative program for economic recovery. I'm pleased that we're now able to debate this bill. I'm sorry and distressed that it's not part of a bigger package of legislative proposals and government action that we could debate to find a way to get British Columbia out of its current difficulties. Nonetheless, this is at least something that we can grasp at.

The timing of the bill is curious. In six years or so of Social Credit government we've had announcements virtually every two weeks, saying there would be a housing program announced shortly. After six years of two-week programs we've finally got an element of a housing program.

[ Page 9245 ]

I'm distressed that at the time when the housing crisis was greatest — not that it isn't difficult now; it is — and when mortgage rates were at 21 percent, 22 percent and higher, and the cost of buying houses escalated far beyond any reason, we had no programs. Now that interest rates are coming down — and, hopefully, this is the beginning of a long trend of decline in interest rates, not just an aberration — and housing prices have come down and the crisis is less acute, we have government action of a sort. I wonder why that is. I wonder if it might not have something to do with the fact that we're very likely to be into an election soon. I wonder if this isn't more related to election recovery than economic recovery. I wonder if it isn't much more related to buying votes, as opposed to assisting people in their individual housing crises. Nevertheless, even if it is simply a political gesture for political recovery, if it benefits only one British Columbian I'm going to support the bill, even in this time.

I said I had some concerns — I'm not going to be long about this. I wonder why we hear this beautiful new phrase, "off-budget money," floating around, which in effect creates deficit financing while not really acknowledging that it's going on. But we're able to find that kind of off-budget money for programs that assist a great many people. Unfortunately, it will probably assist people who are in our economic income bracket who shouldn't really need the kind of assistance that this provides. Nevertheless, it's there. Why can we find this cutely termed off-budget money for these kinds of programs when, at the same time, the government has to announce that the mentally and physically disabled are having their rental sharing programs cut back? I wonder why it is that people who are in great need, such as mentally and physically handicapped people in British Columbia — there are many others, but I cite this as one example — have had their subsidy, which is what it has been, cut back by the provincial government. Last year there were grants available for rental units for mentally and physically handicapped persons. This year there are 100.

I think there is some inconsistency in what the government is doing. I could cite — but I won't, because I don't intend to take long — dozens and dozens of other examples of where government cutbacks for needy people, whether they're mentally and physically disabled, whether they're senior citizens, whether they're people in need of social housing, whether they're people who are waiting on the B.C. Housing Management Commission lists.... There are a minimum of 10,000 at any one time on those lists, and many more would be there if they had any hope of getting accommodation through those processes. I wonder why it is that when no money is available for those needy people we're able to find money for a program like this. I wonder again, Mr. Speaker, if the answer isn't that this is more political than it is economic, that it's more political than it is designed to help those people who most need help.

I have some concerns about those tens of thousands of British Columbians who rent. There's no assistance in this bill for them. If rent controls had been maintained in the most part, then they may well have been protected and could avoid the necessity of falling under the umbrella of a program like this. But we haven't had rent controls. They've been virtually abolished. As a result of that, renters in many cases — and in most cases renters are lower-income people — have had exorbitant increases even with the levelling off. Even with the vacancy rates increasing lately, as they have, and the deals that you can get, such as the twelfth month free, the trip to Reno if you rent a suite and those kinds of things, rents haven't really decreased. There's no assistance for those people. They are legion in this province. I make the point that in most cases people who are renting do so for economic reasons. They have a lower income and don't have the money to get into the housing market.

This program doesn't help them get into the housing market. This is not a program that is designed to help relatively low-income people obtain their first home. The program still requires that you qualify for a mortgage at the regular rate. You can't go to the bank and say: "Okay, your rate is 16 3/4. This program will bring it down to 12. I qualify at 12, but I don't at 16 3/4. Therefore I should get a house." The bank will say: "No, you don't qualify, because your income isn't sufficient." I don't blame the bank, because three years down the road the program ends. Four years down the road, the money is over, and the bank is then faced with having a mortgage-holder with an income insufficient to meet the demands of what could possibly be still a 16 3/4 mortgage. Who knows? It doesn't address the needs of those people who would like to get their own first home, who don't meet the eligibility requirements. In that sense, too, Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about the focus and the thrust of the program.

I have some concerns about those people who took out mortgages a year or a year and a half ago at 22 and 23 percent and who will find that this program benefits them by only 6 percent and that their mortgage will come down to 16 or 17 percent. The ex-Minister of Housing interjects that it is short term, and that's true. Many of these mortgages were taken out on a short-term basis, but they are still in place and they still mean that people this fall are losing their homes and having to get out. We've all had calls expressing some interest in this program by people asking what it's about. I've had calls from people who realize it's of no benefit to them because it doesn't bring their mortgage down to a level where they can meet the payments for the next six or ten months. There are a number of people in that particular category.

I said earlier that it's a sneaky way of deficit financing. I just wish the government would own up to the fact that through a number of its economic programs it is, in effect, running a deficit this year. The last section of the bill — the appropriation section — says that money for the program comes out of consolidated revenue until the end of the fiscal year. That's money that will have to be borrowed. I don't have any objections to that, but I do object to the apparent coverup, or the attempt to deny that in fact the government is borrowing money to implement this kind of program. Why don't we just face up to the fact that this is what we're doing?

I wonder — I'm coming close to the end of my remarks — about section 2(f). We'll have an opportunity in committee sometime in the near future to discuss in detail what section 2(f) means. I'm not a lawyer and I don't have any great expertise in these matters. The section says that the government can make regulations "defining, enlarging, or restricting words and expressions that are used in this act." In the words of the act, the government can define, enlarge, or restrict words and expressions. I assume that means words and phrases. The term "expressions" is a strange one, but that doesn't matter.

Isn't this a new form of legislative behaviour? We're being asked to pass a bill that can later be amended by cabinet — in the secrecy of cabinet. Whether or not that has any negative impact on the program is in a sense irrelevant at this

[ Page 9246 ]

point. The fact is that this is, in my judgment, a dangerous legislative precedent. In fact, I question its legality. I question whether the cabinet can in fact alter or restrict something that the Legislature has passed. Even if the Legislature passes a clause that says you can do it, I wonder if that's legal. Outside the concerns of the housing question involved in this issue, I'm concerned about the legal and legislative precedent established in that section.

The other thing I wonder is whether we even need a bill to do this. I suspect that the government could do as it did with HIP a couple of years ago, when they arranged for 9 3/4 percent mortgages for people up to a limit of $200 million. They had a limit of $90,000 on the price of a house, and those kinds of things. They did all that without legislative approval. I wonder if this couldn't be done without legislative approval as well. The non-specific, non-precise way in which the bill is written seems to have more to do with politics than with legislative authority. It has more to do with politics than really with anything else.

I don't have much more to say. As I said initially, we're going to support the bill; any port in a storm. I wish we'd seen a few ports when the storm was at force 10, but now that it's diminishing, we....

AN HON. MEMBER: An election is coming.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, an election is coming, as my colleague points out, and we now see some belated action.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too little too late.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not too little too late for some people. In some cases it benefits those who don't need to benefit. I'm sure most members of this Legislature, together with a lot of other people in the community, said to themselves upon the announcement of this program: "How do I qualify? What does it do to my monthly payments?" I must confess, I went through that process myself. I thought about that. I don't get the $10,000, but I get a bit of free money for four years. Do you know what I'd do with it? I'd probably spend it, and I'd owe it all at the end. So I'm probably going to say to myself: "No, it's not a good idea for me." But how many more are going to do that? How many people are going to say: "We really do need a new fridge. We really do need a new couch, and we really do need a new car. These several hundred dollars a month will help us to make those payments now." Then saying to themselves, "Four years from now we don't know what things are going to be like, and we'll let four years from now look after itself," they'll then find themselves in some difficulties four years from now. I have some of the same objections in that sense as I did to I think it was the Commerce bank when they did the "red convertible loan," the attempt to persuade people to borrow money often needlessly. I wonder if this program won't encourage people to take advantage of free money, not needlessly, but without sufficient concern about what the impact might be four years down the road. Other people will be participating in the debate, obviously, but when he concludes the debate I wonder if the minister would give me some of his rationale about why he thinks that the program should be universal in this respect and not specific to those people who need assistance, to those people who have had their rental subsidies cut back, as I cited earlier, in the case of the mentally and physically disabled. Why not some assistance for the needy, instead of assistance for some of us who might be greedy?

MR. RITCHIE: I am indeed delighted to take my place and make my comments in respect to this very welcome bill. Before getting on, I would like to congratulate our minister in bringing in such an innovative, exciting and long-overdue approach to helping those who wish to own their home, whether it be mobile or otherwise.

Listening to the comments of the member for North Island, I can only hope that his endorsement of this bill may be a little sign that he is now changing his attitude towards ownership, from that of state ownership to private ownership. The member talked very briefly about where the money will come from from — suddenly we find money to bring in a program like this. I would like to go on record as saying that as long as this government continues its attack on waste in government, there will be ample funds available. And I speak of governments throughout this land. I am not hiding the fact that there are areas in government where we can save. It's no secret; we are onto it throughout the whole system.

Then he complained about how difficult it will be for the first home owner under this system. In my opinion, the first thing in desiring to own a home is in the attitude, not dollars. I believe that anyone, whether it's the first, second or third home, if they have that positive attitude and they wish to own a home, or own a bigger or a better home, then they will be able to do so as long as there is funding available that they can borrow to use while they are going through that process of achieving their goals — not the way the socialist party would do it, by merely handing out dollars. That is accepted at the time, but the appreciation isn't there as it should be.

The only opposition that I have heard to this bill so far has been that it's okay, but the money must be paid back. Well, so what? If the dollars handed out over the years in various areas — housing, etc. — were put out in this form and handed back, we wouldn't be in such difficulties in Canada today. The reason why such a large percentage of our tax dollars is being used to pay the cost of borrowed money is that it was handed out under that socialist philosophy that we're seeing. That's where I say that we have now reached a point where we must change our attitude towards that and adopt ideas such as this, that this minister has brought in this House today. The program, as introduced, does not discriminate at all. It's not restricted to those who want to buy a first home. It's available to all people, whether they own a mobile home or otherwise, as long as they have a mortgage that qualifies. It's an excellent bill and program that's fair to everyone interested in having their own home.

The program is not a handout for the sake of just filling a gap, as the party on the opposite side would see it. It's a program that is going to bring these people who are faced with high mortgage rates through a difficult time. It's going to make it very easy for them not only to acquire but to retain their homes through this difficult time of high interest rates. It's not designed as if it would be by the opposition party's desires; it's not designed to create another problem in the future, as would a handout program. With that we would have the generations to follow having to pay off the expenses of a program that we put into place today to help those in need today. The program is designed to help them today, but to return the money tomorrow when things have improved and when conditions are better so that those same dollars will be available should the need arise again for those who follow

[ Page 9247 ]

who wish to own their own home. The program says: "Take it and use it, but use it wisely, because we expect to have it paid back so we may help others in the future."

The plan is innovative, because not only does it help the homeowner, but it will stimulate the economy and increase employment in the workplace. It's going to prove that dollars in the hands of the private sector are much more productive than they are with government. I believe that the longer we can leave the money out there in the private sector, the more productive it will be, and the greater the benefits will be to the province and to all the people.

I'd like to go through some figures I have discovered concerning the benefits this could have on the employment situation in our province. HUDAC estimates of job creation through housing construction show that in Canada in 1982 one housing unit generates more than two man-years of employment for the construction industry, in addition to the multiplier effect on the whole economy. More specifically, they estimate that the construction of 32,000 housing units would generate 71,000 man-years of employment. That's very substantial. This 71,000 man-years of employment can be broken down as follows: direct jobs, 22,000; industry jobs, 18,600; and trade and manufacturing spinoff jobs in the economy, 30,400.

They go on to say: "Employment in man-years was generated through single detached housing in Canada during the years 1969 to 1974. Figures have not changed significantly, but onsite construction" — this is a breakdown of the jobs — "totals 622 jobs; offsite, 138; manufacturing, 252; trade and transportation, 154; and primary and semi-finished goods, 101."

The impact of this program on the overall economy is going to affect such things as sawmills, veneer and plywood mills, sash-and-door and planing mills; metal fabricating, ornamental and architectural metal, metal stamping, pressing and coating heating metal, and miscellaneous industries such as bathroom fixtures, non-metallic mineral production, ready mix concrete, clay products, drywall, gypsum board, insulation and fire break. They all benefit from a program of this nature.

We can go on further and talk about the consumer-oriented industries, such as food and beverages, clothing, printing and publishing, and how they're affected by the type of program where a government makes money available for housing construction and house ownership. It's going to stimulate such things as the food and beverage industry. That has an impact on employment in manufacturing industries, using a $10 million expenditure on residential construction.... These figures are, for 1976, in personyears: food and beverage, 12.6; rubber and plastics, 4.4; textiles, 5.3; clothing, 6.4; wood, 25.9; paper, etc., 5.9; printing and publishing, 5.7; primary metals, 7.6; and it goes on and on. What it really tells us is that when a government uses a program of this nature, where they say, "Use this money, buy yourself a house, stimulate the construction industry," all these things benefit from it.

It's an exciting program. It's an innovative program. It's not only going to help the home buyer today; it's going to help all of us. The money will be returned three or four years from now to help generations that will follow. I support this bill wholeheartedly.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I start by congratulating you on being appointed Deputy Speaker. I have spoken earlier in this session but you were not in the chair then, and I didn't have an opportunity, so I thought I would do it now.

May I also congratulate the new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. During all the years, some six years, as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, that the previous minister was there and regularly announced housing programs, apparently the Premier never thought to take him into his confidence. He never had a program to announce. Yet within a few short weeks of taking over the portfolio, the new minister has a program to announce. I was also impressed with the way in which the minister listened to what I'm sure he would say, and certainly what I would say, was a searching analysis of the legislation and the program by the member for North Island. I thought that the minister paid him a good deal of attention and listened. I'm sure he's not going to agree with everything that was said, but I would be surprised if he didn't comment on some of the points made.

I think this is also to his credit: I noticed that he did not pay very much attention to the fawning bootlicking exhibited by the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie); there wasn't anything to listen to. I noted that, and that's to his credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. We must maintain parliamentary decorum.

MR. STUPICH: I thought I was, but I'll leave it to you to remind me if the need arises.

One concern expressed by the member for North Island was that people who don't need help will also get help from this program. I too have some of those concerns. I believe some of the columnists suggested that people who do not now have mortgages might go out and mortgage their houses and use the money for some investment plan. I don't know whether the regulations will prohibit that sort of thing from happening. I have some concern that some people who don't now own residences — perhaps they're renting apartments, as I am — might decide that this would be a good opportunity to go out and buy a residence, knowing that the interest on at least the first $60,000 is going to be subsidized down to 12 percent, and gambling, as the minister indicated, that in some three to four years when it comes time for me to pay that money back, conditions will have improved, interest rates will have dropped, and they will then be able to drop that piece of property on the market and pick up a nice, tidy bundle of profit. Perhaps that could happen; perhaps the minister is not concerned about that happening, but I have some concern about the abuses that may enter into this.

Again, I haven't seen the regulations and am not sure what they are, but it seems to me that that's one possible abuse. Somebody might go out and buy a house, with a view to getting cheap financing for some three to four years, in the hope that the property will increase in value in that period and that they'll then be able to make a tidy sum at public expense. Whatever is said about it being a loan, there is a cost to the public for this program; the minister admitted that in his remarks. It is interest-free money for four years. Certainly the public purse is paying part of the cost of this. Some individuals may take advantage of it unless there are sufficient safeguards.

There are people who do need help. The good part of the program is that some of them are going to get help. I'm concerned about some of the suggestions made about what people might do with the money they get. For example, I'm

[ Page 9248 ]

concerned that right now the government is bargaining with government employees. They are being persuaded to take no increase, or a very nominal increase, in their take-home pay. One of the things that might encourage some of them to do this is the knowledge that they're at least going to get some help with their mortgage payments for a three- to four-year period. So it will be easier for them to get by, getting less of an increase in pay at this particular time, knowing that they're going to get help from the government if they have a mortgage on their home, help from the government to meet their living expenses today, and hoping, along with the minister, that when the day of reckoning comes, interest rates will have dropped. If interest rates haven't dropped — and there's always that possibility — then those people who decided that they can get along with less income today in the knowledge that the government is going to subsidize their living for some three to four years are going to have a lot of trouble when that day of reckoning comes. I do have that concern. Not just government employees, but desperate people who are not getting by now — who are surviving but are not really getting by on their incomes — are going to use this interest-free loan that's arriving once a month simply to live on.

When the day of reckoning comes, they'll find it very difficult to finance a larger mortgage or combination of mortgages, because the minister has said that in the event they are not able to pay it off, in the event that they can't add it on to their existing mortgage, then — and I believe this is what he said — the government itself will loan them the funds necessary to repay the money that was loaned to them interest-free. So I have that worry. A lot of people who are going to enter the program, take advantage of it, and who need the money for living right now, will find themselves in a pretty desperate situation in some three to four years — unless, as the minister hopes, and as we all hope, interest rates do drop significantly.

People will receive help — and this applies to everybody only in the event that interest rates stay up. Now the minister might say that if interest rates drop down to 12 percent, they don't need help, so it's no problem. But in offering what has been described as an election bribe at this time, the minister.... Mr. Speaker, the minister raised his eyebrows. He was not the one who described it as an election bribe. I don't think he'll deny that it is, in part. Nevertheless, in offering this election bribe at this time, remember that people are going to get contributions, interest-free loans, only if there is that difference between their mortgage rate and the 12 percent figure. If their mortgage rate drops, then they don't get any money. So it may be a very short-term thing, because the minister has expressed his confidence over and over that interest rates are going to drop. So in saying that he's going to give people interest-free grants, once a month for three years, he's hoping that he will not have to continue that any longer than a year. I certainly hope that happens as well. We all hope that interest rates drop and that it will not be necessary to subsidize payments down to the 12 percent figure. It might not happen.

If the interest rates do stay up high for three years, then the people who are getting this interest-free money from the government are going to do quite well, thank you, from the government. Then they'll benefit again if, after the end of that three-year period, and before the time of renewing their mortgage — or, say, after three years and 11 months.... They'll get the maximum benefit if interest rates stay up to at least 18 percent for three years and 11 months, and then drop down to 12 percent at the end of the fourth year. That's the ideal situation from the point of view of the person who is getting this interest-free handout from the government. It's a pretty ideal situation, and I doubt very much that that is going to happen.

One of two things is going to happen. Either interest rates are going to stay up and people are going to get all kinds of money, and at the end of the fourth year, they'll still be high and they'll be faced with a very difficult job of refinancing their entire mortgage or a combination of mortgages, or interest rates are going to start dropping in the interim as they have already, and people will not be getting nearly as much of this interest-free money as they see in their eyes now when they look at this program. They see the figures now and they think that for three years they're going to be getting all that money. It just might not happen that way.

The minister said that we had to have a cutoff somewhere. Interest rates might not drop. Interest rates might go even higher than 18 percent. So to protect the government, the government had to have a cutoff figure. Mr. Speaker, what about the people who need help? Surely the government is interested primarily in those who really need this kind of help to meet their current high-interest mortgages. In the event that interest rates do exceed 18 percent, they are going to be even more desperate. Their need is going to be even greater. If the minister and the government are so convinced in their minds that interest rates are going to drop rather than go up, then why not gamble a little bit on the fact that they might indeed go up? Why not offer that kind of psychological protection now to the people who are entering into this program? Why not say: "Look, this program is designed to help you. It will bring your interest rates down to an effective 12 percent regardless of what happens to mortgage interest rates"? Why put that 18 percent limit in there when that's really cutting off the people who are going to need the help most desperately? I would urge the minister to consider dropping that upper limit on it.

The minister said that there's widespread interest. That in itself would tell him that there is need for this program. Certainly some of the interest must be coming from people who are wondering if they can take some advantage of it, who don't really need the help. But there are a lot of people out there who need the help. Even though the minister's predecessor in that office kept telling us, time after time, that not many people were having their homes foreclosed, nevertheless we know this is happening and that others are hanging on tooth and nail, hoping for some assistance and hoping that something is going to turn around. Yet a lot of them must be getting near the point of losing their homes.

The minister said that the people getting these interest-free loans will be spending the money in the community. That is good. Certainly what we need is some economic activity in the province. Certainly what small business needs is for people around the province to have more money to spend. That can't help but be a positive effect. The individuals getting it, worrying about paying it back in four years, may be hurt down the road. But the total effect of putting more money out into the community, however it is done, is bound to have a good effect and to help the economy of the province.

The member for North Island raised the question about those people who can't qualify for a mortgage in the first place. This helps people who need help, it helps people who don't need help, but it doesn't help some people who need help and don't have the financial resources or income levels

[ Page 9249 ]

that would qualify them for the mortgage in the first place. There's nothing in this program to help those people who are just below the limit of qualifying.

I don't know whether the mortgages are controlled in any way: that is, that they have to be with some independent third party — through banks, trust companies or some such organization. Does it allow for private mortgages? Because there are a lot of private mortgages out there. There could be a lot more under this program. It's quite conceivable that some people might enter into arrangements at relatively high interest rates, even though the market rate is dropping, and get funding from private sources at high interest rates, get the government to help meet that differential and pocket the difference between them. This is one of the abuses that just might happen. I don't know.

We're dealing with the problem not just of homeownership, but of accommodation in total. The member for North Island raised the question about those who simply can't qualify for a mortgage. He also raised the problem of those who are paying more rent than they can afford to pay. Unfortunately, we're not dealing, in this legislation.... Perhaps I'm going beyond the bounds of this legislation. I urge the minister to give some consideration not just to the problem of home ownership. We have to go beyond that, and think about accommodation in total, and come up with some kind of program — at taxpayers' expense, because this is certainly at taxpayers' expense — that will help not only those who want to acquire a home of their own, but those who are renting.

A lot of people are renting in this province. Some choose and some don't have the choice. A lot of those people who are renting are paying much too high a proportion of their income for their rental accommodation. I urge the minister to consider that problem, perhaps not today, but in future legislation.

I started by making some reference to electioneering. I think, even in the figure of three years' interest-free loan with four years to pay it back.... Do those figures mean anything to you, Mr. Speaker? Elections normally come in the province somewhere between the third and fourth year. Aren't we saying to some of these people: "Come and get this interest-free money — on the eve of the next election campaign. If things are really tough we'll come up with a new program to help you in the event that you vote us back into office again." It seems to me that it's a rather cynical approach to the whole thing. It does leave the door open to the minister and government being accused of a cynical approach to electioneering in bringing this in now when the need is not nearly as great as it has been in periods over the last six years. But there is the new need for the government of the day to have some program to take to the people of the province.

The member for North Island did say that as long as it helps one person in the province, then the legislation has to be supported. People who don't need it are going to get help; that's unfortunate. People who need it, but can't qualify, are not going to get help; that is unfortunate. But there are a lot of people out there in the community who are hurting and need help. They are going to get at least some temporary assistance from this program.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm at the point of winding up, but now that the Speaker himself has resumed his chair, it's my first opportunity to address him in that position. I was going to say: "Congratulations." I was told some time ago that congratulations are something you offer to someone who has won something; you offer best wishes to someone when you're really hoping the best for him, in spite of the fact that he got a job that he wasn't actively seeking. Mr. Speaker, I wish you best wishes. From the beginning of the session, particularly the first day, I thought I should have done that even earlier. I sincerely do wish you best wishes in that position. I naturally wish you a short tenure in office, but while you are there I do offer my best wishes.

With respect to the program, any program at all that helps people who are needy we will support. It's not the program we would have brought in. We would have preferred that the program did not help the people who don't need help. We would have preferred that it offered more help to those who need it. We would have preferred that it offered help to those who can't qualify for mortgages. We would have preferred that it offered assistance to those who are paying a higher proportion of their income in rent than they can really afford to pay. But it's something, and because it is something, because it will help some people, I join with the member for North Island in saying that we will support it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I too haven't had the opportunity of congratulating you on your election to the speakership of this Legislature. However, I am pleased to see you there and I'm sure you will do a good job.

The member for Nanaimo, who just took his seat, was talking about the length of this particular mortgage-interest relief program. He talked about it being three to four years — three years with a fourth repayment-privilege schedule — and was a bit cynical about that particular time-frame, suggesting that it had something to do with politics, that elections were held in British Columbia every three to four years. I am sure he recognizes that we're in a period of short-term mortgages in British Columbia at this time. A mortgage of one year is deemed to be a long-term mortgage today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, in this day and age it's very difficult to get a mortgage that is beyond one year, unless you're prepared to pay a substantial premium. What we are essentially doing by this legislation is creating some stability over a relatively lengthy period of time for those homeowners who need relief. I don't know whether that member for Nanaimo is suggesting that that mortgage relief program should be for one year, two years or what. We've picked three years as being an appropriate time to offer this relief. I'm glad to see the mortgage relief program here. I worked for some time on a mortgage relief program, and I'm glad to see that the new minister was able to introduce it, roughly about two weeks after he came into office — two weeks being a significant time-frame.

MR. COCKE: So you're taking the credit.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not taking the credit. I didn't put the program in. But it's a continuation of some work that was started some time ago.

The member for North Island talks about no programs, that there were no initiatives and no desire for people to build housing in British Columbia. The year that this little minister

[ Page 9250 ]

was in charge of housing in British Columbia.... There were more housing starts in 1981 than ever before in the history of this province — 41,585 homes were built in British Columbia in 1981. Between 25 and 30 percent of all the housing starts in Canada were right here in British Columbia. And you suggest that we didn't have the policies to encourage people to build homes in British Columbia? You're talking through your hat when you suggest that.

The member for North Island also talks about the fact that we didn't build any handicapped housing in British Columbia. Last year was a banner year. Last year there were 200 units of housing put in place for those people, for mentally and physically disabled people in this province, four times the number ever put in place in previous years. We have a history in British Columbia of providing about 50 units of housing per year for handicapped people. Last year, under this little minister, when he was in Lands, Parks and Housing, there were 200 units of housing put in place for the handicapped. You suggest nothing was done?

I'm sure members of the opposition have had an opportunity to review some of the policies. I put it in a small booklet form so that they could apprise themselves of the various programs there were in place that would help people get into their own homes or acquire land for housing in British Columbia. Another major step that was taken just a year ago was the increasing of the second mortgage from $5,000 to $10,000 for people who have not had any help before from that program. We effectively reduced the interest rate from 21 percent to 15 percent for the second mortgages, making the second-mortgages program in British Columbia the lowest-interest second mortgage in Canada. No other province has a program that is more responsible as far as interest rates on second mortgages are concerned than here in British Columbia.

British Columbia has always been a province where there's strong support for home ownership. Roughly 60 percent of British Columbians own their own homes. This B.C. home program will give people a three-year breathing space. It's available to all homeowners in British Columbia, and rightfully so. Any program that is brought in by government should not discriminate against any particular segment of society. This program allows the 350,000 homeowners in British Columbia to qualify and participate and will be of immense help to them. It will help those who have been concerned about high interest rates. There are some people in this province who have felt compelled to list their homes for sale because of the fear of what the interest rates would be at the time of renewal of their mortgages. Some have listed their homes, and the homes are not selling. Needless to say, there's some fear and apprehension among that group of citizens in this province. This program will ensure that if their home is not sold or if they don't want to sell their home, they do have some relief over a three-year period of time in which they can continue to own their own home.

This program also provides help for those who want to buy a home in British Columbia. Along with this mortgage relief program for the three-year period, there is also the first home grant from the federal government of $3,000 and the first-home family grant in British Columbia of $2,500. That's $5,500 available for those people who want to build their first home. Combined with this 12 percent mortgage relief package, it is now possible for some people to either purchase an existing home or construct a new home in this province. There are spinoff benefits as well which were touched on by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie.) He elaborated more than I will; nevertheless, the spinoff benefits are the jobs that this program will generate. Mr. Speaker, I'm a strong supporter of this legislation because it is a good and positive measure. It will be one step towards economic recovery in this province. I support this legislation because it's going to help so many British Columbians.

MR. HALL: I like the ex-minister's enthusiasm for his portfolio, now that he's left it. If he had only shown that enthusiasm when he had the portfolio, we would have been applauding him all the way. If he had burned as much midnight oil in the year he was there as this minister has burned in the last two days, I would have applauded him all the way. The trouble is, I think this minister has been burning the midnight oil for the last two days just signing election addresses and sending out the brochures that we, on this side of the House, don't have yet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll send you one.

MR. HALL: Thank you. Would you send one over by a Page? Then I can know what the program is. The members of the gallery will be interested to know that we're debating this bill, not yet law, about mortgage assistance for the people of British Columbia. The official opposition do not have the brochures that are going out in the next election campaign, while the people on the other side of the House already have them on their desks. That's the kind of thing that gets the second member for Surrey — one of the soon to be three members for Surrey, and they will all be on the same side of the House, and it'll be that side — a shade exercised.

Bill 79 is an election bill; make no mistake about that. It's more to shelter Social Credit electoral hopes than it is to shelter B.C. citizens; there is no denying that. It's going to help some people. Analysts — we have them all on record from the financial pages of our daily newspapers — point out that it will help a number of people. We're going to support it because of that.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to help people in a mortgage plan, it's not a very difficult thing to do once you've decided to pluck up your courage and send some money — it's got to be taxpayers' money — on a trip. You have to pluck up your courage, get a computer and some mathematicians and decide how much and at what rate you're going to send the money on a trip, because the money is going to come back. Any mortgage expert will tell you that eventually that plan will cook like my grandmother's old roast beef used to cook in the oven — a dripping roast will cook itself.

We've now got this new expression called "off-budget money." I used to debate finance bills with the father of the present Premier, and he had all sorts of expressions for different kinds of money. Contingent liabilities — that was debt. Now we've got off-budget money. That's money, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Finance's picture on it instead of the Queen's. It's nonsense, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? You know it's nonsense and I know it's nonsense, but we'll pretend it's really serious. It's going to be borrowed, it's going to be debt, and we all know when we read the bill, as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) says, that it comes out of consolidated revenue. So it's as much off-budget as the whole damn budget was off-budget when we knew it was in April.

This is part of a package put together since July 29 for the survival of Social Credit. We've been here a week, and this is

[ Page 9251 ]

the first part of any legislation at all that's got the slightest, remotest connection with economic recovery or assistance to anybody other than the government itself in survival at the election next time we go to the polls.

It was the same last year when we had this little session. We got telegrams last year telling us the public interest demanded our attention here, and we all came racing in looking for an economic plan. This year you didn't even send us a telegram. You sent us a letter and three days' notice that the public interest demanded we come here, and we spent a week learning how to carve the new electoral boundaries.

This plan, Mr. Speaker, will help some people. In my view it's too late for the government to try to take the credit it's trying to take. It should have been brought in when interest rates were at those obscene heights of six or seven months ago. If it's going to help anybody at all now — and we think it's going to help a few — it would have helped that many more when the interest rates were in the 22, 23, and 24 percent range. As I say, we've got this new expression of "off-budget money."

On the way to the ferry the other morning, I tuned into CKNW, Mr. Warren Barker's morning viewpoint. He said he was cynical enough to believe that the repayment program was indeed scheduled for the election after next. Not the words of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) but those of Mr. Warren Barker, CKNW: no government would ever call the debt three years down the road. It will be part of another election package in 1985, 1986 or whatever. The next election will be after the one that we're waiting for any day now.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's socialist accounting.

MR. HALL: That was the view expressed by the media one day this week when I was driving to the ferry. That's the kind of cynicism that this government has already introduced in the media by this kind of electioneering while we've been here debating Bill 80 instead of getting on with an economic survival program.

In addition, may I say, as I go through this bill, that I was astounded to see in the regulations section, as was mentioned by the member for North Island — subsection 2(f) — which seeks to suggest that regulation can define, enlarge and restrict words and expressions that are used in the act. I don't know whether that's an example of the privatization of the Attorney-General's department and the legislative counsel that's been going on, where we now have private companies working for the government drafting legislation, working for them in a legal way that we raised in question period. It seems to me that that has appeared in our legislation before; regulations cannot seek to draw onto themselves powers that don't exist in the act at all.

The minister's remarks, of course, were of more than passing interest when he introduced the press to the bill. I think they were, while not as great and foolish a mistake as the one made by, say, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), when he said that he knew nothing about the environment when he was first sworn in, or as the various remarks made by my colleague from Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) from time to time — gaffes of unfortunate consequence.... For this minister, new though he is, to have made the statement that he doesn't really mind if this interest-free mortgage money goes to buy cars, because it helps the car dealer, shows a mindset that I think is rather unfortunate. If he'd have said that they could have bought furniture or some other kind of equipment for the house — food, or paid some bills or something — that's one thing, but the mindset over there for car dealers and cars comes through every time. It's Freudian and clinical.

While I know the minister will not take too much umbrage at me reminding him of it, that really was a gaffe. I hope, now that the ribbing is obviously over in cabinet and elsewhere, that you don't make another one like that.

MR. LEA: He will.

MR. HALL: No, he won't, because he won't have enough time.

The trouble with the bill, as we on this side see it, is simply that it's not part of an overall plan for housing. That's due to a different approach to the problem. That's due to a different philosophy, if you like, a different list of priorities, a different thrust or a different background — whatever differences there are between us. That's fair enough. I'm sure the minister knows that. There's no gain saying that those differences will always be there.

What it does is to underscore that when you don't have a Minister of Housing, when you're the only province without an agency simply for the building of homes, for cooperating with builders, for cooperating with cooperators, for cooperating with developers and for developing a strategy, then, of course, you are going to get these piecemeal approaches. If we don't have a strategy that's worked out in concert with agencies in local government for housing development, then we are going to get these differences of policy between a group of people on this side of the House who believe that housing is much more important in the scheme of things than does the group on that side of the House. That's fair enough.

The pump-priming effect and the opportunities that are there for an aggressive minister and ministry of housing, in concert with al of the agencies we know about, is really a failed opportunity in this province at this time.

We've got architects who win prizes and builders who win recognition, but we don't have imaginative proposals on any basis at all in those sectors of the housing market that need stimulus or money supply. We just don't have those kinds of imaginative proposals coming from this government. When I go, as I do, perhaps as frequently as anybody and more than most, to help open cooperative units in my riding in Surrey, the missing factor is always the provincial government. We have not seen an attempt by the provincial government to assist municipalities south of the river, for instance, with the infilling problems that you, Mr. Speaker, and I know about so well: north Delta, in your riding, and north Surrey, in my riding, where the rapidly burgeoning, developing urban areas have left five-acre and three-acre lots behind that need attention, surrounded by bureaucratic red tape and regulation, owned by old people who think that that five-acre or three-acre lot is their pension, but who are now unable to do anything about it. There are no imaginative proposals — not from this minister; obviously he's had no time to do it. He probably could do it if he put his mind to it. There were none from the minister before him and none from the minister before him. That's what's required in the rapidly burgeoning areas of north Surrey, north Delta, etc.

With this bill, of course, there could have been a companion bill — no foreclosures. Why not? What's good enough for Manitoba and Saskatchewan should have been good enough for B.C. The protection afforded the citizens of Manitoba and

[ Page 9252 ]

Saskatchewan could have been afforded the citizens of British Columbia — that's missing.

What we must avoid at all costs is another AHOP disaster. I hope the minister will assure us that we will avoid another AHOP disaster, with people walking away from these problems. I don't want to see a continuation of the problems in the Surrey area — not providing adequate housing for the people in that area.

Of course, the other thing it doesn't do is take into account that there's more.... The ex-minister said 60 percent of our population own their own home, or have a contract to own their own home. Of course, that varies from place to place within the province. A great many people are renting who would like to buy, to get into accommodation which we could perhaps euphemistically call starter houses. No imaginative proposals have been put forward there.

In summary, this plan may increase some sales. It's doubtful if it will increase the starts. We had some selective statistical reading by the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) about starts in 1981. I would have liked him to have given us a figure for finishes, remembering all the MURB and holes in the ground. While this bill will help some people, I don't think it will give the housing industry a shot in the arm for new construction. That really means it's another opportunity that we've not fully grasped and taken advantage of.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I join others in congratulating you; perhaps I should be commiserating. Certainly I can't speak for the others in this House, but you can always count on the member for Point Grey to uphold decorum and discipline in this House. Of course, no better example could have been given than yesterday.

We're looking to the future on this side of the House, not to the past. Therefore it's a great pleasure for me to be able to speak in favour of this bill, and to commend the opposition, who sometimes have been cast in the role of negative doubting people, for lending their support as well to this particular piece of legislation. I know that the member who just took his place is extremely glad that he was able to come back from Europe in time to speak in favour of this bill, to give it his support as well. I feel the same way. It was worth the trip. Who were left as the negative, doubting people on this particular piece of fair and forward-looking legislation? The only negative, doubting people that are left, as far as I can tell, are with the daily disaster, the Vancouver Sun, which has come out with a special report — "Mortgage plan could bring you lots of grief." A bill like this is, as the opposition points out, long overdue, given the punishing effects of high mortgage rates, something totally outside of the control of the government of British Columbia or even the government of Canada, though the government of Canada does have methods of escape from high interest rates that the province of British Columbia does not have. I think that all members in this House are aware of why crushing interest rates have suddenly been inflicted on the world like a plague. It's because the method of currency-control, which must lie principally with the United States — because the American dollar is the closest thing we have to world currency today — has been let escape because of the increase in payments abroad for OPEC oil. I've spoken in this House before about the crushing effects that OPEC has brought on the economy of the western world.

As America tries to repatriate its own currency and, in effect, maintain control of what is the world's only currency, they do it by the mechanism of increasing interest rates. In order to retain capital, Canada, Western Europe and most other nations with extensive investment possibilities must also increase the interest rates in order to hold their currencies. We've had to do that in Canada, and as we do so, little people — helpless people — are the ones caught in that vicious crunch. These are the ones that own modest homes, have mortgages and suddenly, through no fault of their own, are placed at an enormous economic disadvantage compared with their fellow citizens who may have got further along the road in the most important purchase of their life, which is their personal castle, their home. So it's entirely fair and appropriate that individuals who have been injured by world political events that have reflected upon massive currency moves around the world should be sheltered and protected to the extent that a provincial government, powerless to act against the larger forces in the world, can nevertheless bring forward legislation to shelter its own citizens who have been hardest hit by this international plague.

We could look to the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to give us more realistic predictions on the banks and interest rates and those sorts of things, but it's our feeling, subject to confirmation by the member for Vancouver Centre, that interest rates will come down. That's of little consequence to the average citizen who must face the mortgage rates of today, who attempts to do some forward planning, not knowing what the renegotiated rate might be tomorrow and whether that will fit in with his own paycheque. Financial planning is impossible for the ordinary citizen, in matters such as the purchase of a home for people of limited means. This interest-rate subsidization gives a degree of certainty in an uncertain world to those citizens most punished, most afflicted by this international plague, and therefore most in need. In time, the world's monetary system will recover. Hopefully, the OPEC cartel will be broken. Hopefully, Canada will shield itself by switching from oil to natural gas. I don't want to stray from the principle of the bill, but these things are all interrelated, Mr. Speaker. The first and most important step that we can take is to provide this degree of financial certainty at little cost to the taxpayer, but at great social benefit to the province.

Some might say that one group of citizens is being particularly privileged compared with others, because this subsidy is not directed at those who are wealthy or own their own homes. That's untrue, Mr. Speaker. This subsidy is being directed at those in need, in exactly the same fashion that you make medical and hospital facilities available to the ill. They're put there for everybody, but only those in need will need to take advantage at any particular time.

This is legislation of high social benefit, of low cost to the treasury, and is the kind of thing governments should always be prepared to do. As one who is voting in favour of it, I'd particularly like to commend the opposition on their wisdom and desire to help out the people of the province in the same way.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm glad the member who just spoke is engaged in neurological research and not in economics, mathematics or anything else. I guess he should really be engaged in some kind of wishful, fantasy-fulfilling role, evidenced by the optimistic attitude that he brought to this

[ Page 9253 ]

new B.C. home program. The program will help some people. The program will certainly help people who can manage the mortgage payments that they're already making.

Let's look at who it's going to help and how it's going to help people. This plan is only going to help people if mortgage interest rates remain high. If they come down to 12 percent, this program is not going to be needed. That's pretty obvious.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) agrees with me on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I won't argue with that, either.

MR. NICOLSON: And the minister agrees.

Some of the members on the opposite side have predicted a drop in interest rates. But some of those same members have been predicting an increase in U.S. housing starts for the last two or three years. They've been predicting that U.S. housing starts would go back up to normal and that lumber exports would go back up to normal. Indeed, in the last budget — only last April — we were being told that. You talk about off-budget items. I was reminded by my colleague as he spoke about an off-budget item, and how far the budget could be off. A now predicted $1.7 billion is how off-budget we are in this province. However, this money is supposed to come from off-budget items.

I come back to this premise that people will get the maximum benefit from the program in a worst-case scenario; that is, that interest rates remain very high. The people who can benefit the most under that worst-case scenario are those who can afford to make their payments. A person who can afford to make payments is going to get, based on an 18 percent mortgage, with a differential of 6 percent being the full difference between a 12 percent and 18 percent rate.... If that mortgage is at the maximum amount allowed under these regulations, which I guess have been passed by some order-in-council — they're printed up in a little leaflet now, but they are not in the act — it means this will be a $60,000 principal, and that for the first three years you'll get about $280 a month.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, no. It's going to be quite a bit. By the end of three years you would receive $9,392, according to the article by Mike Grenby, which is my starting point. I take some of the ideas brought out by Mike Grenby in his article a little further.

You then have an interest-free loan for the fourth year, so you have a total of $9,392 for the full fourth year. One could say that the average principal you would possess for the first three years is $4,696, the principal during the fourth year would be $9,392 and the weighted average for the principal over the four years would be some $5,870. So a person who continues to make his full mortgage payments by taking advantage of this would have that much money at his or her disposal.

MS. BROWN: To buy a car.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, to buy a car, or maybe to invest.

Let's assume that interest rates do stay constant at 18 percent throughout this period. That money could be invested at short-term rates. If mortgage rates were at 18 percent, it might be safe to say that short-term rates might be at about 14 percent, which means the person could realize in simple interest about $3,287 — say $3,000. So that would be the kind of a return that a person could have by investing that average principal for four years at a rate of 14 percent. I haven't bothered to compound it, but that could be done. It would make it a little bit higher than $3,200. I haven't done that because it would be a little bit difficult to invest it every month, as the cheques came in, and there'd be a little bit of slippage, so what you'd make up one way you would lose the other, so say roughly $3,000.

I've talked to various people about this plan so far and I've advised people that are fairly well off, that aren't having any trouble with their mortgage payments, that if their mortgage payments go over 12 percent, by all means they should take advantage of this program, But make sure you invest the money and that you're in a position to pay it back at the end, because if you can't pay it back at the end, and if your income does not allow you to get financing.... I see the government says that they will provide some kind of a repayment program, but the government provides in this act that they will have a charge against the title of your property, which really means that the government has the right to foreclose or take your property away if you can't pay back.

MR. RITCHIE: Come on, Lorne. You know better than that.

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly do know better. I know why that provision is in there; I know why it was in the home acquisition act. But let's not ignore the fact that that particular item is there and that what we are playing with here is something very dangerous.

Now I want to talk about the person who is having difficulty making payments and who might be looking at this thing as some kind of a saviour. If a person is going to have to use this plan, interest rates are going to have to stay over 12 percent. Had that person been paying off his mortgage, the reduced principal at the end of four years would have been $59,188; in other words, part of that principal on a $60,000 mortgage would have been paid off. By taking advantage of the maximum loan of $9,385, there would now be a new principal, and the principal would be $68,573. The principal would no longer be $60,000. It would be $68,573 that's owed. This was a 25-year mortgage — four years have gone by — so there would now be 21 years left to pay. You would have to compute new monthly payments at 18 percent to still pay off in the same time period. From the available mortgage tables, per thousand dollars for a 21-year mortgage, it costs $14.86493 per month; in other words, multiplying that by 68.573 would give you a monthly payment of $1,019.29 when the person was originally paying about $879.83. On a payment of $1,019.29, if he's having to make that kind of payment, and if we think that his original loan was only $60,000 and that he really would have had it paid off a little bit down to $59,188, the effective rate of that over a 21-year period is 21.12 percent. In other words, the person is going to have to pay more than 3 percent of the assumed market mortgage rate for the remaining 21 years of the mortgage. In order to get 6 percent mortgage interest relief for three years, and then a free payback on the loan for one more year, which

[ Page 9254 ]

adds up to an average loan of about $5,800 at the maximum case — an average loan, because you don't have a total loan.... No one can say that you have a loan of $9,000 for four years; it's an average weighted loan of about $5,800. In order to get that 6 percent interest relief for three years — you then have to go back to paying at full rate, but you don't have to pay back the benefit until the end of the fourth year — you are going to face an increase in the effective interest rate of over 3 percent for the remaining 21 years.

This sounds like the athlete or the entertainer who injects a foreign substance into the body in order to get a little bit of a high, a little bit of an edge, for a very short term, but who has to pay a long-term price for that. It is something that people are going to have to enter into on the soundest advice. For people who presently have a 16 percent mortgage — and the amount of the principal of the mortgage might even be beyond the maximum amount; it might be a $100,000 mortgage — and if they're making their payments, I say, sure, take advantage of the program. But if you desperately need this assistance to put bread and meat on the table, then I pray that your financial position and your fortunes improve tremendously in the next three years, because you're going to need it. It might be okay for a couple, both of whom are attending university, and they can see their fortunes on an upturn in the next few years. It might be okay for a young optometrist who is kind of heavily in debt in the first two or three years of his practice, but who can see his practice bringing in a much better rate of return in three years.

It can help some people. For that reason I will support this bill, but I will also make it my duty to warn people of the pitfalls of the choices, and to urge the government to do something better. If this is the least the government can do, then I will have to support this least the government can do. I believe the government could do better. I believe that this particular piece of legislation is not going to stimulate housing starts in a meaningful, way, as claimed on this side of this piece of literature. When the full force and effect of this piece of legislation comes through, I think it will be seen for what it is: something that must be entered upon like a marriage, with much thought and consideration. It is a very serious step, because this payback is going to be your partner for 21 years if you have an average type of a mortgage, if you have a typical case mortgage, and if this thing really does turn out to help anybody. If mortgage rates remain at 18 percent, if a person is starting off in a 25 percent mortgage, then you are going to be wedded to an extra 3 percent on your mortgage payback for 21 years — after you've had a nice honeymoon of four years.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to take this opportunity to rise and speak briefly in favour of this forward thinking, imaginative legislative program which has been introduced by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet.)

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've listened to members of the opposition, and frankly, I am startled at the narrow view which they are taking of this program. In the course of their remarks, however, it is clear that while they have been referred to as negative doubting people in the past, that should be changed. They are not only negative, not only doubting, but also pessimistic about the future of this province. Of course, if you want to look at the present economic circumstances in which we find ourselves with a pessimistic attitude, then of course it can produce the kind of debate — if that's the term — that we're receiving from the members of the opposition.

I'm surprised at the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who has just taken his seat. In the opening part of his remarks he made a suggestion with respect to this bill which indicates that he doesn't understand that there are people out there in the province who need a little help. He says: "Well, of course, if the interest rates come down, then it's no help at all." That's like saying to a person who has broken his or her leg that while the leg was broken, you needed a cast, but after the leg was mended you didn't need it; therefore the cast is of no value. I don't understand how mixed up that member can be.

MR. LEA: He said you don't put the cast on after the leg is mended.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's exactly what he said. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) understands how ridiculous the member for Nelson-Creston is. The member for Nelson-Creston just said if your leg is not broken, you don't need a cast. I agree with that. And the member for Prince Rupert in all of his wisdom understands that. Now if he understands that, perhaps he will understand some other things about this program.

The member for Nelson-Creston said that all those people who are rich will take advantage of it. Now he says the interest rates are going to go down. So what advantage is there if you're rich? You can get a maximum of 6 percent interest relief on $60,000. He's given you the figure — $280 per month. If you're wealthy and you put a mortgage on your house and get this interest advantage, you get $280 per month which you could put into the bank. If you go to the bank today you'll get, if you're very lucky, about 14.5 percent. So this wealthy person is going to go into this program for the purpose of gaining a point and a half — 1.5 percent. The member has already indicated that there'll be slippage so there'll be less advantage than 1.5 percent. That will be what will accrue to you. Plus the fact — and he seems to have ignored this — that if you go through this process and take advantage of this program when you don't need it, you will have to pay income tax on the interest income that you receive. So if you're very rich, that will cut that in half. If you go through all this process, the total benefit will be about one half of 1 percent on $60,000. Now that's a tremendous bonanza for people who are wealthy.

Mind you, in this House there are some people who will take advantage of it for that purpose. I wouldn't like to suggest that it'll be the opposition, but they've got all these ideas and therefore I have to think that they are alert for investment opportunities in this province today. Those members over there know how to make a buck; they know how to take advantage of all these programs, because I would never have thought of such a scheme.

The other thing he suggested is that people will take advantage of this program and they'll use the $280 per month to buy a car or a boat or maybe take a trip to California. I guess that now that the Leader of the Opposition has come back from California, California needs the assistance, so they'll send somebody else in his place. I just want the NDP to go out into their constituencies, if they dare, and say to all

[ Page 9255 ]

those people: you mustn't take advantage of this program because you're going to buy a boat or a car. Ridiculous!

The program is designed to provide an umbrella, a measure of protection, against the high interest rates with which we are presently faced. The hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has dealt with the reason for this, and the fact that there are homeowners out there who are faced with this problem; it's something that they can't solve. The government is saying that to the extent that we are able, we are prepared to provide you with a significant measure of relief over three years, because this government, in being in control of what's taking place in the economy of this province, is satisfied that three years hence, circumstances will improve, wages and earnings will have increased, and then those people will be able to meet the payments.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I hear the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) chirping out. That wealthy member, who lives in Point Grey and never goes into Vancouver East, doesn't have these problems, because his house on the waterfront in Vancouver — I forget how much it's worth; it's just tremendous — hasn't got a mortgage on it. It's all paid for. So he doesn't have these worries. Maybe he's one of the rich people who will take advantage of the program so he can get the one-half of 1 percent on $60,000. He's a silk-purse socialist. He chivvies in this thing....

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, is this really the Attorney-General of British Columbia who's discussing the mortgage bill? I can't believe it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order with respect to the minister's portfolio; it is a point of order with respect to relevancy. I would remind all hon. members taking their place in debate that we must be relevant to the bill, Bill 79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank you for redirecting my attention, Mr. Speaker, because that member had distracted me.

I was about to say that the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) said that this wasn't going to do anything for the housing industry. One of the problems that afflicts the housing industry today is low sales. One of the reasons that the sales are low is that there is a serious reluctance on the part particularly of young people to make this major business decision at a time when interest rates are high, and there is uncertainty about the future and what it will cost them if they get into this home. This program will resolve that problem because we will remove that uncertainty for a period of three years. Therefore young people who are looking at acquiring a home, whether it's a new home or an old home — the person who occupies the old home can then move into a new home, so the housing stock begins to roll over again in this province; which helps the housing industry — will go in knowing that for three years, 12 percent is what they face. When you remove that uncertainty you remove the fear.

Members of the opposition said they have heard from their constituents about this program, and that they're worried about it. I've heard from my constituents as well, and I know that young couples who, because of uncertainty and fear about what the future might hold, have delayed making the decision about the acquisition of a home, are continuing with their young families in accommodation that is not appropriate for the size of their families. But with this program that fear is now removed. Sure, they appreciate that three years hence they'll have to pick up the load, but they're optimistic. They're not pessimistic like this opposition. They had the optimism to get married in the first place, the optimism to have a family in the first place, and they're optimistic about their future in this province. The opposition is not. The opposition would say to them, "Oh, no, it's going to be bad, bad, bad — unless you vote for the NDP."

But if they vote for the NDP, not only will they be offered the possibility that their mortgage will be deferred: they'll be offered the opportunity that British Columbia will go into deficit financing, and the whole cost of government will be deferred onto future taxpayers. That's the kind of opportunity they will offer. They don't seem to recognize that they would go into deficit financing and push the burden of cost to the future. Yet they won't support this program whereby for three years we say to the people: "Look, we'll give you a little bit of relief, but don't forget you are going to have to pay the bill." They're prepared to deficit finance. They're prepared to spend the money today against payment tomorrow, but they don't tell the people that tomorrow they're going to have to pay the bill. We're being fair to the people in this respect. If people don't want to take advantage of this program, that's their choice. We're giving them that choice. All the information is up front. They can make a business decision, knowing all the factors. That's not what the NDP would do to them.

When you acquire a house, whether it's your first or second, there are a lot of expenses that you never think about. I know of a recent case of a young couple who just acquired their first home. When you go in, you have to buy some drapes for the windows, a new garden hose which you've never had before; you may have to buy a lawn-mower or grass-rake, and all those little things that you never think about when you're setting up your first home. You make your down payment, pay the costs of the conveyance, pay the adjustments of taxes, water and so on, and get into your house, but suddenly you find that there are other significant expenses.

For those people, I'll tell you that the opportunity to have an additional $280 a month is a very significant factor in the first few years and months that they're in that new home — that little bit of additional money to spend for the things they need. The housewife may have to buy some new pots and pans, and they hadn't figured on those things. This weighs heavily upon these young people. Therefore we're giving them the opportunity not to buy cars, which is what the NDP thinks about.... I guess that's why they have their Mercedes Benz cars that we see them driving around in....

That's not what the young people in this province need or want. They're prepared to meet those extra costs and burdens associated with home ownership. This government, through this program, will release some of the pressures....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) please not to interrupt.

[ Page 9256 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This program will enable these people to have a little more expendable funds. Having met some of those obligations, I know that these young people who are optimistic about the future will treat this program intelligently and responsibly. If they can make all the payments called for under their mortgage or a major portion thereof, yes, they can take the additional money and put it into a bank account, because they're going to have to pay it back. Responsible, intelligent young people will do that. They won't, as the NDP would suggest, go out and spend the money foolishly and frivolously. That's not the kind of young people we have in our society today; that's the kind of young people that the NDP would like to suggest to you that we have in our province today. They had better go out and talk to their constituents. They better go out and understand that there are some people who, when given the opportunity by this government, will deal with it responsibly and intelligently.

MR. MACDONALD: You're a smear artist. You're a turncoat and you feel guilty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's unparliamentary to interrupt a member who has taken his place in debate, and I will commend that to all members of the House — the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and all of the members who are interrupting.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: My point of order relates to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). It's a well-known rule — and you need to enforce it on all sides of the chamber, not just one, Mr. Speaker — that when Mr. Speaker rises in his place everyone sits down. While you were on your feet, Your Honour, the Minister of Forests was wandering back and forth behind there paying scant, if any, attention to Your Honour. I draw that to Your Honour's attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. HOWARD: He's absconded as usual.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order was well taken. There were many interruptions while the Chairman stood, from both sides of the House; however, the movement and conversation did cease. The House is now in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry that my remarks have raised the emotions of the opposition. Perhaps I should just say to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that if anything was needed to convince me of the rightness of your program, it is the fact that when the program is clearly explained in this chamber the members of the opposition react in their usual way by alleging that we're slimy and sleazy and smearing people. They can't take the heat that your program is generating.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to not interrupt. Any further interruptions by any member will have to be dealt with.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I conclude, may I simply say that I do not consider it to be a slimy smear to refer to the young people of this province as intelligent and responsible.

MS. BROWN: We have just heard from the sleaze champion of that sleazy, corrupt, government over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please; parliamentary decorum must be maintained. We may express differences of opinion in debate, but please, personal allusions and language such as that are really quite unacceptable. I'm sure all members of the House are aware of parliamentary moderation and temperance of language.

MS. BROWN: In continuing on the bill, I just want to remind the House that that Attorney-General is the same one who has been cited on a number of occasions by the ombudsman for his obstructionist tactics in the delivery of justice in this province, for which he is supposed to be responsible. I also want to remind everyone listening that that Attorney-General is the one who has made a mockery of justice in this province as a result of some of his actions. I for one hope there is no truth to the rumour that he is seeking a judgeship, because God help justice in this province if he is ever elevated to the bench.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your guidance with regard to the principle of this bill. It seems to me the member who is on her feet is straying very widely from the principle of the bill before us, and I think that is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a valid point of order, one accepted, as a matter of fact, just a few minutes ago when the hon. second member for Vancouver East raised the same point of order. So it applies to all members of this assembly.

MS. BROWN: I don't know why it is that whenever a member over there uses the word "principle, " it always sounds so strange. Because obviously they don't know anything about principle. If there's one thing that government doesn't know anything about, it is principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill.

MS. BROWN: Back to the bill.

The Attorney-General, who, having delivered his diatribe, has now left the room, told us how helpful this bill is going to be to the people of his constituency. I want to tel I you something about the people of Burnaby-Edmonds who are not going to be helped by this bill. They are the unemployed people — the people who are the victims of the economic policies of that government over there who find themselves laid off and without a job, who are going to lose their homes

[ Page 9257 ]

because they have no income whatsoever to meet any kind of mortgage payment. They are not going to be helped by this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

A bill that would help those people would be a bill to create jobs in this province. That's the kind of legislation that would have been of help to them. The unemployed people of Burnaby-Edmonds would have been happier if this government had done something about creating employment and if this bill had dealt with protection against foreclosure, but neither of those two things have been done. Maybe this bill is going to be of great help to the residents of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. That's what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) told us. I'll tell you, the unemployed people in Burnaby-Edmonds, who are unemployed as a direct result of the economic policies of that government, are not going to be helped by this piece of legislation. That is one group that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) can be assured are not going to be taking the money, as he recommends, and going out and buying a used car from his friends.

Mr. Speaker, the second group who are not going to be helped by this bill are those people who can't qualify for mortgages in the first place. The people who most desperately need housing, who can't get housing because they can't qualify for housing, are not going to be able to get any benefits from this bill. I hope that when the Minister of Housing stands up to close debate on this issue he will explain to us why this legislation is supposed to help people who need housing, while this particular group are not taken into account. Why is it that those people in this province who cannot qualify for an 18 percent mortgage, and so are not able to afford housing, were not taken into account when this bill was being drafted? What about those people? They may not live in West Vancouver–Howe Sound, but certainly a large number of them live in Burnaby-Edmonds.

Mr. Speaker, what about the tenants of this province? The minister is interrupting. I can't hear what he's saying so I'm not going to pay any attention to it, because he's going to have his say, of course, once he rises to close debate. Incidentally, the other thing I want to know, when he's closing debate, is the cost to the taxpayers of B.C. for this piece of Social Credit pamphleteering. What is the cost of this to us, the cost of the Social Credit colours, with the Social Credit logo on it? What are we paying for this piece of political pamphleteering that the minister has on the desks of every member over there and which he has not released to the members of the opposition?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I sent it down to your caucus on Tuesday. What's happened is up there.

MS. BROWN: What happened to your courier service is the same as what happened between you and your Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). You go out and tell people to use the money to buy used cars. He stands up and says that that's not what people want to do with the money and accuses the opposition of suggesting that they use it to buy used cars. Why don't you have the guts to stand up and say that you were the one who said that the money should be used to buy used cars.

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

MS. BROWN: This is on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that, but would the hon. member remember to address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this year, in June specifically, the provincial rentalsman, Jim Patterson, pointed out in a public statement that an increasing number of tenants in British Columbia were defaulting and falling behind in their rent. He went on in great detail to explain that as a direct result of the kind of economic crisis which this province is going through, as a direct result of the economic policies of that government over there, tenants were not able to pay their rent. They were falling in arrears or they were just defaulting. They are not protected by this piece of legislation. There's nothing in this bill to help them. They don't qualify for an 18 percent mortgage, so they're not going to be able to go into first-time housing. There's nothing at all for them. They're not even mentioned, as far as this legislation is concerned.

Two-thirds of the units in Burnaby-Edmonds are not even covered by rent control. Most of the people in Burnaby-Edmonds are tenants. So if I'm not overjoyed and enthusiastic in my support of this bill, I think it should be understood that it is probably because I live in Burnaby-Edmonds and not in West Vancouver–Howe Sound. The Attorney-General went on and on at great length about how great it was for his constituents in West Vancouver–Howe Sound. It's not going to do that much for my constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds. Most of the people who live in Burnaby-Edmonds fall into a number of categories. They are tenants and so they get no benefits whatsoever from this particular piece of legislation. A large percentage of them find themselves unemployed, so they are not going to be benefited, because there is nothing in this bill to protect them against foreclosures. Now that point has been raised by other members of the opposition in speaking in support of this bill. Is the minister planning to amend this piece of legislation to protect people against foreclosures? It has been done in other provinces. Why was it not included in this particular piece of legislation if, as we are told, it's supposed to protect the homeowners of this province?

The third group are the first-time owners who can't qualify. On the off-chance that there is one person in Burnaby who is going to benefit by this bill, I am going to support it. Just on the off-chance that there is one single resident anywhere in British Columbia who is going to benefit from this piece of legislation, I am prepared to support the bill. But I don't want the minister to go out and make a public statement to the effect that I think this is a good bill, because as I pointed out to him, the people in most need are not going to have their needs met by this piece of legislation. It's not going to stimulate any new housing. Most of the people who want new housing don't qualify for an 18 percent mortgage. The young people that the Attorney-General was talking about don't qualify for an 18 percent mortgage. They're not making the kind of income that one has to make in order to qualify for an 18 percent mortgage, so they're not going to be rushing out and applying under this bill for the $60,000 over the three or four years to go out and start building themselves a new house. It's not going to be any help to them.

Certainly those people in the riding who have been laid off, who are unemployed as a result of this government's

[ Page 9258 ]

policies and have no income whatsoever, even to keep up their rent payments, are not going to benefit from this bill. What those people need are jobs. When we were called back here, Mr. Speaker, to debate the province's business, I thought we were going to be discussing ways and means of putting British Columbians to work. I thought this government had a plan for job creation. Instead of that, we spent the first number of days....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'll just finish my sentence and then move adjournment.

We spent most of our time talking about creating new seats for the next election and the rest of the time listening to the Attorney-General tell us how this piece of legislation is going to help the residents of West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

Mr. Speaker, the House Leader has indicated that if I move adjournment, the government is prepared to accept it. I so move.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Third reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1982

Bill 69 read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a member on his feet, rising under what provision?

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 49, Mr. Speaker, on the education cutbacks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the matter of standing order 49 was dealt with extensively yesterday, and the ruling of the Chair was that the proper time to introduce any motion under that standing order was at motions and adjourned debate on motions. This is not that time, hon. member, so the Chair cannot entertain the matter.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, since the matter is of such urgency, I ask leave of the House to introduce it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as indicated and as spelled out in written detail in Votes and Proceedings, which the member could glance at, you will see that the motion cannot be accepted by the Chair.

MR. LAUK: I ask leave that the rules be suspended so I can make a motion under standing order 49.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling yesterday clearly precludes the member from rising at this point under that standing order. The decision is well recorded. I would be happy to read the decision for the member, but I'm sure that he could find that on his own.

MR. LAUK: The opportunity for members under standing order 49 is contemplated for emergency situations where, with leave, a motion can be put to the Legislature. It's clear that these people don't want to argue about education programs for kids in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there are rules that guide our activities in this chamber, and those rules are well documented. If the member refers to the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, clearly he will find that outlined.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.