[ Page 9259 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Excess vegetable production. Mrs. Wallace –– 9259

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

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

Jem Productions films. Mrs. Dailly –– 9260

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

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

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9261

Mr. Barnes –– 9263

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9264

Mr. Macdonald –– 9265

Mrs. Jordan –– 9266

Mr. Mussallem –– 9268

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9269

Division –– 9272

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

On section 7 –– 9272

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Division on third reading –– 9272

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

Mr. Lauk –– 9272

Mr. Hyndman –– 9272

Mr. Kempf –– 9276

Mr. Lockstead –– 9277

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 9277

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9278

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9279

Division –– 9281

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming the real leaders in the Cariboo, who are in the galleries today: Mr. Roy Crosina, chairman of the Cariboo Regional District; Ted Armstrong, one of the directors; and Glen Laubenstein, the administrator.

Oral Questions

EXCESS VEGETABLE PRODUCTION

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Perhaps you would allow me a preamble to congratulate him on his appointment. In recent weeks, vegetable producers on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland have been forced to dispose of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fresh vegetables because of a massive influx of California produce. Why has the minister not taken steps to ensure that B.C. farmers have an opportunity to sell their produce?

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

MRS. WALLACE: To the same minister, inasmuch as the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, is responsible for the production of extra produce, particularly in the Saanich Peninsula, by refusing to allow potatoes to be grown there, why has the minister failed to persuade Mr. Whelan to impose seasonal tariffs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it the minister's plan to reduce farm income assurance payments to farmers, driving them into bankruptcy, by forcing them to destroy thousands of dollars of good food, rather than ensure that they can sell that food? Is that how he is going to save money for this government — by forcing farmers into bankruptcy?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the question applies to advice not yet given to the Crown. Is that in order?

MRS. WALLACE: I can see, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Agriculture and Food still retains his role of Speaker in this House in trying to hide behind the rules.

McDONALD'S BUN CONTRACT

MRS. WALLACE: I have a brand new question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Maybe he'll know the answer to this one. McDonald's restaurants have decided to let their contract for buns to a Seattle bakery. This decision will lead to the layoff of 44 workers at McGavin's in Vancouver. Has the minister requested — now listen carefully — McDonald's to meet with him in order to explore ways of keeping these jobs in British Columbia?

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

MRS. WALLACE: McDonald's gave the contract to Gai's of Seattle without asking any B.C. company to tender for the contract. Has the minister decided to tell McDonald's that B.C. business and B.C. workers should be given first preference?

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

UNEMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can I have the attention of the Minister of Labour, please, Mr. Speaker?

As of this moment, 200,000 British Columbians are drawing UIC benefits. A further 70,000 British Columbians are on welfare, and that figure is likely to climb to approximately 100,000 by November. In total, 300,000 British Columbians will be living on public support as a result of the Socred-caused depression. To date the employment-bridging assistance program has produced only 1,300 jobs. Will the minister now concede that this government's job-creation efforts have been a total, unmitigated failure?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be prepared to even consider acceptance of the statement made by the hon. member across the floor. There is no government in the history of this province which has done so much for job creation. The projects which have been approved and are underway in this province, including northeast coal, which will be responsible for some 10,000 jobs immediately, with 10 percent of the total construction workforce now working on northeast coal — an exciting development and one which is making British Columbia still a place in which there is job security and employment security — B.C. Place and the transit system, are all creating thousands and thousands of jobs for British Columbians, and Canadians. In terms of further job creation, Mr. Speaker, I think you can look forward, as can members on the opposite side of the House, to more exciting, progressive announcements making jobs within the next few weeks.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sure that the 300,000 people currently looking for work will be very pleased to hear about this government's record of employment. But the Minister of

[ Page 9260 ]

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) have said that there is very little unemployment in the forest industry. Does the Minister of Labour agree with his colleagues that the 50,000 unemployed forestry workers are not cause for concern?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of such a statement being made. We are in the middle of severe economic difficulties. The difference between British Columbia and other jurisdictions is that British Columbia is creating new jobs every day, and we intend to continue to do that.

JEM PRODUCTIONS FILMS

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Last week I asked the Provincial Secretary if films being produced through the government information services by a company called Jem Productions, using the taxpayers' money, would be used for political purposes. The minister replied: "Absolutely...." He didn't say "absolutely, " but his word was "no." I want the minister to explain to the House why the clips which are being produced are carrying exactly the same message as a householder brochure from the Social Credit Party which is going out to all the people in British Columbia as an obvious opener for their campaign literature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's an interesting question put forward by the member for Burnaby North. The facts which she suggests are facts are not information which the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services is aware of. It's an interesting concept which she puts forward, an interesting bit of propaganda. I'm as interested as she is in finding out whether this is a fact or not. In order to establish that, I will take the question as notice and bring the question back to the member for Burnaby North and all the other members of this House, who, I am sure, share her anxiety in finding out just what the answer is to the question she has just put. I hope to get that information at the very earliest opportunity, which means I hope to bring the answer back to the House within the next short period of time — hopefully within the next two or three days.

MRS. DAILLY: In view of the unemployment in this province and the restraint program of this government, which is asking for cutbacks from everyone, I wonder if the minister would explain to us where and how he manages to get more than $100,000 for straight political propaganda.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that question is argumentative; I think you recognize that. The figure that she so loosely throws around the House and the province is one which I would have to determine. I don't know whether there's been an allocation or, if there has been an allocation, whether it's $100, $1,000, $15,000 or whatever. But as I said just last week, I know that the member has an intense curiosity about this subject. It's another question that I'll take as notice, and I'll bring back the answer to the member at the very earliest opportunity so that I can satisfy her curiosity and won't have to say again that I'll take the question as notice. I hope to bring back the answer within the next few days to satisfy the member.

COST OF ALTERING
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION SIGNS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister advise the cost to the taxpayers of adding the Social Credit logo and the Premier's name, along with your own, to all highway construction signs in the province? What's the cost, Alex?

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

GOVERNMENT'S DEPOSITS WITH CREDIT UNIONS

MR. BARBER: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the House what policy exists in the Ministry of Finance in regard to the maximum deposit on behalf of the government that may be put on hand at any credit union at any given period in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: May I draw your attention to the questions on the order paper. This particular question posed by the hon. first member for Victoria is but one of a series of questions which that member has placed on the order paper.

MR. BARBER: I'm well aware of my questions on the order paper. My question is: what policy exists in the Ministry of Finance regarding a maximum deposit that may be placed in a credit union on behalf of the government of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member inquiring about policy?

MR. BARBER: That's right.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that forms but one of a series of questions posed by the hon. first member for Victoria. I would expect that, prior to the conclusion of this session, that question will be filed with the House. I have another one that is all ready for filing.

MR. BARBER: If I had confidence that that would occur I would accept the minister's reply, but I don't and I won't. I first asked him these questions one year and one month ago. Why should I believe him now? For a year and a month, I have been asking the minister about a curious transaction....

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

MR. BARBER: In regard to a curious transaction between the Ministry of Finance and Westcoast in favour of Ocean Falls Corporation and involving $36 million, questions which I put to the minister in writing more than a year and a month ago being still unanswered, I ask the following: Is the minister prepared to table a copy of the letters of intent and agreement between and among the Ministry of Finance, Westcoast and the fiscal agent for Ocean Falls concerning this transaction of well over a year ago?

[ Page 9261 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: The sum of the preambles which the member has asked in his quest for this particular information have caused, I must tell this House, concern in the credit union movement.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have listened carefully to the question and I simply ask for the same. The attachment of the adjective "curious" by itself reminds me of a statement made by another member of the NDP, a statement which was regretted just a few days later. I stand available to discuss this with members opposite, but some of the inferences which have been offered have threatened to damage the credit union movement in British Columbia.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and the House move to Motion 33 standing in my name on the order paper, dealing with unemployment in British Columbia and the economy of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Before we put a question, first we must have leave that a question be put. It is not appropriate, under the rules that guide us in this House, to stand and move a motion. First we must obtain leave. Leave having been granted or denied, then is the appropriate time for future action. Hon. members, particularly members who have been in this House for some time, should know the rules that guide us at this particular time.

MR. BARRETT: Before you put leave, so I'll be clear in the future on your ruling, you're suggesting that I'm out of order when I talk about the motion that I want about unemployment and businesses closing down. So I won't raise the unemployment issue; I'll just ask leave that we discuss it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. First, as I outlined, the member must stand in his place and ask leave to make a motion. No business can transpire until that motion has been addressed.

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

Leave not granted.

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

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand in my place to congratulate you as our new Speaker in the House. Also, in addressing this act that is before us today, I would like to congratulate our new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I would like to say also that this act that we are discussing is the result of a lot of work of the prior Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, (Hon. Mr. Chabot) as well as of other members of this House, so I would like to congratulate all of them in brining, forward a British Columbia home program which will unlock a door of opportunity and which will be now available to many British Columbians.

The problem that we have seen in the housing industry in British Columbia has been the result in a very strong way of the high interest rates we have had to have in the past few months. The only criticism that the opposition has given over the past days' debate on this bill is that we have not brought it in in good time. The federal government's assent to have the mortgage program and the bond issue for the mortgage program provincial tax-free has only just been given within the past two weeks. This has been the first opportunity that we have been able to debate it in this House, so I think that our new Minister of Housing has worked very quickly indeed, as has the whole housing ministry, which should be given a great deal of credit for what is before us.

Again, I refer to the high mortgage rates which we have seen in this province. We have seen people who have had a very great lack of confidence over the past few months and years because they don't know whether, the next time they go to renegotiate their mortgage, it's going to be 2 percent or 10 percent higher. They are frightened about the future, and a feeling of insecurity has enveloped many of those people in these past few months. What this program we are debating today and this bill gives to those people is a sense of security for at least three years and possibly four years and gives them room to plan and to move in terms of their own household planning.

Even though economists can't agree on where we're going in Canada and in British Columbia — we always get a different story from each economist, depending on which one we ask — the one thing each and every one of them across this nation agrees upon is the lack of confidence and the negativism that has enveloped the people of our nation, including the people in this province, about our economy and where we are going in the next three or four years. That lack of confidence and security gives a total lack of initiative to purchase a home or to purchase any commodity, to look forward to the next year with a sense of security, and that's what this bill is all about: it gives that sense of security. So our timing, I think, is absolutely right on.

It is also very important that this is a repayable program. Throughout this nation for a decade governments at all levels have tried in many ways to influence voters with giveaway programs. That was not really the nature of Canada prior to that decade. In fact, we paid our own way right up until that time. or just about. But there has been. In the last decade, a tremendous amount of competition among governments for the voter, and they have given away programs until, frankly, a very large segment of our taxpayers has said: "Enough is enough; we can no longer carry those giveaway programs on our backs."

What I like so much about this program is the fact that it has built into it responsibility. Given that it gives a breathing space, it also says there is a payday, and that payday is your

[ Page 9262 ]

own responsibility; it is not the responsibility of our taxpayers. That's a very important element of this plan. Some say that the Saskatchewan and Alberta plans are much more exciting because they simply take from one taxpayer and give to a certain number of other taxpayers. I suggest that this program, inasmuch as it gives assistance now, when it is needed, but responsibility throughout, is a far better program for our fellow taxpayers. That is one particular and very right part of the program, but there are many other good parts of the program as well.

I was interested in the opposition's saying that if interest rates come down this program won't be needed. I think all of us would applaud that. Let's hope interest rates do come down and that this program won't be needed. We should all be enthusiastic about that, not negative about it. We should be thrilled if interest rates in this country can be brought down and our people can get back to work, and if we can create a great deal of business for those people who right now are burdened by taxation.

Let me name one of the obvious ways in which this program can be used. One exciting thing is that it can be used by each and every British Columbian who wishes to put it to work. Persons having clear title to their homes will be able to use this 12 percent money to assist them in a renovation of their home which they have put off because interest rates stayed at the high mark. Now they are free to renovate their homes and to spend money on all those things which come with the renovation. This will put small contractors to work, as well as construction people, plumbers and electricians. There are all the attendant things, such as landscaping and shrubs and that sort of thing which will have to be bought. There is furniture, carpeting, paint and wallpaper — all of those things which filter down into everybody's lives in terms of creating jobs and activity in the marketplace.

I was in a furniture store the weekend this program was announced, and seven or eight people gathered around when one person asked what it was going to do. The sales people in that particular furniture store said: "This is going to be great for us; people will be able to plan where they are going." At last it will break that psychological log-jam which has frozen people's spending habits and minds. They have been unwilling — not unable — to put forward any dollars because they are afraid of what tomorrow will bring. In the months of September and October, when you are looking forward to January or February to renegotiate your mortgage and you are afraid that mortgage rates will go up, you know very well that the one you have just come out of is going to go up at least to the current market rate. That fear grips you, and with that uncertainty you say you are not going to go ahead. This bill takes away the uncertainty from the people of British Columbia.

Again, if I'm to read what has been said, there is yet another value to this bill. Not only will it release money for people to purchase things for the home; it will also release money to purchase other things. It may well be that they'll want to put money into their own business, and very often they use their homes as a guarantee or as collateral for their own small businesses. Can you see what a relief that will give to many small business people in this province — to have 12 percent money, and to know where they're going for three or four years?

I was interested in the opposition's point of view that we were going to put an indebtedness on people for three or four years down the line. Mr. Speaker, if nothing came in today or tomorrow in enacting this bill, the same people that the opposition are talking about would still have those obligations but would not have had the interest on the interest. They will not have had the clear space of time, and there is no question in my mind that the most important part of this whole program is that they will have the satisfaction and the sense of knowing where they are going which they haven't had prior to this bill being introduced in this House. So that's a very exciting thing.

One of the other things which I think we should all address is the fact that new housing will come on stream — new housing, creating building in the province for first-time home buyers, as $60,000 of the cost of that home will be at a low interest rate. That's a security that they haven't had up to this point in time — coupled with the $3,000 federal initiative grant and our $10,000 second mortgage program, or our outright grant of $2,500. If you put those elements together, the result is what was said in the recent issue this past weekend of the Real Estate Weekly:

"'First-time homebuyers in Vancouver have it made,' a real estate agent remarked Monday, following the Premier's unveiling of the new 12 percent mortgage aid plan. Many would agree. Vancouver house prices, when adjusted for inflation, are at the same level as they were in 1978, and the average selling price last month was $50,000 below the level during the summer of 1981."

They go on to talk about the federal government tax-free grant and the provincial government's offer of outright grants for single buyers and those with dependents — $2,500. They talk about the $10,000 B.C. second mortgage plan. They finish by saying: "If all of the programs which can be used in conjunction with each other, even for condominiums and mobile homes as well as houses...it is certain that first-time home buyers do have it made in the province of British Columbia with that combination."

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

"...if these reasonable mortgages were only allowed on conventional mortgages, which would have frozen out thousands of Vancouver homeowners who have created their own flexible financing in these days of high interest rates, it would have been unfortunate. It is the most beneficial feature of the program" — says Mr. Ray Rawnsley, president of the B.C. Real Estate Association.

They hail it in this paper and in other editions, where people who represent 50,000 members of the B.C. Real Estate Association said:

"The plan will be of most help to existing homeowners and can qualify as well for first-time home buyers."

It's an exciting plan in a number of points. Of course, as I said before, it is probably the most exciting program, inasmuch as it should be able to change the psychological climate in our province and free up the kind of sense of security which is needed in Canada today, let alone in the province of British Columbia.

I would also like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is very much "peace of mind" legislation. It actually does reduce the worry for today. It does not put it onto tomorrow, but it allows people the flexibility of three years — and, if you wish, four years — to get all of that program together for their individual spending. It's an exciting program, one which I think all members of this House should applaud. I understand that the

[ Page 9263 ]

opposition has said that they will vote for it. Since we haven't heard what they would do if they had the opportunity to be government, I can say that I'm delighted to hear that they're going to vote for it. And I can tell you who else will be voting for it, Mr. Speaker: those many people in this province who up to this time have not had a sense of security as to where they are going in the days to come. They know that this government has always believed in home ownership. It has always had in the past a distinguished record of providing home ownership and making home ownership as easy as possible for our fellow citizens. This is one more time where this kind of initiative from the government will enable them not just to have a home.... It could be called the "Have a home, keep a home" program.

I applaud peace-of-mind legislation, I will vote for this bill and I hope that the members of the opposition will not only vote for the bill but also give it the kind of positive initiative that the people of British Columbia are expecting from all leaders in public life in this nation today.

MR. BARNES: I think it's obvious that this side of the House wants to support any initiatives by the government that will assist people who are in need of homes. I think the critic for Housing on this side of the House has indicated that we would certainly support any effort, even if it only helped one person.

The problem we're having with this particular piece of legislation is not that it has no conceptual merit. It's a question of who it will affect. I feel that when you come up with a housing program or a housing strategy to address the problems of citizens of the province, it should be comprehensive. This program seems to be selective, discriminatory, divisive and who knows what else. We'll find out in due course whether it is as meritorious as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Minister of Human Resources, who has just taken her seat, have indicated — if this is a bill of hope and one that will resolve the housing problems of British Columbians.

The question is: is the bill a political manoeuvre that will end up with no more impact for solving any problems than BCRIC? I would not like to pan the bill in advance, but I do have my doubts that it will stand up as the weeks go by. First of all, you have to qualify for it; you have to own some property. If you happen to own a home or are in a position to get sufficient funds together to purchase a home, there is a possibility you could get some cash. In other words, it's a straight gift.

Perhaps the bill would be better called the Social Credit economic recovery program, because the minister who has just taken her seat talked about everything other than housing. She talked about the economy and how the money could be used for just about any whim whatsoever. I'm sure that it would also be available to buy lottery tickets.

It's a discriminatory concept, Mr. Speaker. What about the apartment dwellers in the West End and other places in the city of Vancouver, or people who do not own their own homes or are unemployed and are not in a position to take advantage of this gift of free money?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Sure, it's a gift of free money. Anyone in their right mind nowadays would take advantage of some free finances. But it's bribery, plain and simple. That's the danger of this piece of legislation. Rather than being a comprehensive strategy to overcome a serious lack of affordable housing in the province, this is an attempt to confuse people who are desperate, who have suffered economic woes — loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of businesses. In other words, they have suffered mercilessly as a result of the lack of meaningful economic policies on the part of the government. In a desperate attempt, as election speculation draws near, they come up with a program that is a straight giveaway. In other words, I doubt if anyone who owns real estate or owns a home will not apply, because even if they did nothing but take the money and put it in the bank, they could get the interest and simply return the money in three years and be free and clear with some cash. So what else is that but a bribe?

But what does it do for the people really in need? What does it do for the people who do not have access to sufficient funds to purchase a home in the first place? What does it do, for instance, for those people who have been living in hotels — pest-infested accommodation — for the last 10 to 15 years and are still treated as transients? They do not have sufficient funds to move out of the district. It's sort of a last stop for most of them. The government brought in a Residential Tenancy Act that was supposed to change the designation of accommodation in these hotels so that these people could at least have the benefit of being permanent residents. Even something as simple as that hasn't been proclaimed by this government. It's simply a matter of protecting people who have made their contribution to society — in, for instance, buildings sponsored by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

I wonder if the the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing would be good enough to give me his attention for a moment while I ask him whether he has received a letter I wrote to him on September 5 about a B.C. Housing Management Commission building and a senior citizen whose home was forcibly entered at knifepoint — an 87-year-old woman living in a government building for senior citizens who was robbed of her last $22, that she was saving for food, and sexually abused. I wonder if the minister would answer that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I don't know what relevance this can possibly have to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'd be delighted to take up that matter with the member at any other time, but surely not here under this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I had hoped that the member was just referring to that very briefly in passing, but it appears that the member is at this time engaging in a discussion that does not fall within the confines of the bill before us, Bill 79. I would ask the member to make his remarks relevant to the bill before us.

MR. BARNES: I certainly intend to do that. I am surprised that the Minister of Housing, who is concerned about the welfare of people in need of homes, finds my remarks about this incident that happened in a government-sponsored building irrelevant.

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

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

[ Page 9264 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has advised the member that we are currently on Bill 79 and that remarks must be relevant to Bill 79. The member's concerns may be very real and genuine but, hon. member, this is not the time for that particular discussion. I would ask the member to now return to the principle of Bill 79.

MR. BARNES: I don't intend to contest your ruling. I can appreciate that the government — certainly that minister — has no intention of addressing the real problems of this province. That's very obvious. I don't need to labour the point. I've made my point that this is not a bill that addresses housing needs in the province of British Columbia. It's a political manoeuvre and, I dare say, a fairly clever one. Through this bill, with a free gift of cash, the minister is attempting to appeal to the desperate needs of British Columbians — plain and simple. He calls it an assistance to mortgages, but in fact it's a gift of cash. It is not just a bill that will help people who have legitimate needs; it will help people apply for cash who may not even have thought of having a housing problem, who will take advantage of this money being shovelled out of the back of a truck, in order to exploit the market for any number of reasons. I don't blame them. I don't blame anyone for applying. This is why it's a suspect bill.

There is no need to vote against the bill — that's not the question. I would advise British Columbians to take free money, the same as anyone else. The only problem is that the bill is not comprehensive; it's discriminatory. It does not address the real needs of British Columbians who are in need of housing. When you reduce it to its simplest form, I think that every person who owns a home, or intends to own a home, can get some free cash. That is the whole message. The government is telling people that they have interest-free money for three years — 12 percent money for three years. Are you going to send them a cheque? By whatever means you do it, it represents an opportunity for somebody to go and buy something for nothing. Because you can draw interest on your monthly payments, is that not right? Could a person not go straight to the bank, simply deposit the money and let it accrue interest at the going rate, and you guarantee that they will only have to pay 12 percent on it? What is that but free money? It may be marginal; nonetheless, it will represent free cash to some people.

That is a pretty good election gimmick. But it's cynical, because the issues that we really should be addressing are much broader — outside the scope of this bill. It is restricted, and I don't intend to debate.... I don't think that the government is sensitive to the real concerns of the province. But I would just like to go on record as saying there are a lot of people in apartment buildings who do not feel the government really cares about them as their rents have doubled in some cases, or the government has done nothing with respect to the pass-through increases, through the rentalsman's office and the rent review system that this province has undermined.

There are many horror stories with respect to the housing problem, which this bill simply doesn't touch. In his closing remarks, the minister should indicate to the House how things are going at the rentalsman's office, where every day apartment owners are applying to double their rents for various reasons and the tenants — those you are supposed to be concerned about — whose homes are not buildings that they own, whose homes do not represent land that they own.... Home for some people in British Columbia may be the property they have title to, and for other people it's merely the ability to hang on in an apartment owned by someone else. But are we suggesting that home is recognized for some people and not for others? Are we saying that we are going to discriminate on whether or not you have the ability to buy a home? This is why it's a cynical bill. What have you got to do that will improve the situation for people who live in apartments'? I suggest there are at least as many people in apartments as those who own their own homes, or who are in a position to own their own homes.

I would conclude by saying the government has introduced a bill that perhaps is the closest thing to an economic recovery program that they have had this session. Judging from the comments of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), you can buy just about everything you may need, this will stimulate all kinds of economic activity; simply by this bill every British Columbian who owns a home or who is in a position to apply for a mortgage will be able to participate in the recovery of British Columbia's economy. I think that's pretty profound. But there are a lot of British Columbians who will find this an extra subsidy that they will have to support, and it won't help them directly.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I rise in support of the bill for some very obvious reasons; but I have listened to the debate and the most obvious has not yet been stated. Sometimes that which is most obvious is passed over, and the most convincing argument of all is perhaps lost in the debate. I'm anticipating that the minister, when closing debate, will refer to these aspects that I'm about to talk about. But I would like to get in there ahead of him.

I would like to let the people know that the problem before us is not an imaginary problem. It's not something that you have to read periodicals, financial bulletins, or even a newspaper to know about. I think all of us, as members, know of residences in which at one time there were neighbours, but which are now vacant. There are homes that were in the process of being constructed and they were already contracted, but these homes have been abandoned. Contracts have been abandoned, folks have moved into accommodation more affordable, and we see a real crying need for some kind of answer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't believe that this bill, former Attorney-General, necessarily has all of the answers, but I think that it is "an" answer. I want to tell you why. The original problem comes from this — please permit me, Mr. Speaker, to acquaint you. There was abroad in the land a force which could no longer go unchecked. The problem was inflation. Everybody talked about it, everybody cried about it, everybody said something should be done about it, but there wasn't any consensus as to what should be done. I think that those who held the purse strings of the nation put their minds together and said: "We believe that the cause of inflation is the abundance of money, or the abundance of credit that's out there, the easy access to funds." People could create buying-power money by simply subscribing to a loan. That loan would then be put out into contract; homes would be created, real wealth would be created. Lo and behold, it was out of control and needed some kind of check — a solution was required. Guess what? They said the only way to solve this problem was by making money

[ Page 9265 ]

less available. The first solution that came to mind was to raise the interest rates and, by raising the interest rates, make money less available, less accessible. Fewer people would then express their demand in terms of need for credit, and maybe a check, a damper, could be put on inflation.

Well, it was a good try. It may have even been a partial answer for those who subscribe to that economic theory. Another way that could have made credit less available, could have put a check on the number of dollars going into circulation, would simply have been by requiring a greater equity position in each of the mortgages or loans that were going forward. That is not the position that was taken; that is not the route chosen by the purse-string holders. Instead, they thought the interest rate increase would be the way to go. The fact is, when you raise interest rates in order to check the amount of money in circulation, you simply inflame the problem that you had originally wished to check. By making money more expensive, the rate of inflation on any given contract — be it a mortgage on a home, or whatever — was simply inflamed. A new problem sprang out of a supposed solution to an original problem: interest rates were increased on mortgages that were already in force.

As a result, those commitments that had been made on the basis of financial strength or earnings could no longer be honoured, because somebody moved the goal-posts in the middle of the game. Those mortgages which no longer could be paid for couldn't even be qualified for, should an individual homeowner decide to bail out of his existing mortgage and try to find another one. The problem which came out of the solution was unaffordable commitments. You couldn't qualify for the mortgage that you had under the new rates, and you couldn't make the payments on the commitment that you had. This was not a problem just for people with existing mortgages who owned their homes, but it made it almost impossible for new homeowners, those who seek to get into their first home. It made it impossible for them to move in that direction. The whole concept, the whole dream, of getting into the first little bungalow and an ownership position was made nearly impossible.

A new solution had to be found to shrink the gap between what had been affordable at one point, and what was no longer affordable. That is what this program is designed to do. It may not be a total answer. It may not fit everybody perfectly. It may not hit absolutely everyone in the most desirable fashion. Nonetheless, it is a solution which, on average and overall, will close that gap. That which is no longer affordable can be put back to a level at which the commitments were made. Through it, the fellow who earns X number of dollars a year can still have enough, after paying for his housing, to meet his other commitments. This will close that gap and make the entire thing affordable again.

We could have done otherwise. At immense expense, we could have said, okay, why don't we just take tax dollars and create a program to give them an interest reimbursement? But do you know what you'd be doing? You'd actually be taking tax dollars from the people who are now paying mortgage payments and rerouting it through a government bureaucracy, giving those dollars which they had already paid back to them in an interest reimbursement payment. It is not possible to do an effective job with that kind of a program.

I think the program that's in place is the only reasonable one that's available. It gives a three-year breathing spell. It doesn't give you money for nothing, but what it does do is delay the debt of that money for a three-year period at no further interest charge. It gives you three years to do this: you can requalify, refinance, relocate, or better your earnings. You can do any one of a number of things, but at least you have three years to do it in.

A gentleman across the street from me didn't have that option. In a house that was three-quarters finished, he had to bail out of the program. The bank came in and took the place. They sold it to a new owner who could qualify. The new owner came in at a fire-sale price, as you might expect. He finished the building. and although that building still is not sold, it is finished, and hopefully someone can qualify for it. If he couldn't qualify on the basis of 18 to 20 percent interest rates, then under this program he will at least be able to qualify at the 12 percent rate. He can delay the balance that would have had to have been paid under the 19 to 20 percent interest program for three years and see if he can refinance it in some way. It gives him some breathing room.

Mr. Speaker, that's what British Columbia needed, that's what British Columbians needed, that's what I needed, and that's what my neighbour needed. That's what this does. It returns us to the conditions that were in place at the time that we qualified for our mortgage in the first place. It takes away the penalties. It takes away the disgust. It takes away the loss in confidence in our own economy. It gives new hope to the guy who's now lying down in his bed saying: "What's the use? There's no hope in it for me." It gives him new breathing space. That's what this program does, sir, and that's why I support it. I can see that it isn't a God-given answer that is 100 percent perfect, but it is a program that will give us a little relief for a short while — three years at least. I support it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to say a few words about the bill. I agree with my colleagues, and particularly our Housing critic, that the bill should be supported, because there is desperate need out there.

The speaker who has just taken his place referred to one of the many examples of people who went under, but he didn't add this, and I will — while this government did nothing. It looks so much like political cynicism to bring in a bill of this kind just before an election.

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

MR. MACDONALD: All I know is what I hear from the campaign workers that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is trying to line up. They phone me and say they're to be held on tap to work for him in the election. They say: "I don't really want to work for him, and why should I be phoned?" So maybe there is an election coming.

The budget, according to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is supposed to be facing a billion-dollar deficit. You hear different stories, and he has different stories every time a budget comes out, and between budgets. Nevertheless, there were better times two or three years ago when this government ought to have acted, if it really cared about people. When the treasury was much fatter than it is today, did you care about people whatsoever? The crunch in interest rates a couple of years ago was worse than it is today, Mr. Speaker. The rates were up to about 21 percent. They've come down a little bit, but not very much.

[ Page 9266 ]

It's terribly cynical that the government destroyed our existing housing programs like the Housing Corporation of British Columbia; you wiped it out. It wouldn't have solved the whole problem, but it would have created far more housing units and helped to bring down the cost of housing and to some extent the interest burden on people. It would have done something. You killed it.

You would not enact the proposal that has come from this side of the House, and has been passed by the House in the form of legislation, but has never been proclaimed: the B.C. Savings and Trust Act. It would have helped the people in terms of their mortgages directly.

MR. LEA: They voted for it.

MR. MACDONALD: They voted for it, for putting something into a revolving fund so that mortgage funds would be available at a decent rate of interest to the people of this province. None of this was done. I'm repeating, I suppose, what other speakers have said, and I'm not going to go on at great length. I want to say something, though, about the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), whose speech I enjoyed, and his reference to high interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, only certain parts of the whole western world are not suffering horrendously from high interest rates. West Germany, for example, under Helmut Schmidt — and maybe that era is coming to an end in the give and take of politics — has interest rates of about 8 or 9 percent. Unemployment is high for them at about 5 percent. Inflation has never been more than 5 percent in the last ten or twelve years. That's a social democratic, partially planned society where the economy is run in the interest of the people in a general way. It's not socialism but a pretty good approach toward it. The economy is not run, as it is in North America, for the benefit of those who own the money, the land and the resources.

They just had an election in Sweden. What a contrast! When you mention Sweden, everybody says that's bad. Rich people think the kind of social democracy they had there is terrible. A big issue in the election in which Olaf Palme was returned to office was unemployment. It was very high for Sweden. It was 3 percent, and they thought that was high. We are so primitive. I see no distinction whatsoever among the political philosophies of the government of Premier Bennett, that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and that of Ronald Reagan in the United States. They all basically support the same kind of system that has led to gouging high interest rates and the forfeiture of homes by people and the inability of other people to get them.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: When you mention these things, it's time for snide remarks from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Those are just the facts of life. There is a philosophical divide between this side of the House and that side of the House. If there is to be an election, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that people will turn their backs on the kind of thing this government stands for: Reaganomics, to sum it up in one word, which is in the interest of a few very rich people who control the economy, but certainly not in the interests of the kind of secure family, home-owning democracy that we want to see in this country.

The bill is terribly vague. I've seen many bills, Mr. Speaker, but this is almost all regulation. It sounds like an election plum with nothing spelled out. I don't think that I could, with assurance, advise anybody in this province whether they're going to get something out of this bill. I hope they will. It's terribly late, but I hope they will. Everything is to be done by regulations. There is only one section 1n the bill that has a concrete meaning, — and that is that whatever sums are advanced shall not bear interest. Well, good. That's in there. The 12 percent isn't in there. The eligibility requirement is in there. The bill even has the nerve — and I suppose it should be discussed later on — to say that the cabinet can define the meaning of words and expressions used in the act by regulation. So you're going to repeal, if necessary, Webster's dictionary.

I remember the BCRIC shares. I remember the giveaway of the five free shares which was intended to re-elect this government — and which did help to re-elect this government in 1979. Yes, I am cynical. Yes, I feel they should have helped people far sooner than this. I think that they should have adopted some of the things we've been saying about interest rates and about housing and about mortgage relief on this side of the House for the past three years of this government, going back to the last election. There are a lot of people who have suffered and gone under in the meantime. Now, with an election coming on, with your budget in dire shape, you propose something. It's too late. Well, not too late — better something than nothing — but, my God, it does sound so cynical. So there are, as the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said, broader questions that should be addressed to get some real homebuilding underway in this province, and relief for all of the people — including the renters, who are being gouged at the present time as rental control in this province is being slowly dismantled. There are so many other things that should be done in a whole program. This is something, I hope, subject to the regulations, and on that basis I support it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and really good humour, if a little frustration, to the member for Vancouver East who has just spoken, because he is a man of great wisdom, training and experience in the mortgage industry. I thought that he, of all the members on that side of the House, would come forth with some new plans and ideas of what they, if they were government, would do to assist in the current and long-term housing situation and concerns, or that he would at least come up with some suggestions for this government, should there be an election and they were re-elected. But I didn't hear anything new, and I don't think other members heard anything new. It was just a recycling of comments of cynicism, of the old NDP policy that they put into effect, which, in essence — with all kindness — was virtually designed to make serfs out of people in British Columbia. It was rejected by the people of British Columbia, not just in the election but also in terms of the utilization of the plan. We all remember Prince Rupert — and that member is just getting up to leave, and I guess it hurts — where the NDP government very benevolently put lots on the market for people to lease, and, of course, I think only one out of a multitude of lots was taken, because the the people of British Columbia have a very strong desire to be landowners as well as home-dwellers. It's a fundamental right and opportunity that we as government would like to see preserved in British Columbia — and will fight to see preserved in British

[ Page 9267 ]

Columbia — the right to have the opportunity, with hard work and perseverance...to see every citizen, young or old, have that chance to buy their own home and be masters of their own little piece of land in British Columbia.

That's what this plan does. It doesn't remove the sense of responsibility of the individual, which must be a very important and well-understood part of a free and democratic society, which is designed to have a minimum of regulations and government planning for people.

Mr. Speaker, this plan, as a previous speaker said, has come into place not instantly — as the opposition would have people believe — but has been under consideration and design for some time. But it is not in isolation either, as the opposition tend to think it is. It dovetails as part of a whole mosaic in terms of the economic situation in Canada as it is reflected in British Columbia at this time, and as part of a total new economic-development picture for the province as a whole. It's designed to be as fair as possible to the greatest number of citizens of British Columbia — not only to those who are faced with severe instant problems in relation to their earning capacity at this time, or the high interest rates at this time, but also to all of those people who are of a mind to own their own home.

It is correctly said that it essentially gives relief for a period of three to four years in terms of interest payments, and does not charge for that relief. Unlike other programs in Canada and the type of program that the NDP have always advocated, it is not a giveaway program. It is not taking the money of those citizens who have been very frugal in terms of putting aside other spending to pay down their mortgages, or who have given up other opportunities and activities just to get started on owning a home, and giving it away as a grant to others who have perhaps been less frugal, or who have had other priorities. It means that those citizens who have been harder-working, tax-paying citizens, who do own their own home, who have set their priorities in such a way as to, perhaps, draw down the capital investment in their home to keep their interest rates down, get an opportunity to benefit as well.

It is very clear that at the end of the time the benefiting people will have to carry on their conventional mortgages, and, as has been mentioned, if the interest rates are down at that time.... I fail to understand why the opposition seemed to gleefully point out that if the interest rates are down to 12 percent in three years or two years or four years, the program won't look like a program at all. That is, in fact, what it is designed to do and what we hope will happen. If the interest rates go below that, then the program, I am sure, will be adjusted accordingly.

It means that young people who have not yet purchased a home will be able, even in this difficult time, to take advantage of the opportunities that exist today, when the housing market has levelled out and the high cost of housing has adjusted itself to a degree. They can still take advantage of the federal government's first-home-buyer program, as well as the B.C. government's home-buyer program. So it does put the first home buyer, the family home buyer, in a unique position in Canada.

It assists people of all ages who have existing mortgages. It means that senior citizens who have sold homes in other provinces and who previously have been excluded from any home purchase program will have in British Columbia the same opportunity as other home buyers. Perhaps they sold their home a few years ago and went into an apartment, and now want to go back into private home ownership; they couldn't begin to own a home when house prices were at the extremes they have just been at. Now if they want to own a home, they will have the opportunity to secure a mortgage at 12 percent. It means they can recapitalize in part. It also means they can enjoy a lifestyle that they thought they didn't want, but now find they do.

It means that those who are frugal and want to take advantage of this can reduce the capital investment in their mortgages over the three-year period. Certainly I would encourage most young people to do that, and also many who are in the middle-income area. Then when the adjustment comes, their overall interest rates will be far less severe. It has a lot to do with psychological attitudes. Last week, the Financial Post said the housing market has been through a slump, that there has been a dearth of sales. That is now changing and there's increased movement in the housing market across Canada, a movement reflected in British Columbia. But it pointed out the severe concern that, because of lack of confidence or lack of available mortgage money, this wouldn't sustain itself. This program in British Columbia means we can add the impetus of confidence so that the public has a sense of security about moving into the market, knowing that with careful money management they will be able to see their way through in the future. In that respect it is unique in Canada.

It was pointed out that many people bought homes when the housing market peaked and, through other economic circumstances, found themselves in a position where interest rates were beyond their means. Or perhaps they had counted on unrealistic wage increases. This means they will not have to give up their homes. Or if they have decided that they have overcommited themselves, it will stimulate the home-buying market so that there is a better opportunity for them to sell their homes.

In essence, it doesn't have the jarring effect on the marketplace that so many grant programs have had in the past. When the NDP were in government, their lack of understanding of how sensitive the marketplace is led to incredible upsets, particularly in land values, and ultimately in home values in this province. This won't have that jarring effect on the marketplace. It will allow for an orderly, low-pressure stimulation of the housing market. Hopefully we'll then see a stabilization of housing prices, rather than a massive increase. As I mentioned, it does mean that many citizens can take advantage of the situation now that housing prices are down.

The member for Vancouver Centre, who really is such a nice person, does distress this House and, I believe, distresses the public when he looks at everything in terms of cynicism. He says that the program is selective, discriminatory, divisive, worthy of suspicion. If you read Hansard and the press you will see that for years, any major program brought in by government, particularly if it's a good one, is always described by members of the NDP in this House as selective, discriminatory, divisive and worthy of suspicion. I really hate it, and I'm sure members who are listening to this debate at this time hate to see the member indulge in that type of incredible statement. It can be very distressing and confusing to the citizens out there.

It will increase the number of apartments available. That member expressed a concern about renters. This is a concern of the government on this side of the House. But we want to make it very clear that present B.C. rental aid programs will

[ Page 9268 ]

stay in place, and in B.C. we have one of the finest rental aid programs anywhere in Canada. They will stay in place. The other benefit to them will be that many people now living in apartments will be able to take advantage of this program and buy a home, which means that we will have an increase in the vacancy rate of apartments in British Columbia, and there is nothing as effective in controlling the price of apartments as a high vacancy rate. It also means that there's a greater opportunity for construction. While it's certainly not the answer to all the problems in the forest industry, increased home construction and apartment construction in British Columbia will be of assistance to our forest industry, not just in one part of the province but all over the province.

I mentioned that in the debate the opposition have said, "Well, it's in isolation," and suggested that the government didn't move quickly enough and isn't doing anything else. But I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the public that that's simply not true. These last few years the government of British Columbia has been designing a major, overall economic program for the province of British Columbia. Northeast coal, Ridley Island and the newly announced central-north development program for British Columbia are parts of that. If you look at Vancouver, the redevelopment called B.C. Place is a total revitalization of a derelict — if I may call it that — section of Vancouver, with a great deal of housing in it. The spinoff benefit from B.C. Place, as it comes into its own, will be more money available for other parts of British Columbia. We saw the first example of that at the announcement in Burnaby the other day, where some of the benefits of B.C. Place are already moving to other parts of the province.

Southeast coal and the southeast economic development program see not only an increase in the mining economy there in terms of coal but also major development in the service industries and the secondary industries. This applies to the eastern part of the province. Wherever you look in this province there is evidence of a total, well-planned, overall economic development program for the future. It's not just in basic resources; it's in secondary industries. It moves into the third generation in high technology. It also has a facet of tourism. Each of these are job-creating. Each aspect increases capital investment in British Columbia, which, when added to this program, will give the home buyer or the person taking advantage of the program the assurance that there will be jobs for the future, that British Columbia will move ahead as quickly in the economic recovery as any other province in Canada, if not more quickly. It is not a program in isolation.

It's a part of the philosophy of this government and this province to have the individual citizen be as independent as possible and a part of owning his own piece of land in British Columbia and able to meet his commitments, even in difficult times. Along with that, to dovetail with this program, is the restraint program of the government, which is making one of the most concerted and realistic efforts of any government in Canada to control the increased cost of government and services to people at all levels.

So, Mr. Speaker, it must be clearly understood — and I'm sure the public understands, even if the opposition unfortunately don't — that it is not a program in isolation. It is all part of a mosaic which is going to see people in British Columbia have more job opportunities, businesses in British Columbia more opportunities to grow and expand and new businesses to start, capital investment in this province be more attractive and have more opportunity in the free marketplace than anywhere else in Canada and probably anywhere else in the world.

It's with this thought in mind that I would encourage every member of this House to encourage every eligible citizen to take part in this program, and to speak highly of the program. Perfect, no, but then I have yet to find many things in life that are perfect. It's commendable because of the government's effort, the thought that's gone into it, the fairness of the program, and the stimulus it will give to job creation, increased capital investment and increased use of many of our own products in the province. I will be supporting the bill and encouraging every British Columbian to disregard the repetitive charges of the NDP — bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of positive thought, bankrupt of the spirit of British Columbia — and encouraging our citizens to get on in the spirit of British Columbia. We have a very positive future and there's an opportunity for every citizen. This is one of the specific opportunities for every homeowner and people of all ages and incomes in this province. It doesn't discriminate.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is anxious to close the debate, but there's one fact of this bill 79 which I wholeheartedly support and which has not, in my opinion, been stressed sufficiently. I'd like to make my position known at this time.

Our bill not only directs the interest of this government toward housing and home ownership, but it is clearly an establishment of the philosophy of our government which throughout the last 26 years has been directed toward the building of homes and the ownership of property. It is contrary to the principle of socialists who feel land should not be owned by the individual, but rather by the state, as the members in the NDP opposition have often said. The one member in the House at this time — the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — has stated, clearly, he's opposed to home ownership. We find the socialists saying they'll go along with this; they'll agree to this bill. Of course, at a time when they see no other way, they will go along with it. But the thrust of the socialist opposition is that they are absolutely opposed to this bill, regardless of what they do in this House.

I'd like to make it clear that our position is not only for the building of homes for the people, not only to make the homes possible — it will help those in existing homes to retain them, and help new homes to be built — but to indicate to the public that the necessity for the stability of the community is the ownership of a home. Our forefathers left Europe to come to this country because they could own land. From all over the world to North America they came to own land. We must be very careful that we do not fall back into the socialist slot again, which Europe was in in those days and in which it still is in many places. The system of the individual being the owner of his own piece of property, king of his own home, is the philosophy that our party stands for. I want to make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to us, and to make this point clear: throughout the last 20 years, at various times, we have brought out initiatives of this nature. It is not new. The homeowner's grant, the home assistance grant — all of these things at different times, to fill the need of the hour, to assist in the ownership of homes, the philosophy that we stand for. I don't have to prove it; it is historical fact. We

[ Page 9269 ]

have existing programs where homeowners receive assistance up to $2,500 on a first ownership. This has gone on for many years, and we continue along this route.

In addition to this thrust of philosophy, I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, this very important point: the economy of North America, strange as it may seem, rests on the construction of homes. We do not realize how vital it is to North America. The great United States of America, to our south, can control its economy — either a depressed economy or a buoyant economy — by releasing funds for home-building. I hope and pray the time will come soon. They've tried in the last few years to increase the productivity of the country by releasing money for home construction. It has been negated in their parliaments at various times, but it may come through. But the control of the economy can be done through home-building. In our own little British Columbia of 2.5 million people, this grant, this bill 79, will have an impact on 350,000 people. It's impossible for us to imagine the thrust of this bill to the benefit of British Columbians.

I just want to make this point clear — not only for the financial factor, not only creating jobs, not only creating homes, not only making homes possible for people to buy, not only the saving of homes that are burdened with high interest rates.... I will not go into what this bill does, because that's been said to you many times. Not only those things, Mr. Speaker, but we made it possible for people to feel the security of being part of the community. Not everybody wants to own a home. It's not for everyone. But for most people, it is our philosophy. I wish to say here, and clearly, that this opposition in this House and this government are on diverging courses, because we stand for home ownership. We stand for the ownership of property. This bill makes it possible for those who own homes and who are on the edge to retain their homes, for new people to come in. It will affect 350,000 people. That's what we're here to say. This is our philosophy. This is our intent. Although that opposition will say that they support this bill, they support it in voice only and not in purpose.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank those of my colleagues who entered the debate for their support, their encouraging remarks and the indication of their understanding of the principles, the concepts, and the intent of Bill 79. I would also like to respond to some of the concerns raised by the members opposite. I am glad that, with their keen interest in discussing economic recovery programs, a few more of them have come into the House. I think we were down to two members at one point, which I find a little bit difficult to understand, in that they are making attempts to get this House to discuss economic recovery and here we have an economic recovery program and very little interest shown by some of those members. However, I don't want to get partisan or argumentative.

Several of the members covered the same points. so I may refer to one member or another, but I'm not going to try and answer every question that was raised. I think I will respond to most of the concerns raised by referring to some of them and carrying that over to others who expressed the same concerns. I notice that the first two members from the opposition side raised a few concerns, but were quite supportive of the bill. I would imagine that the word got around that this was not the way this opposition should act in the House, so from that point on it seemed like the tide turned and the other members, even though they claimed they would vote for the bill, felt that they had to go on the attack and attack what wasn't in the bill, what wasn't being done. rather than dealing directly with the benefits that this bill provides. Because, of course, it does provide many benefits.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann indicated in his opening remarks that it's a good thing that we've come up with this housing program because we've have had no housing program as part of this government's policy. I do feel that I have to correct an erroneous impression that may have been left by that comment, because this government has considerable in the way of housing policy and housing programs that have been in effect and which help people. As nearly as I can gather, we have something like $500 million per year going out to assist people with home programs. As far as purchasers go, we've got the first homeowner grant to individuals and young families. We have a second mortgage program up to $10,000. We have rental assistance and the SAFER program, We certainly have the B.C. Housing Management Commission, which runs thousand of units throughout this province where people are not required to pay more than 25 percent of their income, and that certainly assists the renters. Through various others — intermediate-care homes and senior citizens' housing — there are a great many housing programs that people benefit from as a result of this government's policies and its ability to put them into effect. I should mention that the homeowner grant program in itself — the $380 that people get back on their taxes — is certainly an assistance to homeowners; also the $630 for seniors and disabled persons.

Speaking of disabled persons, again, unfortunately, a wrong impression can be left in that there was some talk about the cutback in assistance for units for the disabled. I guess it's whatever you want to read in the press or whatever way you want to look at it. In doing a little checking on that I find that in 1979 this government provided about 50 units for disabled people. In 1980 they made available another 50 units for the disabled. In the special year of 1981, where special effort was made, it went up to 200 units. This year, in 1982, despite the economic difficulties we're facing, we're at 100 units for disabled people. If you take the normal program of 50 units per year, and go up to 100, then I would say that is an increase rather than a cutback. If you feel, as the opposition seems to want to, if you have a special year with special funding from various sources, and then you cut back from that special year, that that is a cutback. of course that is in your best interest to show that. I would say that we have come up with a 100 percent increase in units for the disabled from the normal program that had been going on.

I'm sure that there is no way that we will ever be able to provide everything that everyone wants. But I'll tell you something: at least we are doing something; we are providing many units. In my own area and as I travel around this province I see more senior citizens' housing projects opening — two next week, which I may not get to, in the metropolitan Vancouver area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because I may be here in the House; we may still be discussing this bill.

Interjections.

[ Page 9270 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask all hon. members to come to order, please, and perhaps if we could get back to the principle of the bill, the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, we could remain in order and finish our business.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I want to apologize to the House. I was out in my office and I heard the minister make comments about the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I think he was making reference to my speech, and I hope he will address that concern that I mentioned about one of the senior citizens.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would presume the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre rose under standing order 42. That said, I guess the point of order is accepted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Getting back, as you say, to the bill, I suppose one tries to respond to the accusations that are made and to correct what could be erroneous impressions.

A comment was made about off-budget money and about the denials. I don't know of any denials. I think it is stated right in our news releases, in our program releases, and in our various discussions that the money we are using is from the province's top credit rating. We are using the housing development investment bonds to provide this money that we will be loaning to people, in effect; in other words, they will be paying it back. I don't recall any denials about the fact that we may end up borrowing this money to provide it to these people. However, the question has been raised: then why are we not borrowing money to spend in other areas? I guess that is because the members of the opposition may never understand the difference between investing and spending on operating costs.

In other words, many people will invest or consider it an investment to take out a loan to buy a house, but if they regularly borrow money to make their daily payments or their mortgage payments on top of it all, then of course they.... In other words, if they are borrowing money for operating rather than accumulating capital assets, that is quite a difference. So we are putting out this money, which will be recoverable. We are not simply spending the money where it is not recoverable. So it does mean that we are not placing a burden on all taxpayers in order to benefit homeowners. Those homeowners who benefit will be paying back the cost; that is as simply as we can put it. Some administrative costs may be incurred. They will be minimal. We feel that those can be recovered from the revenue generated by the economic stimulation, by the help to the business community, to individuals, to the spending and investment that takes place as a result of this program; and not only that, but from savings where the government will not have to bail out in various ways people who now can carry on and keep their homes; not to mention the jobs that will be created by this program.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is always easy to ask how many jobs will be created by any particular program. You can't put a number on those. We do know that it is going to create jobs in the business community from the economic stimulation. We do know that it is going to create jobs in the housing industry. We do know that it is going to create jobs from the security and confidence that people have. But to put numbers on them would, I think, be a rather ridiculous comment. In other words, the type of thing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sure, I can make up numbers. But you wanted to know how many jobs it will create. I don't know how many jobs it will create, and neither does anybody else. No economist, nobody knows exactly how many jobs it will create. But I'll tell you it will create far more jobs than any program the NDP has come up with in this House.

There have been comments that it won't help those at the lower income levels, and in proportion it certainly will help them more. Everybody's always so happy to use percentages. The savings that a person will get, or the assistance they will get on a $60,000 mortgage would be a great deal more percentage-wise than it would be on a $100,000 or $200,000 mortgage. So really, it will help those people at the lower levels the most. It will encourage small homes, it will encourage small mortgages, and it will certainly.... Even in response, to say that it will raise prices.... It will not likely raise prices, because people will benefit the most by being able to buy lower-priced homes. They are there now, and people are going to use it where they get the maximum benefit. So I can't see it raising prices.

There have been comments about rent controls. Certainly my education is not complete in that, but from the reading and studying I have done in various places around the country and around the world, I think, as a general rule, they tend to increase rental prices. It seems to have happened that way, that what is set as a rent control maximum becomes the minimum, and that increase is made. I can't see that that is a valid argument. Besides, some of the members made comments about how rents are doubling and so on. It would seem to me, from what evidence we are picking up, that they are about a year behind; in many places rents have come down.

There have been comments that it doesn't help those who cannot qualify. Certainly we have other programs. The first homeowner grant and now the federal program — that will assist. That will help people to get into homes. This program, this assistance, this security that they have, and the security for the lenders that these people can handle their mortgage payments until times are better, will certainly help more people to qualify, and there's already evidence of that from the community.

This program doesn't provide all the answers. Perhaps it does not make the impossible possible, but I'll tell you that it makes the possible a lot easier, and the probable a lot more likely.

There was some criticism about the program being discriminatory. I have a hard time accepting that in that we have come up with a universal program for all homeowners. This is a program to help homeowners and to encourage more homeowners. Surely the members of the opposition weren't suggesting a means test for people. I have to wonder whether someone with a $150,000 mortgage in a middle-class neighbourhood, if you want to use that term, in these difficult times is better off than someone with a $50,000 mortgage and a lower-income level. Those are the kinds of things that we did discuss — at what level to put this in — and we decided that the best way, the simplest way, to run this program without creating a bureaucratic or logistics nightmare would be to make it a universal program. We were looking at the other aspect as well, that it would also stimulate the economy and

[ Page 9271 ]

leave more money in the hands of people at all levels to spend and to put into the economy. Certainly that will be a benefit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I heard that comment, that "it will help the Edgar Kaisers." For heaven's sake, are these people on the other side not aware that the Edgar Kaisers can now go to the financial institutions? They have the top credit rating, they can get the best rate, so this program will help them less than it will anybody else with only a normal credit rating, if you like. So I cannot accept that argument either.

There were some comments that this program will not help people if interest rates dropped down to the 12 percent level. I would think that the help they would need would be far less at that point, if they needed any help. I certainly will not apologize for the fact that we won't have to provide money to people if the interest rates drop down to 12 percent. I think we should be happy about that, not upset that this program won't have to provide money to these people. It's hard to believe that comment was even made, that it won't help them if times get good.

We've been concerned about possible abuses. I suppose if you're going to provide benefits, there may be some risk involved. I think we've minimized the risks in the fact that the people who benefit will be paying back the costs of this program. If people benefit, and if we leave more money in their hands to spend, and if they get a break in interest rates and can use that to their advantage, and if they get a break in income tax which this program provides in that the benefits are not taxable.... If all of those things happen, then surely we should be happy with that, not upset that people may benefit from this program. Certainly we hope that everyone will benefit from this program. We think that it will happen. There was concern that private mortgage arrangements might enter into this and people may take advantage of it that way. We have covered that, in that any mortgage renewals are at the NHA rate, not at whatever rate people decide to set. There were comments that it was political in intent. I think if the members opposite will help us to pass this legislation, it will be a fact. It will have nothing to do with whether I'm back after the next election or whether I'm not. It will be a program that will be in effect and will be handled to help people.

I'd like to go even further: if helping people through these tough times, if giving them this feeling of security and confidence, if stimulating the economy, if creating jobs through this program, if that's political, then I'm glad to be a part of it. This program, we're told, is supposed to design — someone mentioned that, but I think they dropped the argument — that it's designed to help the Social Credit three or four years down the election or down the road in the next election. That assumes that we're going to win the election previous to that one, which is the very next one. Secondly, if you look at the argument that that's based on, at that time we would have the repayment starting from those people. If anything, it could be a political downer at that time, but we're counting on the fact the economy will have recovered and that interest rates will have gone down. I guess, in effect, they're saying that they are going to be the next government in British Columbia and times are going to be worse in 1985. I'd like to argue that we're going to be the next government and we're going to continue in government, and times are going to be better. If you want to stick with your argument, I'm certainly happy to stick with mine. So in 1985, with interest rates down, people's monthly payments can stay down at the same level as they are when we're helping them through these years.

I know the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) made comments to the effect that it would be better to give it to people, rather than loan it, in effect. Well, that might be true, if we were doing something to all people using all types of taxpayers' money, but we felt it would be unfair and irresponsible to take money from the total community of taxpayers and provide benefits to certain people. Therefore we have said those who benefit will be helped now. They'll get a very good break, but they will also be the ones that will return it. The others who paid off their homes or who don't hold mortgages should hardly be taxed in order to give money away. I think this is a very responsible and positive aspect of our program and makes it better than some other programs that have been introduced.

I couldn't quite follow the convoluted mathematical reasoning of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), so I can't comment too much on that, other than the confusion that he created with his figures and his comment that he would be giving sound advice to all his people to be very careful about taking this program. Well, I guess all I can recommend is that they be careful where they get their advice, because the mathematical footwork certainly didn't work out and was premised....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know the member went to great pains to establish his mathematical credentials. I don't argue with those. I'm quite willing to accept those at face value. What I'm saying is that simple arithmetic — and I'll go with the simple arithmetic — says that people are going to benefit and are not going to be confused, and they don't want to look at the worst scenario that you created, saying interest rates are going to be up at 18 and 20 percent in 1985. I don't accept that. So my simple arithmetic tells me.... If you want to go another way, what about...? Oh, never mind. I'm sorry, I just don't want to get into a mathematical argument. All of your calculations were based on worse scenarios, facts and figures.

So to conclude, I'd like to make the comment that we on this side of the House don't want to take over housing in British Columbia — we really don't. We want the people to own their homes. We want to encourage the private sector; and there's all kinds of evidence that they can do it much more efficiently than government can. We want to help people to help themselves. What we're saying then is that this program, from all that we've looked into in preparing it, all the feedback other than the partisan feedback that we've had so far, is a positive program. There's a great deal of interest in it. It is a program that will work. It's a helping hand, not a handout.

I found it rather interesting to have the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barnes) sort of link us with the federal Liberals, when we're trying to say that what money goes out to help people will come back in. It's a recovery program. We don't want to get into the $20 billion deficit of the giveaway type of programs that apparently you've supported the federal Liberals on and want to convert us to — that we should just be giving money away, borrowing money to build up debts, because we not only pay back that money; we also pay back the horrendous interest costs that have developed.

[ Page 9272 ]

This program does in effect provide the greatest help to those at the lower income levels. It does not put a tax burden on all taxpayers; those who benefit are going to be paying the costs. The benefits are free of income tax, and that in itself is of great value. They don't have to fear that it's going to be in turn taxed by government.

The B.C. home assistance program will stimulate the economy. I believe people use their own money best, and what we're doing is putting some of their own money back in their hands to use to get out of this difficult period. We certainly feel that recovery will be here long before the 1985 payback period, because we're taking steps to make that recovery work. We also feel that interest rates will come down to a much more sensible level.

Finally, for those who say that it doesn't do everything for everybody, this isn't the total recovery program of this government; it's only a part of that total program and it's only a part of our total housing program, which I believe is one of the best in the nation.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 78.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 78; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister give us some indication as to when proclamation might take place?

HON. MR. SMITH: The ordinary answer would be, in due course. In due course will involve some procedures for the recording system to be in place and ready for announcement. There will probably be some short delay for that and for the regulations to be promulgated, but I would not expect due course to be a very long course.

MR. NICOLSON: To the new Minister of Mines: before proclamation takes place, will the minister give us an undertaking to learn the difference between chalcopyrite and a schist?

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of overlooking that comment as unparliamentary and rude, I would certainly give that undertaking.

Section 7 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 78, Coal Amendment Act, 1982, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 43.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. LAUK: I just have a couple of words, Mr. Speaker. I read over the Blues of my last remarks on this bill. They were so succinct and covered all of the points that I wanted to make so well that I'll let them stand on the record.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity, may I say, to extend congratulations to you, sir, upon your election — and to the Deputy Speaker. So may I join with the man), who have expressed pleasure and confidence at your election.

Mr. Speaker, although Bill 43, the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, is relatively technical and specialized in nature, it's a very important and modern reform step for the British Columbia business community. For that reason I would like to briefly outline the reasons why it's important, and perhaps make a suggestion or two as to some future areas towards which the legislation might be directed. The Commercial Appeals Commission Act now before us is intended to provide the mechanism for taking the place of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. The basic intent and object of this bill now before us is logical and wise. It reflects the need for the commercial and business community to have a place of appeal which has some advantages over a traditional courtroom. I mean no disrespect to traditional courtrooms as places where business appeals may be heard and settled. But as this legislation clearly shows, there are a series of statutes which may give rise to the feeling on the part of business persons, small business or large business, that they have been incorrectly dealt with in a decision from the public service. The feeling then on the part of that person or small business is that that decision should be appealable some place.

It's certainly a very important part of the philosophy on this side of the House to recognize that none of us is perfect certainly not governments. I think that those in the public service would agree that they're not free from error. If from time to time an individual business person, small business or large business, feels that an error — unwittingly or innocently, but nonetheless an error — has been made in the public service decision-making process which affects him or her, it is first of all fundamental that he or she have a right of appeal. In other words, it is not proper, and we do not suggest, that business persons and businesses should be denied a right of appeal in cases in which they think a so-

[ Page 9273 ]

called bureaucrat or government official has ruled wrongly against them.

That being the case, the question is then: to what body should an appeal lie? As I say, traditionally our court system has provided the forum to which, in these kinds of cases, a business person may take an appeal. But there are some very good reasons, which do not involve disrespect to the courtrooms of our province, why a commercial appeals tribunal such as envisaged by this statute is a far better place to which these kinds of appeals can be directed. Perhaps I should just pause and give a brief summary of the kinds of decisions that would be subject to appeal under this statute.

Decisions under the Company Act would be subject to appeal, where, for example, a businessman seeking to incorporate a company with a proposed name particularly important to that businessman may find or feel that the proposed name is vitally important to the success of the business. He may feel further that the rejection of the proposed name has been made in error, on the wrong grounds, and he may want to pursue an appeal.

Alternatively, perhaps under the Securities Act a securities representative may feel that they have been denied registration for incorrect reasons. Therefore they may wish to pursue an appeal under the Securities Act.

Under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, obviously there will be cases in which an applicant feels that they have been wrongly dealt with and that error has been made.

This statute sets forth the 10 or 15 essentially business statutes from which appeal can be made. Pursuant to this statute, appeal will be made to a commercial appeals tribunal, a so-called quasi- or semi-judicial tribunal. It's important that our business community have access to that kind of tribunal for a number of reasons. First, the appeal process should be as simple as possible, and should, if possible, permit the business person himself or herself to do most of the work, if not all of the work, of the appeal and to appear in person if they prefer to present and argue their own case. That is certainly possible under this legislation. By contrast, when a business person proceeds to a more formal court of law, they usually feel they must have counsel with them. So there is a good deal of expense to be saved, a good deal of time to be saved, if the business person can proceed to this kind of a semi-judicial appeal tribunal, and to the degree that they can present and argue their own case, Mr. Speaker, they additionally benefit. They are going to learn far more about the system which is in part regulating them than otherwise.

It's important to our business community that there be a prompt and relatively inexpensive method or procedure of appeal from a so-called bureaucratic or governmental decision which, however well intentioned, it may be argued has been made in error. I think we've matured enough as a society that the business people who wish to carry forward these kinds of appeals do not worry or fear that the public servants, the so-called bureaucrats whose decisions are being appealed against will on account of an appeal being taken somehow feel that there should be some kind of a black book with a black mark that will haunt the career of this business forever.

I think it's important to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we've matured in Our British Columbia society to the extent that very openly and through legislation we can establish an appeal tribunal like this which clearly recognizes by its establishment that there are going to be cases in which our citizens in the business sector openly want to argue and assert that a mistake has been made in the process of government which is going to hurt them, or potentially hurt them. So this legislation very openly recognizes that. As I say, that's a very mature sign in the development of our commercial-governmental relations.

In terms of the staffing of the proposed Commercial Appeals Commission, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to be too detailed here, having regard to committee stage, which is coming up. It's important, I think, to note that the legislation does not in principle stipulate or provide that only certain kinds of people can sit on this tribunal to hear these appeals, or that certain kinds of people are excluded from hearing these kinds of appeals. I think it's fundamentally important that the legislation, as it is, is flexible enough that there's going to be a very broad range of choice as to the kind of person who may be appointed to this tribunal to hear these appeals. For example, I think it's very important that it does not specify that only lawyers and accountants can be appointed to this tribunal. Now doubtless there will be some lawyers and accountants appointed, and legal and financial expertise is doubtless required in some of the deliberations of this tribunal. By the same token, I think it important, for example, that business people themselves, perhaps without specialized professional training but with a lot of experience in business, are able to be appointed as members of this tribunal. Equally, I think it's important to recognize that it is going to be likely that female as well as male members of the tribunal can be appointed. Increasing numbers of women are starting small businesses, managing business and being employed in businesses. It's very important to recognize that by virtue of appointments to the tribunal, competent qualified women will have the opportunity to hear cases involving appeals brought by women in the business community. So, apart from the fact that the structure and establishment of the tribunal itself recognizes a very important maturing in the dialogue between government and commerce, additionally the fact that there are no restrictions on the kind of person who can be appointed to sit on the tribunal is fundamentally important.

Now the legislation, as you know, refers to several of the other statutes from which appeal may be taken in front of the new commercial appeals commission tribunal. I hope the minister will recognize, and I'm sure he will, that that list is not exhaustive. As a matter of principle. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as the new commission is established and lets to work, the minister will keep an open and growing mind as to the full range of other areas of government that might be brought within the jurisdiction of this new tribunal.

May I outline one as an example, and leave this thought with the minister: I think the Motor Carrier Commission legislation and the whole question of Motor Carrier Commission appeals are a good example of an area which could usefully be reallocated to the jurisdiction of this new commission. Clearly, motor carrier business — large or small — is a very non-technical and basic part of medium, large and small business in the province. Whether it's a delivery truck, a fleet of taxicabs, a fleet of highway transports, the business of licensing those kinds of vehicles and regulating that kind of business surely is a pretty fundamental, practical and simple example of basic business as we know it. It's not horrendously complex or specialized.

Presently the appeals that must be taken by business people in the transport business, under the Motor Carrier Commission legislation, are — in my view — fairly technical as to the route they have to follow, and the ultimate court of

[ Page 9274 ]

appeal is a committee of cabinet. With all the demands visited upon cabinet ministers, it would seem to me that a far better place for Motor Carrier Commission appeals to be going would be to a body such as the new commercial appeals tribunal — a body intended to specialize in the practical and expeditious hearing of appeals, by business people on essentially business-related issues, from decisions of public servants and so-called bureaucrats affecting their business. For example, I think that if on a given day the commercial appeals tribunal is to be hearing an appeal under the Mortgage Brokers Act, on a further day an appeal under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, and on a further day an appeal under the Travel Agents Act, surely an appeal to do with a Motor Carrier Commission licence generically falls within that kind of appeal process.

As a thought for the minister to consider, the reallocation of Motor Carrier Commission appeals from the present system of appeals to a committee of cabinet to this new proposed tribunal would be a very healthy step in the right direction. Not only would it ensure that people wanting to bring appeals under the motor carrier legislation would have a speedier chance to have the appeal heard, not only would it ensure that the appeal process would be less costly to those appellants, not only would it ensure that the appellants could more conveniently appear and make their case; it would also relieve from cabinet, from members of the executive council, what is a very important present duty but a duty which, I think, among the many which members of the executive council carry is yet a further one taking more time; it obviously requires preparation. It would be a step in the right direction in easing somewhat the load on the executive council to move those appeals to this area.

I mentioned the question of convenience to the appellant in the context of the possible change in jurisdiction of Motor Carrier Commission appeals. Generally speaking, under this legislation, I'd like to make a comment about convenience to the appellant that again, I hope, the minister will bear in mind. The hearings of this proposed new commission, as I understand it, will take place in Vancouver. I would like to underline to the minister that I think that's healthy, that hopefully there will be a concerted effort not to have the high percentage of appeals heard in Victoria just because it's the basic seat of government. For many business people — particularly from the interior, the north and the Kootenays — getting to Victoria is a whole lot more work than getting to Vancouver for an appeal.

I would hope also, Mr. Speaker, that the minister might give thought to the possibility of some of these appeals being heard through the interior, perhaps on a circuit system like the courts. For example, once this new commission gets established, if it could be known in advance that panels of the commission were going to spend several days in Prince George, several days in Cranbrook and several days in Penticton over a given six-month period, with some adequate planning those citizens and those business people in those areas who wish to bring appeal could be saved considerable expense by having those appeals heard closer to where they live and where their businesses are located. Not incidentally, it would then give the panel, if they wished, the opportunity in a community to go out and take a look at the particular place of business. If, therefore, an appeal was being heard under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act and there were several factual issues at stake, concerning perhaps the physical layout of a liquor licence premises and whether or not there had been some transgression, it's a heck of a lot easier and more convenient for the panel, if it's sitting in Prince George and the appeal concerns a Prince George establishment, to adjourn for half an hour, walk three blocks, look at the premises, come back and finish the appeal, than to hear it in Vancouver with a bunch of diagrams and pictures and decide it's really not practical to go to Prince George to take a view, even though that would be helpful.

I think our interior and northern business community especially the small business community — has grown to a degree that few of us in Vancouver and Victoria realize. It's about time that we began to decentralize things in much of our commercial structuring of provincial government. Why, for example, if you're a pub keeper in Prince George, a travel agent in Nelson or a registered security salesman in Kelowna, and you're so affected by a decision of government that you have to take an appeal to this proposed tribunal, should you have to go all the way to Vancouver? If you're going to hire a lawyer, pay his or her expenses all the way to Vancouver or Victoria, as part of the appeal process, why can't the appeal be heard in your home community? Certainly the panel hearing the appeal are going to have a much better feeling or handle on the issue if they are in that community.

My second suggestion to the minister, apart from the issue of seriously considering a move of Motor Carrier Commission appeals to the jurisdiction of this body, is that he consider a circuit or travelling system of panels under this legislation on a clearly advanced, publicized basis, so that a number of these appeals can be heard around the province in an efficient and organized way, but to suit the convenience of the business and small business community. After all, Mr. Speaker, very often under the kind of appeal that is going to come before this tribunal, a business or a livelihood is going to be at stake — perhaps the licence by which somebody has their firm do business, the loss of which means the door is closed; perhaps the licence by which a person individually is licensed to be a salesman of some kind. If that is lost, their income is lost. With all that at stake, surely it's not too much to ask that the government regulatory process move to the community in question to hear the appeal.

Earlier I made reference to the concept of panels. As a big step forward, and an improvement over the existing Corporate and Financial Services Commission, this legislation provides for panels of the commission, so that if things get particularly busy, panels of three — perhaps three panels of three each — can be concurrently at work, processing and hearing three different appeals, as opposed to only one group of members in the tribunal who must do all the work with a consequent backlog arising. The concept here of panels is very much a step in the right direction. It's not a question of increasing costs, because nobody can predict or plan what the volume of appeals is going to be in the future. It's going to be what it's going to be, given whatever the crystal ball says will be the number of errors — or apparent errors — made by public servants that business people want to appeal. That quantity of errors being made, if you did not have provision for panels, as you do in this bill, the single tribunal would have to get through all those appeals. Ultimately they would. They would take much longer and there would be tremendous cost to the small business sector because of the delay, but ultimately the work would get done. If, through the use of panels — and most of the appointees to the tribunal are going to be per diem or paid by the hour or the month — the work

[ Page 9275 ]

gets done in a third of the time, certainly the total cost in terms of the administrative cost of running the commission will be no greater. There will be tremendous savings in the business sector by virtue of having these matters brought on for hearing at a far earlier time. So the panel concept is very important.

When the minister closes debate, I hope he will be able to give us some further comment, in general principle, about the kind of person he hopes might be recruited for membership to this tribunal. In distinction from the existing Corporate and Financial Services Commission, it's important to note that appeals from several statutes which you might think were going to be heard by this new tribunal are in fact going to be heard separately under the proposed Securities Act. I refer to appeals under the proposed new Securities Act, the Commercial Contracts Act and the Investment Contracts Act. Even though the bill before us essentially provides for an appeal tribunal to deal with appeals of a business nature from regulatory decisions by so-called bureaucrats, nonetheless appeals from the Securities Act, the Commodity Contracts Act and the Investment Contracts Act will not be heard by this new commercial appeals commission; they are going to be heard under appeal provisions in the proposed new Securities Act on the order paper.

That is a very correct and wise decision by the minister. In its broad scope, the new Securities Act is sufficiently specialized, technical and complex that the three acts I've just mentioned have a far more natural home, in terms of an appeal process, under that securities legislation rather than here. I think the minister should be commended for his foresight in carving out potential securities-type appeals from the scope of the proposed new commercial appeals tribunal and allocating them within the ambit of the new securities legislation. Having done that, I again underline my hope that in some of the space that remains he will give serious thought to reallocating the jurisdiction over motor carrier commission appeals to this new Commercial Appeals Commission Act. As the months go by, I suspect that other members may have other good examples of kinds of statutes which could also be brought within the jurisdiction of this new bill.

When the minister closes debate, there are one or two other items on which I'd appreciate his comments. There are a couple of very interesting sections, one of them dealing with matters of evidence. To the degree that he might in principle, without violating the spirit of second reading, comment on section 17, it would be of great interest. May I say to the minister that in principle I like the intent of section 17. As I read it, it is an effort to get away from the sometimes overly technical rules of evidence as they traditionally apply in courts of law. If in fact the tribunal established by this bill is hoped to be very much a practical place where business people themselves may feel welcome and free to present their own appeals, to bring counsel if they want but feeling equally free to hear an appeal themselves, I think it is very important they they be able to understand the rules of evidence that will apply. As I read it, section 17 intends to make the rules of evidence applicable to the hearings of this commission fairly simple and straightforward to the average business person who brings forward an appeal. Having said that, I expect that most lawyers could read section 17 and find all kinds of reasons why it isn't a very good idea and why the traditional, very complicated and technical rules of evidence should apply. It's a tough choice to make; it's a judgment call. But in keeping with the intent and spirit of the new bill, I think the minister has chosen wisely in choosing the spirit of section 17.

Mr. Speaker, that probably summarizes most of what I had to say. I want to, though, in principle make one comment about appeals under the Real Estate Act, which again are referred to in principle in this bill. Appeals under the Real Estate Act will be heard by this new tribunal. I suppose this comment I'm going to make would apply to all kinds of appeals that'll be heard by this new tribunal; it has to do with the manner in which decisions are, in the physical sense, announced.

Imagine, if you will, Mr. Speaker, that you're perhaps a realtor in, let us say, a small community — perhaps Vanderhoof. Let us suppose that through perfectly human error somebody in the provincial government — perfectly human, innocent error — one day caused your licence to be suspended. Let's suppose it was an absolutely innocent error, but one day somebody from the sheriff's office walked in, took your licence off the wall, and perhaps gave you a letter saying that for the following reasons your licence was suspended. Let's assume that it was a perfectly human error. Your first reaction would obviously be to want to appeal that suspension under the provisions of this legislation, among other procedures. Well, in a smaller community, I'm sure that if your licence was lifted everybody would soon know about it and you'd be very worried about the reputation of yourself and your firm.

Let's assume that you followed whatever the internal appeal procedures were with respect to the suspension of your licence, and let's assume that you ultimately ended up in front of this particular commission. Let us suppose that ultimately you were successful, that you proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal that an error, however innocent, had been made and that your licence should be reinstated. Particularly in a smaller community, I think, Mr. Speaker, if an error has been made that has led to the prejudicial handling or treatment of a licence by which you or your business make your livelihood, the damage can be very long-term and not just necessarily financial. I hope that the minister gives some thought to the physical manner in which, if an appellant is successful in a case like this, the news of that, the announcement of that, will be handled.

I guess, putting it perhaps differently, I would hope that ways could be found to redress an injury that would be clearly visited upon the business person. If a licence was lifted, or suspended in error, and all kinds of damage were done to reputation, particularly in a smaller community, how can you try to compensate that, if at the end of the appeal process the appellant has his or her day and is successful? It's perhaps six weeks later, and there's been all kinds of talk about it in the coffee shops, but finally he's won. In what ways, through the physical process in which the results of the hearing are announced and made publicly known, can early damage be undone? It's little help if some of the costs incurred by the appellant are repaid to him or her; that's little help. How do you redress the injury that's done? I think, in part, as I say, if the commission through its panels is able perhaps to travel to communities and hold hearings in those communities, that might be one way, for example. If, in my example, the commission travelled to Vanderhoof and had the hearing there, I'm certain that kind of event would be well known and closely followed by the community, and assuming that the appellant was successful, I'm sure that the results would be

[ Page 9276 ]

gladly and importantly known. I suppose if the appellant were unsuccessful, the appellant might prefer that the appeal was heard in the middle of busy downtown Vancouver.

I think what is sometimes a problem in the appeal process, in appeals like this where business reputations and business profiles are at stake, is that while the business person has had benefit all right of an appeal process, nonetheless at the end of the process a lot of the non-financial injury to reputation somehow can never be patched up. You can't quantify it, but you know it's there. Let's suppose, to take a different example, it's a question of a liquor licence appeal. A person had their neighbourhood pub licence suspended wrongly, because in error it was alleged that they served liquor to a minor, when in fact that never happened. If at the end of the road the appellant's successful, how does that liquor licensee correct the long-term damage in some minds that, "oh, yes, he was the fellow who unlawfully sold liquor to a minor"?

I would hope — and there's no magic answer — that as the commission gets established and starts its work, the commission and the minister would give some thought to, in the handling of the announcement, particularly if it's favourable to an appellant who's been aggrieved unfairly, the most benefit being done.

In closing, I'd like to say one word about the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, Mr. Speaker, which will be substantially replaced by this new commercial appeals commission. I want to refer — and I think it's relevant to this legislation — to the work done to date by the chairman of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, Mr. Kemp Edmonds, Q.C., who has done a simply outstanding job in the years that he has chaired the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. As I said in opening my remarks, the type of leadership and work and jurisdiction which Mr. Edmonds has been called upon to provide and deal in is relatively specialized and not widely known. I think that any who have been familiar with his work have known the utmost dedication, integrity and professional sincerity which he's brought to his work. It probably is the case...but the minister is not able to tell us what role Mr. Edmonds is going to play in the future with respect to this piece of legislation in front of us, or related pieces of legislation. I know the minister knows the impeccable credentials which Mr. Edmonds brought to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, the great care he has always shown about the integrity of the commission and its work, and the sense of fair play which he has always demonstrated in conducting appeals before the commission. I simply wanted to record the view of many as to the quality of the leadership shown by Mr. Edmonds during his time as chairman of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, inasmuch as the piece of legislation before us, when proclaimed and in effect, will substantially eliminate, I suppose, the work and existence, if you will, of its predecessor, the Corporate and Financial Services Commission.

In some final remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me again say that I'd be interested to hear from the minister as to the type of person and the range of candidates he has in mind for appointment to this new tribunal. I made the point earlier that I sincerely hope he will consider appointment of some business people with perhaps no specialized experience in law, accounting or engineering but, in fact, experience in the practical sense of business. I also hope that the minister will consider some appointees from not only the lower mainland or Victoria but also some of our interior centres, because I think that only if you've lived and worked in those communities can you really have a full understanding of some of the points to be made by an appellant from those areas when a case is being heard. I urge upon the minister the concept that the panels of the commission which this legislation provides for do some travelling on a circuit basis, carrying the place of the appeals to different parts of the province. I really urge him to seriously consider helping the Motor Carrier Commission appellant in this province — very often a small trucker, a small taxi operator, and usually a small business person. I think that to reallocate the jurisdiction of Motor Carrier Commission appeals to these statutes would help that person find a more convenient appeal process.

I think, Mr. Speaker, with those remarks I will probably conclude. This is a modern piece of reform. It reflects a very healthy recognition by government that decisions of government are not always going to be correct, that so-called bureaucrats are going to make honest mistakes. There should be an appeal process for the business sector under these business-type statutes. It should be as prompt as possible and relatively inexpensive — an appeal process under which, on the one hand, the appellant is welcome to bring counsel but equally, on the other, can prepare or present the appeal on his or her own behalf. Those are all very healthy. I think, as I say, that it's wise that the so-called securities appeals under the Securities Act, the Commodity Contract Act and the Investment Contract Act be heard separately under the new machinery of the new Securities Act and not under this particular commercial appeals commission.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. When the minister does wind up, I look forward to his comments.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to stand in my place and speak on this particular subject, but as a northerner I felt it absolutely necessary to say the few words that I am about to say in this chamber. Although I would certainly agree that holding appeals such as those that could be held by the commercial appeals committee around this province and not just on the lower mainland is a step in the right direction, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the real step in the right direction would be to recognize the absolute necessity of deregulating the area of motor carriers in this province. In far too many areas of this province, the Motor Carriers Act and the regulations thereto are a detriment to that industry and to the people in this province. In fact, the regulations relating to this aspect of our transportation system are absolutely horrendous and literally, in my mind, ridiculous. What we need, rather than a roving appeals commission, is deregulation. Regulations such as those entrenched in the Motor Carriers Act of this province not only present a multitude of frustrations to those in the industry, but they also make it absolutely impossible for any kind of fair competition to take place. Because of that, the prices charged for commodities moved from one area to another in this province create a situation in which the people are held to ransom. Those transporting freight and receiving freight and having to pass that cost on to the people of this province are being held up to untold millions of dollars of ransom each year in increased freight charges and through bureaucratic red tape. For the commercial appeals committee to hold hearings in other than lower mainland points, to hear motor carrier appeals in other than Vancouver or Victoria, would be a step in the right direction.

[ Page 9277 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As a northern member and as a member who sees the problem that the Motor Carrier Act presents to the citizens of my area on a daily basis, I felt it only right and reasonable that I stand today and speak, rather than for that roving committee, for a deregulation of that industry. It was done in the U.S. a very short time ago under a hail of very negative comments — comments saying that the industry would suffer, that the people would suffer and that everyone was going to suffer. Mr. Speaker, in the last three years just the opposite has been the case. I think that's the route that we should be going in British Columbia. I say again that to hold appeals in areas of the province other than the lower mainland is a step in the right direction, but it's certainly not the ultimate. Deregulation was said to be a real problem when it was first entered into in the United States, but today everyone has benefited. The industry has benefited. The public has benefited. Everyone involved in that industry today heralds its deregulation in the United States as the only way they should have gone. That same thing could happen in the province of British Columbia. A modern piece of reform to send an appeals commission to other parts of the province to hear appeals? Well, possibly. A modern piece of reform would be to bring into this House an act that would do the same job as the deregulation that took place in the United States just two or three years ago.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to speak on this bill. But I listened with some interest to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Deregulation of the Motor Carrier Commission obviously is an area with which I'm concerned, in view of my critic role in the Legislature for our party. I've examined this matter very carefully over the years. Certainly the people on our side of the House received no end of correspondence from all over the province, not only Omineca, in this regard.

In some ways I have to disagree with the outright deregulation of the Motor Carrier Commission. The Motor Carrier Commission does need an overhaul; it has to be revamped. The House will recall that our people on this side of the House vigorously opposed appeals to the cabinet in this regard. Now the people involved in a dispute with the Motor Carrier Commission can go and appeal directly to the cabinet, and occasionally it appears to us that cabinet committee decisions are made strictly on the basis of who you know — on a political basis.

I can't agree — and I'll tell you why — with the member's point about total deregulation. If you examine this matter closely, what you will find is that the large multinationals would soon have full and total control of the trucking industry in British Columbia. What you in effect would be doing is putting B.C. owner-drivers out of business in this province, That's precisely what the effect of deregulation would be in this province, and that's the reason for some of the regulations that we now have in terms of the Motor Carrier Commission in this province at the present time. I can cite numerous instances where this has in fact happened. I don't want to get into a lot of detail. This discussion is better carried on under the spending estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), but I just wanted to correct the member on a couple of pretty straightforward and obvious points.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before officially recognizing the Minister of Environment on Bill 43. the Speaker will draw to everyone's attention the fact that this is a Commercial Appeals Commission Act. Areas of deregulation might be better discussed in other legislation.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Regretfully, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the chair earlier when the debate did somewhat stray from the official second reading of the Commercial Appeals Commission Act. By way of example, my colleague, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), suggested that the section in this bill which deals with panels would deal With. for example, small operators in business.

One of the things worth noting is that we often have an image of the businessman in this House that is not totally correct. The business can often be a very small business indeed; in fact, it can easily be a husband-and-wife team or even just one person involved in a business opportunity. Yet they get lumped in with this incredible ball of people that are considered to be the business sector. There are a great many people in the business sector who aren't as well off as we would often imagine them to be. Government has a way of being terribly overbearing. If you come down here with a group of people to make a demonstration on the lawns of the Legislature, it's pretty easy. If you come down here as a guest of one of the members, it's pretty easy. But if you come down here from anywhere in the province with the future of your business resting on a minor piece of paper, it can be extremely intimidating indeed. In the bill that preceded this particular bill, those kinds of things could have happened. I think it's important in this Commercial Appeals Commission Act, where we have decided to go with panels and go with people travelling throughout the province, as has been suggested, that the businessman in the community involved will be able to deal with the commission on a one-to-one level.

I think sometimes we tend to forget that government has decentralized most government services. Many of the ministries now have offices throughout the province, but that has not applied in the case of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in terms of dealing with commercial appeals. There isn't sufficient volume of business in the field for them to have a full-time service in the field, but on occasion those matters do come up and it's important that the people who are making the appeal are able to do so in the community. Many businesses cannot afford the cost. I regret that my colleague from North Peace River, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), isn't here to tell us the cost of the air fare from Fort Nelson to Victoria, but I remember the very high numbers he used to quote. Those numbers are not just for one person but also, of course, for his solicitor and any witnesses whom he wishes to come to the appeal before this committee. If government is going to be fair and equitable, it is very important that it be able to go to the people, as well as have the people come down here to the government.

In the past there have been occasions when mistakes have been made by people in the bureaucratic system, where a small business can be put out. Many businesses are not in the least affected by government; they only need a business licence to operate. But others, by the very nature of their business, do need business permits. In the past, when some business as a whole has had problems.... Travel agents are an example of that, where one or two bad operators caused the

[ Page 9278 ]

government to bring in legislation that affected the entire industry. The strength of their entire business is subject to the licence under which they operate. If you took at the schedule, it's very extensive — the number of different bills. The schedule starts on page 6, with subsection (22), and goes to page 9, with section 52. It goes down the whole list of people involved: the motor carrier field, liquor distribution, the Insurance Act, Credit Reporting Act, Credit Union Act, Insurance Amendment Act. All these kinds of businesses that exist in the province are subject to government rules and regulations, and in the past not all of them have had the opportunity to have their case heard at the point where they actually do their business.

My colleague the second member for Vancouver South also talked at length about the possibility of having lay people sit on these panels. If we as politicians don't agree with that, then I think we shouldn't even agree to be sitting as politicians, because technically we are all lay people in the first place. It's very important that people from the business community judge each other, because the kinds of problems that happen in the business community aren't necessarily normally related to another area.

With those remarks, I would commend all members to seriously consider the implications of this bill, because it will make a difference in every constituency in the province, no matter what area. In Oak Bay and in Saanich I suppose it's not difficult to get to Victoria to have your case heard. But with the majority of business being done in the lower mainland, Vancouver being the centre of business and the proposed centre for this commission, I think it's very important that all members benefit from this. At the end of second reading of the bill, naturally we'll have a division, in which all members should support the bill. I certainly will do so in the most effective way I know how. I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to say a few words about this legislation, and in so doing offer my congratulations and commendation to the minister for bringing forward this much-needed reform with regard to the resolution of some matters that affect the citizens of this province, exclusively related to their relationship with elements of government.

A debate has raged in this country for many years about whether it is appropriate for governments to introduce legislation of this kind and thereby create commissions which fall into the general category of administrative tribunals. One often hears the suggestion: why isn't this left to the courts? While there's some justification for that argument in some cases, I think it is now abundantly clear that the processes available in courts should be appropriately reserved to those cases where legal issues are raised, as between person and person, largely dependent upon particular sets of facts that relate only to the issue affecting one citizen in his relationship with the other. While the courts can adequately handle the responsibilities given to this commission, the growing number of commercial appeals dealing with licensing matters which arise out of relationships between the citizen and the government is such that the business of the courts is becoming so great that those issues as between citizen and citizen would be delayed in receiving a proper adjudication in the courts. We certainly are experiencing that problem in British Columbia. Recent press reports indicate that if one has a trial of any length, over three or four days, it may be very late in 1983 before the person can have his day in court and have the issue adjudicated. Therefore this move, without offending in any way the interests of the people who are involved, will have a corresponding benefit for those who seek relief for their particular issues in the court.

It was popular in years gone by to provide that appeals of this nature would be dealt with in the courts of the province. However, the modern trend is to move to a commission of this kind, whereby one can assemble the experts in specific areas to sit as single members of a commission, or as a panel of a commission, and thereby deal with decisions made by government and government agencies with respect to particular areas of commercial endeavour. I don't intend to read, as my colleague did, those statutes to which this commercial appeals commission will apply its attention. One has only to examine those to realize the extent of the need for such a commission.

I don't intend to stray from the principle of the bill, as was done by others. I would simply say that somewhere between the position taken by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and that taken by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) ties, I think, the solution to the Motor Carrier Commission problem. Indeed, as this commission undertakes its responsibilities and shows the way in which appeals of this nature can be handled, I think the solution to the Motor Carrier Commission concept will emerge. Presently, appeals are to a cabinet committee. That, in my view, is entirely inappropriate. The success of this commission will, I am certain, provide the solution.

It must not be ignored, in one's consideration of this legislation, that there still is access to the courts. If this commission makes a decision or passes an order which is believed by any person, either the government or the citizen who may be affected by that decision, to be in error, then the court of appeal remains available for further consideration of this matter. I think that's appropriate. All of the intricate details which may affect a matter coming before the commission can be dealt with appropriately by them, but if in so doing a legal issue is raised as to whether or not a government decision in a particular case has been within the law, that still needs to be dealt with in the courts of the province. The court of appeal is available for that purpose.

The second member for Vancouver South spoke about the present Corporate and Financial Services Commission which this commission will replace, and the work it has done. One of the most valuable aspects of the present commission's process is their willingness to prepare written decisions. This serves the commercial community very well, and indeed the government. Once an appeal has been heard and you have a written decision, then there is a guide with respect to the way in which subsequent matters touching on the same issues should be dealt with. It will provide those in business with a guide as to how they should conduct themselves in respect to the regulations. At the same time, government officials or agencies who have responsibilities under legislation and regulations to make certain decisions will know how previous decisions of a similar kind have been treated by this commission. Therefore, if an error has been made on one occasion, it is to be expected that the error will not be repeated. In such a way, the process of handling regulations in a consistent manner will be possible, and hopefully the number of appeals that may come forward will be reduced.

[ Page 9279 ]

I note that it is clearly spelled out in this legislation that the giving of written decisions, while not necessary, is mandatory in cases where there has been a request. Based upon the practice of the present commission, I am satisfied that there will be decisions in those cases where issues of significance are dealt with. In those cases where individuals who have been involved wish to have the decision recorded, there will likewise be written decisions. In this way, a body of precedence will be established which will clearly indicate the direction that the future should take. It will also provide government with a better method of determining whether or not any particular regulatory action is in fact desirable, whether change is required, or whether the regulation itself should be repealed. This will, I think, in the fullness of time, with the use of this commission lead more properly into areas of deregulation than has otherwise been the case. In approaching deregulation, it is too easy to confound the orderly system upon which commercial relationships have been developed. The member for Omineca has said that in the United States of America they have moved to deregulation in some areas by simply repealing all the regulations — taking away licensing concepts altogether. It is desirable that government move in that direction, but it cannot be said that such a approach does not create some considerable disorder. By using the commercial appeals commission route, I think that the adjustment of regulatory activities can be more fairly and consistently achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to the remarks of the minister in closing the debate. I trust that he will have clearly recognized the desirability, with respect to some of the statutory responsibilities at least, of enabling those panels to travel throughout the province, since we have the power in this legislation of establishing a single-member commission or a panel. All the activity doesn't take place in Vancouver and Victoria. When issues arise between the citizen and the government, it seems to me that a commission of this kind should be instructed to carry on its procedures in such a way that the citizen is not inconvenienced.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on second reading of Bill 43, first of all I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for the in-depth study that they've gone to with regard to the bill before this House. It's a credit to this side of the House, the amount of work that's gone into researching this bill. We don't have this happen too often in this House. We tend to allow legislation to come forward. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) all had something to say which a minister responsible for the legislation before the House can analyze and consider in dealing with this bill and determining where we are going to go. I compliment them for the work that they have done.

I want to say something about the comments made today, Mr. Speaker, and then I want to go back to some of the questions raised the other day, and show you the comparison between the type of debate we had in this House today from members on this side of the House, questioning a minister, as opposed to some of the comments that were made the other day before the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) adjourned debate.

The second member for Vancouver South mentioned Mr. Kemp Edmonds. I heartily agree with the member because in the short period of time that I've been minister Mr. Edmonds, who is the chairman of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, has given me considerable input as to the role of that present commission, and he has given me comments on the bill that is before the House.

I want to comment also on a good suggestion that the second member for Vancouver South made with regard to the range or type of appointees to the commission being set up. We want to have people on that commission who have practical experience in business. Far too often we have the expert — the legal person or the chartered accountant or professional — who sits on these commissions, when we really should have the practical business experience on a broadly based commission that understands the ramifications of decisions made by government. When the appellant appears before them, they can question him, they can question the officer who made the ruling and get into the proper perspective the impact of such a decision, and possibly in making their decision as to whether to grant or deny the appeal make a better business world on the outside away from this place we work. So we have to look at that. Again I refer to the second member for Vancouver South. The impact of government on the small family business — with regard to regulation or licensing, in regard to suspension or whatever it might be under the particular act — might mean the loss of his livelihood. I think we have to look at that suggestion from the second member for Vancouver South.

The member for Omineca, as he probably is well aware, strayed somewhat from the principle of this bill, but his comments were valid. In regard to the Motor Carrier Commission his concern is deregulation, and he has indicated that he accepts the fact that a good avenue of appeal could be under this new commercial appeals commission. He also commends the legislation for having panels to go out into the interior and north of the province to hear the appeals rather than have them spend the money to come all the way from the interior or the northern part of the province. What he is really saying is: would you need that? Would there be a need for a panel to go into the interior if you had the approach he suggests, which is deregulation?

Also, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) commented on his concern about the deregulation of such a thing as the Motor Carrier Commission, so you have two points of view. I commend the member for Mackenzie for bringing his view forward. They are valid points, good points, and give the minister responsible for the legislation something to consider and discuss with his counterpart in the Ministry of Highways.

The Minister of Environment also commented about the hearings around the province. Let me give you an example. Very close to my involvement in private life is the credit union movement. We have over a hundred credit unions in British Columbia, and under the commercial appeals commission an appeal could be made by any one of those credit unions on a decision of, for example, the credit union reserve board as to whether or not a credit union should go under suspension. If we had a panel, and if we had the ability to go out from Victoria, to Vanderhoof or to Houston, where there are small, good credit unions operating.... The impact on that community credit union would be substantial if they had to come down to Victoria. We should have the flexibility to move to places like Houston, Vanderhoof, Smithers, Prince Rupert, McBride. I could name dozens of others in the interior of the province where it is an impact on a small credit

[ Page 9280 ]

union operation to come the distance to place an appeal before the commission.

In looking at the type of debate, I just want to take a moment. While I was listening to the comments of my colleagues, I went back to the debate on September 14, 1982 on second reading of this bill. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) made this comment: "The minister didn't explain too much to us about why it was that they removed the Corporate and Financial Services Commission." We have not removed the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. It is still in existence. So he had not read the bill or understood the bill. Then he went on to say, in contradiction of his colleagues on the other side of the House: "The present bill is certainly to be supported, because it allows an appeal process in a variety of areas." He did understand that much about the bill. Then again, he should, because he's the critic.

He was the only one who came out in support of the bill. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) took up four pages of debate and then asked that the debate be adjourned, and talked about patronage. He never talked about the appeal procedure or the availability of appeal procedure to the businessman; he talked about patronage. That indicated to me that he too had not read the bill. But he did want to delay debate in the House, and as a result took up about four pages in Hansard.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) mentioned that this bill is another indication of interference by this government into the affairs of the private enterprise system. That couldn't be further from the truth. He had not read the bill. It provides an avenue for the business community to appeal a decision of government. He did ask one question, and I brought the answer for him today. He asked how many appeals were lodged with the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. In that question is the rationale for having set up a commercial appeals commission act: the number of appeals dealing with the various acts that will fall under the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, as opposed to what falls under the Securities Act. What's happened is that the small business sector has had more appeals to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission than has the stock exchange or those pieces of legislation that fall under the Securities Act — for example, the Commodity Contract Act and the Investment Contract Act.

We intend to set up a commission to hear that type of appeal. This commission will hear those appeals that deal with the Company Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Credit Unions Act, the Insurance Amendment Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, and several others. This has been set up because of the number of hearings. From April 1981 to March 31, 1982, we had 17 hearings by the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, which was originally set up to hear items that fall under the Securities Act. We had 11 hearings under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, only three under the Securities Act, one under the Motor Dealer Act, one under the Liquor Distribution Act and one under the Societies Act. So you can see that most of the time was spent on those pieces of legislation which will now fall under this particular act. From April 1, 1982 to the present time, we've had 18 hearings; nine under the Real Estate Act, three under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, one under the Credit Union Act, one under the Mortgage Brokers Act, and only four under the Securities Act. Those which fall under the Securities Act are of course are in far more detail.

The purpose of this particular bill, which sets up the commercial appeals commission, is to hear in an informal court those various appeals to the pieces of legislation that fall, you might say, into the small business category and not into the investment community category. Let me give you some examples of that type of appeal. Under the Motor Dealer Act, for example, the registrar of motor dealers could cancel a previous registration of a motor dealer. That motor dealer will have the ability to appeal to the Commercial Appeals Commission. Under the Mortgage Brokers Act, if the registrar finds that a person registered as a mortgage broker has engaged in what the registrar regards as a harsh or unconscionable transaction, he may suspend that person's registration. If the mortgage broker disagrees, he will have the opportunity to appeal that decision of the registrar under the Mortgage Brokers Act to the Commercial Appeals Commission.

If the superintendent of insurance, an officer under the Insurance Act, refused to issue a licence to an applicant to carry a business as an insurance agent or an insurance salesman, that person could have the opportunity to appeal to this body. If a decision of a general manager of the liquor distribution branch were to delist a product already listed, then the company involved would have the opportunity to appeal that decision. Those are the types of things, Mr. Speaker, that will fall under the purview of the Commercial Appeals Commission.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), on the day he rose to first speak on the bill, on September 14, 1982, said: "Mr. Speaker, I am most ill-equipped to be speaking on this bill." That is fact. He went on for a period of time, and in his comments it was very evident that he hadn't read the bill, but he closed with this comment: "I wish to continue my speech at the next sitting of the House." Then he moved adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House, which was voted on and approved. For the members present, you will recall that earlier this afternoon the first member for Vancouver Centre got up, and the continuation of his speech at that time was very simply: "I will let my remarks stand that I made on September 14."

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion that is typical of the type of research done by that side of the House into this bill, which is an important bill, as opposed to the comments made by my colleagues on this side of the House in questioning their minister: what is the value of this piece of legislation? What will it do? What will it accomplish? Is it a good piece of legislation? They brought up some very valid points. On the opposition side of the House there was nothing except one question, as I mentioned, by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who said: "How many appeals have you heard?" And that was the rationale used to decide to go to a separate bill, to a separate commission. I hope my answer to him helped him understand why we put forward this particular bill at this time.

The bill itself, when it deals with the consequential amendments to various pieces of legislation, develops a uniform procedure under those pieces of legislation so that the avenue is identical for all the pieces of legislation to go to the Commercial Appeals Commission when this bill is passed. That will give a better understanding of the process to those people who work under the various pieces of legislation. It makes it a simple process that people can understand.

[ Page 9281 ]

There are — and I don't think I'm going beyond the bounds of debate in second reading — a number of amendments before the House which will be dealt with in committee. I just want to point out that by having this we have completed a step which allows for the average businessman, the small businessman, to come forward in an informal court. If you will, to question why certain decisions are made.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made statements like, "It's an unwarranted intrusion into the business community," if I recall the words right. By those comments you would assume that he is opposed to the piece of legislation, and in effect denies the right of appeal for the businessman to come forward. I feel badly that that's the type of debate that was carried on last week by the opposition.

Again I would say to the House that I appreciate the comments regarding panels, so that we can send out a panel of three members of the commission to have a hearing, say, in the Kootenays, and possibly send a panel out of elsewhere if the workload is there and hear a number of appeals and speed up the process so people won't have to wait a long time and spend money to come all the way to Victoria.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) made comment that when an appeal is heard it's because the appellant is questioning or objects to a decision of a bureaucrat under the particular legislation.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not a proper word to use.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry. I guess "officer" would be a better word to use. Thank you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East.

When that decision is made — for example, if a licence was suspended and then the appeal was heard and upheld — I think it's important that that message get out to the community that the man wasn't guilty and that it was an error by the officer in making the original decision. We should be able to get that message across so that the businessman in that small community doesn't have a stigma that he has committed a wrong.

The hearings may be in private. The reason for that, of course — it could be a decision of the commission itself — is the possibility of information being divulged by the appellants or by the officer to the commission that could impact unfairly on the appellant if that were public information.

MR. MACDONALD: "Impact" is a noun, not a verb.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Therefore at certain times, under certain conditions. the commission may determine that they should hear the appeal in private as opposed to in public.

Mr. Speaker, it is not, as was stated by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), a further encroachment into the private sector. It is an informal appeals procedure to protect the businessman against decisions of government which may be unfair. and it gives that businessman an avenue of appeal outside government itself. With those comments, I would now move second reading of Bill 43.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 43, Commercial Appeals Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is a motion for adjournment before the House at this time. The Leader of the Opposition rises on a...?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise before the minister and to his feet to bring to his attention that we still have not debated unemployment under my motion.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.