[ Page 9283 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Small Business Development Act (Bill 82). Hon. Mr. Phillips

Introduction and first reading –– 9283

Ministry of Energy, Mines And Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 77). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9283

Mr. Howard –– 9283

Mr. Lockstead –– 9284

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9285

Division –– 9285

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 76). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9285

Mr. Macdonald –– 9285

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 75). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9285

Mr. Howard –– 9286

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9286

Division –– 9286

Commercial Appeals Commission Act (Bill 43). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On section 35 –– 9287

Mr. Macdonald

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act (Bill 79). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On section 2 –– 9288

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. King

Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Barnes

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 9295

Appendix –– 9295

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Introduction of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Phillips presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business Development Act.

Bill 82 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND
PETROLEUM RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. SMITH: In moving second reading of this bill, I should probably go back and remind those who are sitting in rapt attention that this bill really has two parts to it, both of which principles are contained in the recently passed amendments to the Utilities Commission Act, which constituted Bill 66 of the earlier part of this session.

The first area that was covered by these amendments provides the power to respond to emergency shortages or disturbances in the province's energy markets. If you'll recall, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982, Bill 66, amended the Utilities Commission Act so that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources could respond to an emergency in the petroleum industry — shortage or disturbance in supply in that industry. What this bill does is extend that power to include the electrical and natural-gas energy sectors. For the benefit of members who may not have Bill 66 before them, I would just briefly outline what those emergency provisions are. When an emergency occurs the minister may declare in writing that an emergency exists, and once this is done regulations come into effect which may control or regulate the use, supply and demand for the energy resource affected. You can see that this would be an important regulatory safety valve in the event that there was a serious electrical shortage or a shortage of some kind in our natural-gas energy sector. The provision is general in nature. That means that our response can be flexible and tailored to the particular sector in which there is a shortage or a disturbance, and also tailored to the nature of the emergency. The staff of my ministry participate in a federal task force which is coordinating the provincial and federal responses to emergency which are national in scope. The amendment allows for this, as well as for emergency conditions which may be a solely provincial concern. I'm emphasizing that that power, which would be exercised sparingly and only in an emergency, would be exercised in accordance with federal cooperation, and also in accordance with a uniquely provincial emergency which arose. That's the first part of the first principle of this amendment bill.

The second part of the bill simply increases the scope allowed for ministerial inquiries. The provisions relating to those inquiries now permit for cost awards to be made in line with the power to direct costs that is contained in the Utilities Commission Act. The scope of inquiries is now limited to carrying out mineral and petroleum energy-resource inventories and to making projections for energy requirements. The amendment reflects the greater commitment of this ministry to active management of resources. That was set out in my predecessor's energy policy document of February 1980. This amendment will broaden the scope of possible future inquiries from resource inventory only to all subjects which are the responsibility of the ministry. I underline that they must be in areas which are the responsibility of this ministry. It doesn't allow for inquiries of a far-reaching general nature which don't fall within the scope of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The provision relating to cost awards allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in authorizing an inquiry under the act, to specify the ground rules for cost awards. These may allow either the minister or the person carrying out the inquiry to award costs to participants or even to recover the administrative costs of the inquiry themselves. The amendments bring the inquiry provisions of the act into line with modern practice in the conduct of administrative inquiries and largely parallel the provisions of the Utilities Commission Act. The scope of these inquiries would be broadened, and the cost provisions modernized and brought into line to allow for recovery of costs; not just legal and consulting costs but also — in a case in which the inquiry commission or minister exercised discretion — even the administrative costs of the hearing. This will allow the minister to inquire into all aspects of the government's energy and mineral activities.

Members of this House will recall the recent highly successful inquiry which was carried out under the existing legislation by Dr. George Govier into the matter of surplus determination of the provincial natural gas resource. I give this as an example of the kind of inquiry which, with the passage of this bill, can now be carried out across the entire range of government-directed energy activities. I'm sure that members will understand that inquiries are not embarked upon lightly, but at times they have a very valuable purpose to fulfil in ensuring that all aspects of the interested community are able to be involved impartially in developing advice and to air their concerns before government.

Hon. members, I commend the amendments to you as being modern and progressive.

MR. HOWARD: I have just a few remarks on this bill. The proposal that seeks to combine an expansion of the definition of an energy resource to include electricity, and the proposal that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may cause an investigation to take place with respect to another section of the act — namely 5(b), which has a very broad reference to energy facilities — prompts me to suggest to the minister that he and the government, once this bill becomes proclaimed, should conduct on behalf of the people of B.C. just such an investigation as is contemplated here, but conduct it into the proposed Kemano II project, currently being examined by the Aluminum Co. of Canada.

As most members of the House know, I think, the Aluminum Co. of Canada received a water licence some 31 or 32 years ago for a 50-year duration. The water licence and an agreement between Alcan and the government of the province of British Columbia gives Alcan the authority to

[ Page 9284 ]

dam and divert the flow of certain watercourses in this province, notably those in the mid-north to northwest area of the province. If Alcan were to proceed, as it claims it has the right to — and I disagree that it has the right — namely, to exercise full authority under that water licence, then it would visit untold damage upon certain communities westward from Prince George, including Prince George itself. The flow of the Nechako would be proposed to be impaired; the flow into the Morice River and Bulkley-Skeena system would be impaired as well. It would cause a tremendous amount of hardship in that part of the province.

The provincial government has given its carte blanche endorsement to the idea that Alcan has a valid contract, that the water licence is valid and is as solid as the day is long, and that nothing can intrude upon it. That opinion was expressed in this House by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). I disagree with it; I think it's wrong in its foundation. Nonetheless, that is what he said on behalf of the government. Also, a few years back the government had had clandestine meetings with Alcan officials, leading towards the final approval that may be necessary with respect to that water licence that Alcan has. But at the moment, the Aluminum Co. of Canada — and it has been so for some months now — has been embarked upon an examination of the effects, environmentally, socially and economically, that would flow from the execution of what it claims are its full rights under that licence.

In other words, Alcan — and I've argued this point with Alcan officials, and in this House and outside of it — has a conflict of interest in what it is doing. Alcan will be the beneficiary under that water licence; the Aluminum Co. of Canada will reap the benefits. At the same time it has embarked upon what it claims is a program to preserve and protect the public interest. I submit it cannot do both with any credibility and with any possibility of being able to serve both masters. The group and the element, in our political democracy, charged with the responsibility of preserving and protecting the public interest is government. Government represents people of this province; government represents the resources of this province; government has the duty and the obligation under our political democracy to preserve the interests of the public. Alcan has the obligation under law and under its structure to serve the interests of Alcan — to serve its balance sheet.

While the government has had a cop-out of its position with respect to serving the public interest, with respect to that particular proposal of Alcan — whether it's watered down from the original force of the agreement and the water licence of 1950, watered down by Alcan or whatever — Alcan, a private corporation, should not be in the position of presuming to protect or serve the public interest. That's the responsibility of government. This government has failed miserably to even recognize that fundamental fact: that the preservation of the public interest rests in the hands of this government, this ministry or whatever ministry may be charged with any specific responsibility. In this situation, it's this Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

The minister has now brought forward an amendment to that act saying that the cabinet, by order, can authorize the minister to employ people to conduct investigations. I submit that one of the first obligations, and the first investigation to be conducted, should be into the effects of Alcan's proposal with respect to Kemano II. The danger and the damage that could result from Alcan, unbridled, unhindered — if there is such a word.... I'm like the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm); I make them up as I go along. I don't speak very good, but then I ain't had the chance to learn those things in school, you see, or learn them things — is that the way it goes? — to put it properly. But if Alcan proceeds along the course that it claims it can proceed along, and if it claims the full validity of that water licence, then damage to the public interest will result. There's no question of that. Time and time again the people who live in that Omineca district have said that they do not want Alcan to prosecute to the full the authority it claims it has under that water licence of 1950 and the agreement. I submit that the public interest cannot be served by Alcan, because Alcan is in a conflicting position with respect to its responsibilities and authority. The government is in a conflicting position too, because it says that Alcan can serve the public interest. The government will sit back and be aloof from that whole mechanism and process.

So I maintain that once embarked in this direction, one of the first things the minister should do is commence an examination into the environmental, social, community and economic effects of Alcan, and put into some perspective whatever we can to protect the interests of all people of this province, particularly those who are likely to have the initially damaging impact of that activity of Alcan with respect to its pursuit of the completion of its project at Kemano II.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few words on this bill as well. If the minister heeds the advice of my colleague the member for Skeena on the matter of water licences, and if the Alcan situation is the first investigation under this act, then the second investigation, as promised by that government and by the former Minister of Energy, must be the formation and the naming of the Utilities Commission to look into the economic and environmental impact of a natural gas line to Vancouver Island.

That government promised the people living on the coast of British Columbia.... Approximately two months ago in this Legislature I was assured by that government that that Utilities Commission would be named and in place before the end of summer. That promise, once again, has not been kept. I spoke with the minister, and he was quite reasonable. I do understand that that minister is new and must have time to look at the various problems associated with that particular project, but time is running out. I strongly suspect that that government and that minister will probably make the announcement two weeks from now, after the election is called — we're on the election trail — and hold that promise out as a carrot for the residents of Vancouver Island and Powell River, in terms of the economic impact that the pipeline will have on those areas.

In closing this bill, I'd like the minister to get up now.... This bill does deal with this topic, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister will tell us in this House this morning that he is prepared to name members to the Utilities Commission to look at the feasibility of the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. Time is of the essence.

One of the main partners in the consortium has put a deadline on the project. Union Oil of California said that if no decision has been reached by December of this year they are withdrawing from the fertilizer complex proposed for the Powell River area. We can't wait any longer.

[ Page 9285 ]

I sincerely believe that that government over there is playing politics with this project to the disadvantage of residents and businesses on Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Skeena expressed his concerns about Kemano. I think he would probably know that any application by Kemano would be an energy-use project — I'm sure he knows this intimately — exceeding the threshold of three petajoules, and therefore would be a matter dealt with under the Utilities Commission Act and would not be a matter that would be dealt with under the inquiry power sought to be added by this amendment. But I'm sure he knows that and would expect that the project would go the route of the Utilities Commission Act when and if an application were made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline project is also, of course, a matter under the Utilities Commission Act. I think that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is aware that the proposal that he speaks of is not the only one before us, but that there are nine other proposals by various firms and consortiums to provide a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, some of which have other side benefits for the area of his riding as well as for Vancouver Island. I can assure this member and other members of this House that I will be making an imminent announcement with respect to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline, and that is a matter of very high priority with me and with the government. It is not a matter which will be left. It is a matter which is under intensive study in relation to the proposals that have been received — some ten in number. He can expect a very early announcement on that. I thank him for his concern.

I have the honour to move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 77, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1982

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there seem to be several members, including the Chair, who do not have copies of Bill 76. If we could have a very short recess, we'll see that the bill is made available to all members.

The House took recess at 10:05 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:16 a.m.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Bill 76, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) 1982, falls squarely within the limited category of bills of this class, which on previous occasions I have indicated to the House is to be the practice to be followed. The several amendments contained in the bill, as members will recall, having read it carefully, deal with minor technical and grammatical errors and omissions. There are no issues of commanding substance in this legislation. As in previous instances, they are much better dealt with in the committee, stage of the bill. Therefore I move second reading,

MR. MACDONALD: I support the motion. There are no issues of commanding substance in this bill; it's much like the rest of the government's legislation. I think it should go to committee.

Bill 76, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Unlike the previous bill, Bill 76, this one does contain a matter of significant principle and interest.

The criminal injuries compensation legislation, which has been on the laws of this province now for some years, has discharged a growing need in the province to provide for those persons who are the victims of criminal conduct, a form of relief not in existence prior to the institution of this legislation. At law, victims of crime could, prior to the introduction of the legislation, have pursued a remedy in the courts if that was their wish, but in many instances such an action would have been fruitless, and the necessity to pursue that course of action was, at the time this legislation was introduced, an unnecessary burden upon the citizen, The legislation, as it presently stands, therefore, was intended to ensure for the victims of crime that there was a government fund established and administered by the Workers' Compensation Board, whereby victims of crime could receive compensation for injuries occasioned by reason of criminal conduct or resulting from the involvement of the citizen in coming to the assistance of law enforcement officers in the course of the apprehension of a criminal.

It now, however, is clear that one section of the bill still stands as a barrier to the rights of compensation which a victim of crime may feel he is entitled to realize. The legislation presently provides that if application is made for compensation under the legislation, the person accepting compensation under the plan must make an election whereby, by receiving compensation, he turns over to the plan itself any right to pursue a remedy in the courts. Whether or not such action is then pursued becomes a decision of the people who operate the plan — in this province, the Workers' Compensation Board.

With changing circumstances, there is clear evidence that there are many circumstances in which actions could be pursued. But it would be inappropriate to say to the person injured as a result of criminal conduct: "Well, you must make a choice. Either pursue your remedies in the courts, or take

[ Page 9286 ]

compensation." The amendment before us is to overcome that particular problem. Once this section is amended, a victim of crime, without forfeiting his or her right to compensation, may pursue any remedies available in the courts. Alternatively, the plan still is able to pursue the criminal if the victim does not wish to take that course of action. This therefore ensures that victims of crime will receive the compensation available from the plan, at the same time as they may pursue any other remedy available to them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This removal of the mandatory election will remove, as I said, a barrier which presently exists to a person's being entitled to enjoy his or her full rights with respect to compensation. The only requirement, if this legislation is to be used, is that the plan be notified and that there be no settlement of any action without the plan's being a part of those settlement discussions. This is to ensure that when the court proceedings are indeed finally concluded, the moneys paid by the perpetrator of the crime will be appropriately used if necessary to recompense the plan for the recovery.

Members will note, however, that any moneys recovered from the perpetrator of the crime are applied very specifically: first, in respect of the costs occasioned in bringing the action and in effecting recovery; secondly, any amount that the victim receives over and above the plan compensation, and only after that excess has been received by the victim, is available to the plan as compensation for its contribution. Therefore the victim of crime who pursues these remedies will have, to the extent that the law can provide for damages by way of compensation, the best of all worlds. The plan does exist, and it is not a barrier to rights to recover. If they recover more, they will first enjoy the fruits of the proceedings, and only after that does the public plan receive any compensation.

One of the matters which encouraged us to pursue this legislative change was the growing awareness that some persons who involve themselves in criminal conduct to the damage of others do so as part of a business enterprise. This is the criminal entrepreneur, who in many cases is able, very able, to meet any claims for damage. This is the same indication that led us to propose nationally to the Attorney-General of Canada and to the Minister of Justice the need to pursue the RICO concept, which is the right of the state to recover damages from people who are involved in crime as an enterprise. With those situations existing, it seems most appropriate that the victims — and there can be a wide range of circumstances under which victims may feel themselves damaged by criminal conduct — should be able to pursue the assets that persons involved in criminal enterprise are known to have.

I trust that this legislation will commend itself to members on all sides of the House. It is a significant step forward in victim services, a matter of growing concern in all jurisdictions, and covers this one area with respect to compensation.

So saying, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General seems to have mastered the ability to explain this bill in great detail and with some perfection. There seems to be something misleading in the explanatory notes, although explanatory notes are not part of the legislation and therefore of not much consequence. There wasn't a mandatory election as I read the old act. There was an option to either proceed by way of action or claim compensation. The word "mandatory" doesn't seem to fit within that, but that's an insignificant detail. The bill lends itself, because it.... It is a detailed bill, replacing a section with another section and altering some of the words in the previous section, such as the reference to a person who because of a physical or mental disability following injury may not be in a position to take action or claim compensation. Some compensation may be paid him under the bill at the moment. That seems to be either missing or reworded in the bill before us and, as such, lends itself to examination at the committee stage, and we'll proceed to do it at that time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in some disagreement with the member's comments with regard to the marginal notes. I suppose that whenever you provide a statutory obligation to make an election, then, in effect, it is to some extent mandatory. In other words, as the section stands today, you can't get the benefits under the plan unless you in fact make the election. To that extent it is mandatory. However, as the member points out, the explanatory notes are not part of the bill, and I apologize if the member was in any way confused by the use of the word "mandatory."

I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 75, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 43, Mr Speaker.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION ACT

The House in in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

On section 11.

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

[ Page 9287 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

On section 18.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

On section 21.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the minister. There are consequential amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, but these amendments do not appear to embrace the right of a disappointed person who is seeking a liquor licence from this government to appeal directly to the cabinet. Am I correct in that assumption? Can they bypass this new appeal body and go right to the cabinet, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: We have not changed anything with regard to appeals. What can currently be heard by the Corporate and Financial Services Commission will be heard by the new Commercial Appeals Commission in the future, so we have not changed the type of appeal they would hear.

MR. MACDONALD: It has not changed in this bill, but you've certainly changed it since you became the government of British Columbia in 1976. Before that time the corporate and financial services appeal body could hear these things, but this government abstracted from that impartial appeal procedure the plaintive cries of their Social Credit bagmen who were seeking neighbourhood pub licences — that's the size of it. They go right to the minister. You leave that kind of political appeal in this legislation. Then you have the former minister get up and speak for half an hour extolling the fine virtues, in terms of natural law, of this great new appeal procedure, and how they're going to reconsider how they render their decisions, but on matters of substance, such as granting licences that can be worth $500,000, they can go to be minister. What a farce! It's just a seedbed of corruption — that's what we're talking about.

I thought you'd leave it the same way you have. That's the government we're facing. How much have you spent this week to buy the electorate? There's a limit to what we can afford here in the province of British Columbia to re-elect you; to re-elect a good government, well, we'd reach in our pockets, wouldn't we? But to re-elect a government that lives away liquor licences by private appeal to the minister shouldn't happen in any province.

Sections 35 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 53 as amended approved.

Section 54 approved.

[ Page 9288 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 43, Commercial Appeals Commission Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 79.

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to give the House his reasoning behind section 2(f).

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We had envisaged making the program as available as possible and as flexible as possible. We may have to look at some definitions such as mobile homes and terms dealing with mortgages, and we didn't want to make it restrictive. So this empowers the definition of terms such as that to be made possible.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the bill is a curious one. First of all, there is no definition section, which normally happens in a bill of this kind when there are certain terms or phrases that could well be used and referred to in the legislation. The bill itself is very general. It seems to have been written overnight by someone who hasn't had legal training.

The minister says that subsection 2(f) would enable the government to deal with mobile homes or some other category; in fact, what the section says is that the government or cabinet may make regulations that define and enlarge the act — what that means is really beyond me — or that restrict words and expressions that are used in the act. Now that seems to me to give the cabinet the authority to, in effect, rewrite the bill, denying the legislative body the authority and the role that it properly has and passing that onto cabinet.

We already have reference in too much legislation to further regulations being made by cabinet as just a matter of course. We seem to be making law more and more by cabinet decision, which is, of course, private and outside public scrutiny. But this is the first time any bill has been presented to this House, that actually — in my understanding of it, and I'm not a lawyer — allows the cabinet to rewrite the intent of the legislation by cabinet order. That, in my judgment, is absolutely wrong from a legal point of view and from a moral point of view. I would hope that the minister, if he can't give us a better explanation than the one given, would be agreeable to eliminating this section from the bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid that the hon. member for North Island perceives in the issue that he is currently debating improper motives where none exist. In legislation of this kind we considered the inclusion of a definition section, an interpretation section. It would have been lengthy in the extreme, and might have itself served to exclude persons who are properly entitled to assistance under this program. If he would simply look, for example, at the first section, he would see that it refers to assistance with respect to a person's principal residence. When we considered what would be required for legislative purposes in determining the meaning of "principal residence," we realized that the extent of any such definition would have been excessive and might, depending upon circumstances which arise during the course of the program, have excluded people who were properly entitled to assistance. I'm sure the minister could indicate in the debate on this section precisely what they anticipate will be forthcoming with respect to principal residences. As circumstances transpire, it may be necessary to expand in order to ensure that no one is excluded. For that reason subsection (f) was put into the regulation-making section of the bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 2, which deals with the regulations, covers all aspects of putting this program into place. I didn't have an opportunity to speak before, and considering the scope of the regulations, I wanted to touch on one issue that I think is most important with regard to putting regulations in place and how this plan is going to be administered.

The plan is aimed at those people who are in need. First of all, where they're renegotiating their mortgage and moving from an interest rate — possibly one they took when they took out their mortgage a few years ago — of 12 percent to one of possibly 16, 17 or 18 percent, by this plan they will be able to have some relief with regard to increased costs on their mortgage. Those costs could be because of interest rates. Today they could be increased by $100, $150 or $200 a month.

MR. LEVI: On a point of order, I don't mind the minister rambling on, but that's a second-reading speech. I think he should be called to order. He wasn't here, and that's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the committee to order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam makes a good point. We are in the committee stage of the bill now. I would ask the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to relate his remarks specifically to the section before us, section 2.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I should not have mentioned that I wasn't here during second reading. However, I'm sure the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, the Chairman and others in this chamber recognize that the regulation section, section 2, covers the whole concept of putting the program into place. If you wish, Mr. Chairman, I will relate every one of my comments to the various subsections of section 2.

I wanted to point out the need for the program at this particular time — primarily the need for those regulations to be put into place, first of all, to give relief to those people who are faced with renegotiating a mortgage and increased costs at a time when possibly they are not receiving overtime in their job or they've had a cutback in their hours of work or

[ Page 9289 ]

they've been laid off. I think it's important that those regulations are put into place to make sure that the program works to assist those types of people.

Secondly, if we're going to talk about a program put in place through regulations to assist the economy to recover, then we have a program here that deals with new-home purchasers, who can now acquire a mortgage in which they know that for the next three years they will have the security of a 12 percent mortgage rate. That type of program gives the construction industry, the housing industry and the real estate industry a little bit of a boost at this particular time. People can say: "I don't have to be afraid in the next 12 months of moving to a higher interest rate," or "I can afford 12 percent but I can't afford 18 percent on a new mortgage." The regulations that establish this program will carry out the intent and the policy of the government to ensure that: (a) we protect people who are renegotiating their mortgage; and (b) we allow for people to acquire new homes at a mortgage rate of 12 percent. Those regulations put into place will take care of the concern, in my opinion, that the opposition has with regard to abuse.

The marketplace will also take care of the concern that the opposition has raised with regard to abuse. Let me give you an indication of how that marketplace will work in conjunction with the regulations. If we're talking about people who have mortgages renegotiated at 16 or 17 percent, and through this program that has been set in place they have relief down to 12 percent for the next three years.... Somebody said — and I think it was in a newspaper article as well — that they could reinvest the savings per month into term deposits and make money. Mr. Chairman, I think that if the opposition looked at the regulations that are going into place, and also looked at the marketplace in which we deal.... First of all, if they took their clear-title property and placed a mortgage on it, they would have to pay the cost of the mortgage, lawyers' fees and registration fees, which is a sizable amount today. My colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) could probably give us a figure, but a $60,000 mortgage registered, etc., would be around $500. So there's a cost.

MR. BARNES: You can do it yourself for $50.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The second member for Vancouver Centre says you can do it yourself for $50. I don't think that's quite accurate. If you were able to draw up the documents and do it yourself, yes, you'd save the legal fees; but you would still have to pay the filing fees, and they, are a percentage of the value of the property, or the mortgage, if I recall. At the minimum it would be close to $100 for registration. I don't have those figures, but there's a cost.

You also have to recognize that the marketplace can do what regulations can't do, and that is that if I invest in a term deposit and earn 14 or 15 percent on this 12 percent money, that money I earn, Mr. Member, is taxable in my hands when I acquire those dollars because I have mortgaged my house and in effect borrowed money, because I am going to have to pay it back. If I then invest it in 15 or 16 percent term deposits and get my interest each year, the income tax department is going to take a minimum of 20 percent — or more, depending on what bracket I'm in. As a result, I'm basically losing on this reinvestment approach.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once more, I do appreciate that section 2 does leave a lot of latitude. Nevertheless section 2 does define five regulations, and I think we can stick to those regulations in our debate on section 2.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I object to your overruling the minister, because I think he's digging himself in. Leave him alone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The Chairman must intervene, because too much latitude is being taken at this point. The regulations are specific, though broad. Perhaps all members of the committee could relate their debate to the regulations of section 2.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the second member for Vancouver Centre. He was great on the football field, and any day of the year I would love to have him as a downfield blocker for me when I'm making a speech in this House — a great guy. Man, has he got hands!

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you've said, and I apologize if I've strayed a bit. I am attempting to establish that the regulations that have been put into place.... If you look at section 2(a), where it says "prescribing conditions of eligibility," that in itself will give protection against abuse, because the minister, in bringing forward those regulations to be passed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will certainly want to cover areas where he feels there is a possibility of abuse.

We're not talking about money that the government has; we're talking about taxpayers' dollars. We're just the custodians of the funds that are going to be used to help the homeowner who has to renegotiate a mortgage, or to assist the purchaser of his first home. I'm confident that those regulations with regard to eligibility are going to identify and protect the taxpayers' money against abuse of this program.

Also, funds that come from this program, with regard to assistance given to the homeowner, are going to provide purchasing power to the individual. Let me give you an instance of where I see the particular program being set up under the regulations as really doing a job. As we know, recovery from the recession is going to come about because of attitude. This program will assist in giving a proper attitude out there by stimulating the economy and bringing recovery to this province, maybe on a small scale. The terms and conditions of the program regarding how the money is advanced and repaid relate to the point I'm trying to make concerning the attitude of the people who go under this program. The security of knowing that the 12 percent will apply for three years will allow them to purchase consumer goods and meet their mortgage payments without fear.

Perhaps they will use it to purchase consumer goods, which was another concern of the opposition regarding abuse of the program. Think of what that does: if a wife has a washing machine that doesn't work any more, she can now, because of this program, go out and buy another washing machine, a new one. This is reflected in the store that sells the washing machine, because they want to increase their inventory, which increases work at the manufacturing level. It creates an attitude not just in the homeowner who acquires the assistance under the program, but a positive attitude with regard to the salesman, the store that sells the product, the

[ Page 9290 ]

wholesale level, the truckers, the manufacturers. That attitude is going to grow and expand. There'll be a positive attitude out there which will see, I think, the start of recovery from this recession. This bill, and this section that sets up the program, is a major signal — if I can use that word — to the people of the province that something is changing. We've been bumping along the bottom for so long, and here is an indication that there is change in the wind, a positive change.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you've given me considerable latitude under this particular section. I did want to point out that the program set up under section 2 is not put into place by hard-and-fast legislation that would take another sitting of the House to change, but by regulation; it allows for conditions to be put into place. It gives us the flexibility to change, if necessary, to make the program work better. Those conditions of eligibility are there at the present time. The minister has pointed out what the eligibility factors will be, but maybe in discussion here this morning we may find out that there should be some change to the eligibility. If we can put this program in place by regulation, maybe we can make some changes in our original concept by expanding the areas of eligibility. So it's no different from the bill we debated yesterday, when members on this side of the House got up and made comments concerning the commercial appeals commission. Some of their comments were valid.

We stated the maximum amount of assistance under this section. That will go through by regulation. There is an area that possibly will indicate whether $60,000 should be the figure. As we go into this program, we may wish to look at that. If you had it in the act, you wouldn't have that flexibility. This is the point I'm making. Maybe it should be $50,000, $40,000 or $70,000. The minister can come back, if he so desires, and if the marketplace indicates that there should be some change, then we have that flexibility.

The opposition often consider that we make these decisions behind closed doors, that we're governing by order-in-council. Mr. Chairman, regulations and programs put in place under a regulation section are done that way to allow flexibility, to enable government to respond to the problem that exists. When this piece of legislation goes through, who's to say the problem that exists today will be the same tomorrow, or next week, or next month? This is a most important program, and the flexibility allowed under order-in-council, under regulation, is most important to ensure that this program does what the minister intended it to do, which was to assist those people in need with regards to remortgaging their homes, and to allow those people who want to buy homes an avenue in which they can acquire the funding to do so.

Mr. Chairman, under subsection (c), the type of security instrument is most important. You can have a contract, if you will, between two people — between father and son, brother and sister, or friends — on a piece of paper saying: "I owe you $60,000." I don't think I would want that type of security to be eligible for the minister's program. This is what this section says. It says we are "prescribing the application of the program to each class or type of security instrument." It's going to be identified so there won't be abuse in that area, Mr. Chairman. I think that's most important.

With regard to fixing the terms and conditions, the minister has identified them. It is basically a three-year program and a one-year period of grace, if you will. There's a possibility there. If that was in the act, it may be that it is not the be-all and end-all to accomplish the program. Maybe there will be a need to amend that at some point in time. If so, then the minister can come forward to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and amend the regulation by order-in-council.

Of course, I think the last two subsections here are important. As to the one with regard to delegation, I'm sure we can all appreciate the amount of pressure and time constraints that are put on the minister. As a result, he has the ability to delegate to any person his powers and duties under the act or under the regulation. That gives flexibility again. Mainly it speeds up the process, possibly. By being able to delegate the authority we can move these applications and we can move the program along more quickly. We can get those dollars of relief to the consumer that much more quickly, and I think that's most important. That would certainly affect the attitude of the people out there, Mr. Chairman; most importantly, it would affect their attitude. It would give them some value in their mind as to "here is what I can do now that I have the security under this program." I think it's going to have a major impact, as I said before, on the attitude of the individual out there.

Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to address my remarks to section 2, dealing with regulations, and I appreciate that you've probably given me some flexibility in making the comments I have made. It does point out that the method we have used under the regulations section, section 2 of this bill, does give us that flexibility, first of all. It does give us the ability to amend if we need to — and to amend to serve the people. That, I think, is most important. We may find that there are things that we may wish to do but that we couldn't do with any great speed had they been placed in the bill itself as opposed to being put into regulations. Again, I appreciate the time you've given me to comment on section 2, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the minister that just took his seat that if he thinks my colleague from Vancouver Centre has large hands, he should wait until the voters get hold of him in the next election.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to hear everyone but the minister responsible for the bill go into minute detail as to what the section means. Really the minister, the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), was propounding a dissertation on the irrelevance of the Legislative Assembly. He was attempting to defend the increasing tendency of this government to legislate by order-in-council, to take unto the cabinet, in secret session their assessment of what is good for the people, and to dispense public funds by order-in-council without free and open debate in the Legislative Assembly, which is the historical role of such an assembly. That's a pathetic thing, and an increasing tendency with this government. Despite those Liberals who now try to fit in so well with that amalgam of coalitionists over there — despite their abdication of some principle associated with their fine old party — there is an increasing trend toward centralization and secret cabinet decision.

They talk about eligibility. Well, it is not spelled out in this section. Eligibility might ultimately be defined as based on the political affiliation of applicants. That is the danger when cabinet has control of dispensing public funds, and the criteria are not clearly laid out. That's my view. But I want to ask the minister a question, based not on some hypothesis but upon a particular case I'm trying to deal with at the moment: a constituent who has an eviction notice. His mortgage is about $45,000.

[ Page 9291 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Foreclosure is not eviction.

MR. KING: He has the eviction notice as well as foreclosure. As a matter of fact, I've been successful in having the eviction deferred from September 15 for a couple of weeks, at least until I can determine whether there is any assistance for him. His dilemma is that he is unemployed at the moment. The minimum payment required to service the mortgage is $600 a month, which obviously he cannot afford. He feels that he can make $300 a month. I have been in touch with the mortgage company this morning; they are willing to reassess the situation to determine whether this particular assistance program would bring his mortgage payments within the scope of what he is able to handle. On the face of it it doesn't appear very optimistic. On the basis of the vague criteria that I understand, I don't think he could anticipate assistance of more than possibly $200 a month. I'd appreciate the minister's advice in this respect. If we could get his mortgage down to $300 a month, he feels he could handle it. It would save his equity in that home and would prevent putting him out on the street and further punishing him as a result of the unemployment he is experiencing for the first time in 15 years, I believe.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There will be ample opportunity for all members to enter the debate.

MR. KING: They claim that $600 a month is the minimum they will accept to continue the mortgage arrangement.

Mr. Chairman, my difficulty with this bill, as outlined by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), is that those people most in need.... Certainly the case I've spelled out is a case of acute need. We're concerned that he is not going to meet the criteria of eligibility. Certainly when impending foreclosure and eviction are staring the person in the face as a stark reality, there can hardly be a more dramatic case of need. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this matter privately with the minister, but I'm interested in the principle of this section — the eligibility. Is this the kind of person it's designed to assist? If so, great. But I'm concerned that this particular individual, who is facing the most dramatic kind of need, is not going to receive assistance. He's not going to meet the eligibility test under this particular section, while someone who is quite able to handle his mortgage but simply seeks to take advantage of this program as a gratuitous benefit will indeed meet the eligibility and receive benefit, at taxpayers' expense, whereas those most in need are foreclosed from assistance under the program.

There is nothing in the bill, or in this particular section, upon which I can found advice to either the mortgage company or to the individual. It's an unknown equation in terms of what might be available to him. I would appreciate the minister's explaining how this particular bill might meet the particular dilemma faced by my constituent, which I've outlined to the House as best I can this morning. I want to reiterate: if the minister needs more precise details, I'd be pleased to talk to him privately about that, to maintain the confidentiality of the individual's problems.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to thank the member for bringing that example to my attention. I would also like to take him up on his offer to get into more detailed particulars with me or my staff.

The reason I'd like to respond at this time is that we do envision this program being able to help people of the type been described here by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I take it from what the member has said that this person has been employed for 15 years; therefore I'm assuming that he has regularly made payments. If that is not the case, then we have a little different situation. I found even in my experience as an MLA that the financial institutions are quite amenable if that person has made regular payments and will go in and talk to them and see if they can do anything in the way of payments. I'm not quite clear what the terms are on a $45,000 mortgage, that the minimum payments would be $600 a month, because I'm not that.... Of course, there are so many possibilities, permutations and combinations in the mortgage field. But I certainly would think, just guessing, that this program, on a $45,000 mortgage, would provide at least $200 a month assistance to this person, with that money going directly to the person. Now that person can use that money in any way he likes, and it's applied to the mortgage payments that he has to make. So I'm assuming that the financial institution would be far more amenable to trying to keep this person in the home, making payments, than to taking it away. Perhaps in that respect we can help.

We are hopeful that with various other programs, perhaps this unemployment situation can be eased — with some of the assistance programs. It's a little difficult to get more specific without that, but I'd certainly like to assure the member that we'll help in any way we can. That person should go in and talk to the financial institution. I'm sure he has already. But try to make some arrangements: "If I get the $200 effective October 1, I'll put that all on the mortgage payment." I really feel that some arrangements can be made to keep this person from being evicted or foreclosed.

Also, we are looking at where there may be some judgments against homes; with this assistance program people should be able to go back and satisfy those judgments or make arrangements that this judgment will be paid with money they will receive from this assistance program in order to carry through. In that way, the person who had the judgment has a better opportunity to get paid off — the financial institution — and the person remains in his home.

MR. WOLFE: I just want to say a word or two on this section, and address a question to the minister.

In studying the act, I really believe that this is a very innovative, suitable and necessary program for these times. The further it goes down the line in providing this kind of assistance, that's going to be more and more proven to be the case.

We're dealing just at the moment with section 2, which prescribes the regulations. To indicate the question I have to ask, these regulations prescribe the conditions of eligibility for assistance, fixing the amount, which we are given to understand is now a maximum of a $60,000 mortgage. There are also regulations "prescribing the application of the program to each class or type of security instrument," regulations "fixing the terms and conditions on which money advanced under this program is to be repaid," regulations "authorizing the minister to delegate to any person his

[ Page 9292 ]

powers," and regulations "defining, enlarging or restricting words and expressions that are used in this act."

We've gone through the traditional debate here in committee on what should be prescribed in regulations and what shouldn't be. I would choose to ignore that traditional argument, because I think the main thrust of this act, the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, is to provide relief to people in serious difficulties with current interest rates, people saddled with a mortgage where they can't meet payments and so on. Although we all sympathize with this person in our society today — and I'm sure there are many — I see the main thrust of this act, as well, being a stimulant to the economy. I'd like to see in regulations that come forward from this an accent which provides some incentive — more than I see here at the moment — for new housing construction, for an opportunity for people to get their first home. I know this can be done through some of the eligibility regulations and so on — not to negate the necessity to provide relief to those currently with high-interest-rate mortgages.

I see that we are really looking at this bill for a stimulant to a very dormant economy. The biggest thing which can stimulate that economy, Mr. Chairman, is an accent on forestry and home construction, through the construction trades and the many other trades that rub off from that. So perhaps I could ask the minister if he could comment on that and if he could give any information to the committee on what we might expect from the moneys to be put forward for this interest rate subsidy — whether he expects there to be quite a degree of it in new mortgages which will also take advantage of this lower interest rate subsidy and therefore generate new construction in the process.

I believe I heard it said the other day, Mr. Chairman, under section 2 here, that there may be some 350,000 mortgagees in British Columbia. That sounds like a very high figure. There are many currently standing there who are in need of new housing, and this is the biggest stimulant that could be provided to our economy. If the minister has information, when he rises to comment at this time or on some future section of this bill, I would appreciate hearing what he could tell the committee with regard to what he might expect to generate in new construction; that is, separate from the moneys that will be spent to relieve current mortgages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions such as have just been posed are beyond the scope of the section, hon. member. However, the minister rises to speak on section 2.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought, Mr. Chairman, that this question was relevant, in that it does point up the need for the ability to look at terms in more detail and as they come up. For instance, the very term "new mortgages" could have various connotations, depending on whether they're new mortgages on existing homes or new mortgages for new homeowners or someone that buys it by virtue of an agreement of sale. To answer the member's question, we are certainly expecting that this program will provide a sense of security and confidence so that many who are now saving their money because they are afraid to enter into mortgages not knowing what lurks ahead.... With this three years they know that they're really looking at a 12 percent mortgage payment rate, and certainly economic recovery. They will be encouraged to purchase some of the homes that have been built, which means that some of that economic stimulation will take place and some of those homes that are now sitting empty that have been built will move. That will perhaps keep some of the developers and people who have built these homes from going broke — to give them some cash flow would be a more positive way of putting it — so they can continue their operations and create jobs. It's very difficult to put an exact number on jobs that would be created. Some contractors will be staying alive; some people will use this money to rebuild or make additions to their homes, which they will now find possible to do, and that, of course, will cause the value of their homes to appreciate. They can, in effect, use the interest-free loan to build onto their home and pay it off on a month-by-month basis as they get the advances under this program, and that will create construction. So it's very difficult to estimate, but I would suggest that it's certainly going to be in the thousands across the province when you figure the rebuilding, the maintenance that will be generated, and even the new home construction that will result from people really wanting to get into homes and out of multiple situations where they now live because of high costs. Certainly we expect a lot of jobs. It's always difficult to put an exact number on it, but we expect it will be intensive. We have reason from the industry and financial institutions to feel this will stimulate considerable activity in the economy in the area of real estate, and that it will generate a considerable number of jobs.

MR. BARNES: As we've said before, we're hoping the program is as successful as the government believes it will be. The questions that concern us are the difficulty that may result for some people who apply for the benefits under this program: for instance, someone who may not need a mortgage but who qualifies, which unfortunately may be the case quite often. As the government has indicated, they would encourage people to apply for these mortgages in order to stimulate the economy, to have more money in the marketplace, so to speak. Of course, this would be good for many industries and businesses in the community; the more spending the better. However, encouraging people to do this, whether or not they need it, may be asking them to subsidize the government's economic recovery program at a later expense to themselves.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is chuckling over there, as though this is a convoluted way of condemning the government's program. I'm asking the minister if he would indicate whether the government is advocating that people apply for something they may not need in order to stimulate the economy. There are risks involved. There is no guarantee that economic recovery will happen, as we would all like it to happen. One applies for a mortgage today, when house prices may be considerably inflated as compared to three or four years from now. For instance, perhaps that house would not qualify for a remortgage sufficient to give back that interest-free loan of $9,000 that the government anticipates it will be able to recover at a later date. What if they can't tack that on the end, as a result of low house costs? Maybe the market is inflated. Perhaps there will be extra houses on the market and they won't qualify. What do you do then? Is the government going to foreclose? What are some of these instruments that you will use rather than having mortgages? Give us some examples of these security instruments and what the procedure will be in recovering the loan from the borrower. Will we have to come up with another program to allow them a little more time?

[ Page 9293 ]

It was suggested, Mr. Chairman, by members on this side of the House that this bill may be the prelude to a series of initiatives by the government. In other words, there may be a scheme to forgive those people who are overextended in three years' time and unable to pay. Basically what I'm asking is: how far does the government go to recover the extended loans? I'm sure there will be some cases of default, perhaps because of no fault of the person who borrowed but because conditions beyond his control will put him in a bind. Does the government forecast this happening to any great extent? It is certainly something we should be addressing, and the members on this side of the House are just as concerned about the government encouraging people to extend themselves beyond their ability to recover.

It may be a boon right now. It may be great for the election, and it may stimulate the economy temporarily. But in the long run what happens to the individual who has unwisely applied for the loan, taken the money and bought boats, lottery tickets and cars, taken trips and done all of these things that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) suggested yesterday could happen, other than buying a house? If that's going to become the trend, I think the government should be concerned, because you wouldn't want to encourage that kind of irresponsible spending. We've all learned that you've got to be frugal and exercise restraint at all times. I'm asking, Mr. Chairman: is the government satisfied that the program will do what it intends it to do? In other words, it should help people such as those the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) just pointed out. Those people who are unemployed and unable to meet their mortgage payments are the ones who really should be qualifying for this program if you call it a rescue program for those people who are about to lose their homes. Unless it helps the people most in need, it may help those who have their homes already paid for. They'll go out and borrow the money and enjoy themselves for a little while, but they still have to pay it back. If they happen to be on the borderline, where their home is already mortgaged to the maximum at inflated prices, and we are successful in getting sufficient housing on the market to lower the burden on people trying to get homes, those homes will not be as valuable to mortgage lenders. Therefore what will the situation be when a person goes to remortgage and they find they can't even get what they got the last time, let alone tack on the $9,000? We don't know; that could happen.

I'd like to ask the minister: what does he intend to do to ensure that this program doesn't end being a giveaway, as I suggested yesterday, of cash which the government has no intention of being stringent in trying to recover? Right now it wants to give the appearance that it really has a housing program. What guarantees do you have that you will recover the funds?

I want to ask the minister if he would give me his undertaking to meet with me, as he has suggested he would do with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), on a matter that I would prefer to discuss with him privately. I raised it in the House yesterday. He protested, but he did indicate that he would be pleased to answer the questions concerning the B.C. Housing Management Commission, which is under his jurisdiction. If the minister would stand and indicate that he would meet with me privately over that matter of security in senior citizens' buildings, then I would be pleased to accept that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wasn't going to make any remarks in this debate until the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) opened up a number of areas which I think clearly divide him and his party from the government party in the way in which we want to help people get through these difficult times. They don't want a handout. No single part of our society wants a handout; they want a hand. That's why the program is recoverable and differs from solutions that have been offered by that opposition before, which certainly knows how to give away the money but gives very little thought to careful assistance to people, using the government's credit — credit earned by sound management; a credit rating that allows this government to put good management into practice, to show the people that all the good management of the past allows them to be able to use the credit of the government to provide three- to four-year assistance for people who only want a hand, not a handout.

There are many people who need assistance with their mortgages. There are many people who need protection from the high interest rates brought on by the Trudeau government, practising the economics of socialism. They've been held captive by the small minority in that House, putting into practice spending programs that created inflation and high interest rates. Never forget that high interest rates are the result, not the cause, of what is economically wrong in this country. But because they are misguided in Ottawa doesn't mean that we in this province should not do everything we can to assist our people who are having difficulty because of their policies.

This program is not going to create a burden of debt as a handout to all taxpayers in British Columbia for mortgage assistance. It will use the credit of the province, which shall be recovered, to limit the percentage of a home mortgage for a principal residence during these difficult years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there seems to be some concern about our being specific to section 2. Perhaps the hon. Premier could relate his remarks to section 2.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the regulations are the heart of the whole program. My remarks are in response to areas opened up by my good friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who would, I hope, in asking rhetorical questions, want the answers.

He expressed concern that some people would use some of the mortgage money for business practices or in some other way. Instead of the government's stimulating the economy, somehow he thought it would be wrong if people out there used their own money to stimulate the economy. This is what divides this chamber more than this aisle: given a chance, we believe the private sector and individuals will stimulate the economy. It is not a crime for them to have money in their own hands at this particular time. It is only through their efforts, utilizing capital available to them, no matter from what source, that we will get the type of economic activity.... They may create a few jobs. There is a myth that somehow government creates jobs. Government creates jobs when you build up government services by hiring more and more people. But if you want to create jobs, you've got to provide the initiative and the opportunity for small business, medium-sized business, large business and individuals to undertake some investment. We're hopeful that the programs the government is outlining will help to assist people to

[ Page 9294 ]

channel that investment into key areas in which economic recovery and jobs are possible.

If some individuals who could not afford to finance their small business can somehow get not a grant, not a handout, but some affordable capital during this period, putting their home as security, then my best wishes are with them, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. To say that somehow the government giving them that opportunity is somehow denying our responsibility and tossing the ball to the private sector.... I want to tell you, that's the only place the economic activity can be undertaken that will be worthwhile and provide long-term jobs. Get off this nonsense that somehow governments or political parties are going to say 100,000 jobs, and somehow they create them. They create them through a series of policies that will encourage individuals in the private sector to create jobs. In this instance, Mr. Chairman — to that member — we are trying to tackle a number of problems at once. One is to assist the people of this province, who through no fault of their own have been caught with the high interest rates of the Trudeau government. We're trying to assist them through this period. If it allows them to afford to keep their homes, that is the first benefit of the program. If, along with other government housing policies, such as the first-home owners' grant, the second mortgage fund or other traditional Social Credit housing programs that have been in place, it assists first-home buyers, then that is the second benefit, because it puts our young people and others into homes and into home ownership, which for this party is a basic part of our philosophy — the private ownership of land, the right to own your own home, and also the opportunity to do it.

If, as a third factor of this program, this capital will help to move the existing stock of houses by matching them with home buyers, by giving them confidence that they can have a stable upper limit to their interest rates, and will help to move those housing units, then we have saved many small business people from going bankrupt at this time.

Mr. Chairman, a fourth benefit of this program is that it encourages small builders to start building housing units, utilizing the products of British Columbia, our number one industry. That is a further benefit: our small contractors, tradesmen and carpenters will be working to start to build the new housing stock which will only come when that inventory has been cleared, when there is confidence in the stability of mortgage rates for a number of years, and when people have confidence that there will be a more or less stable market in the housing area.

The fifth benefit could then well be that, having created all of that assistance, this will go back and start to get — in the only way we can, provincially — our forest workers back to work. While we know that total recovery in our forest industry is dependent on foreign markets and their housing policies, we should not leave it at that. I hope this program, by stimulating these areas and bringing confidence, will create enough demand — as much as we can within this province at this difficult time — to get some more people working, whether it's loggers in the bush, workers in the mills or the plywood plants, or wherever in our forest industry. Whole communities related to the forest industry today are suffering more than most British Columbians. Those people are hurting; they need a lifeline, a sign of hope. They don't need political rhetoric; they need a program that somehow can give them some help or at least some hope.

The long-term hope will, of course, be in the international recovery of markets. I think that that can come about because of things we've done in the past. This government has established good relations with our principal market, the United States. We have good relations, and I believe they'll willingly try to support their friends up here in British Columbia and buy our products, even when it's difficult. I think we showed an example of that when the pressure was on from a lobby in Washington and Oregon to put restrictions on British Columbia lumber and Canadian forest products. Mr. Chairman, I'm getting back to the point of the housing program. We got the Governor of Washington, in a meeting with me, to say that sanctions against their best friends and neighbours, the British Columbians, were not the answer. Those good relationships between the administrations in Washington state and British Columbia have assisted the forest industry. That will be the long-term recovery, because we've earned their friendship and respect. Those who have politically attacked them or other countries from time to time will not give the confidence to restore the international market.

Mr. Chairman, therefore there are five major immediate benefits or beneficial areas that can be seen in this mortgage assistance program. It's not a narrow program. It's a program that is important to British Columbia at this time. It doesn't have a narrow focus. Above all, it's not a handout. Yes, the money is recoverable. The member opposite says, "what if, what if, what if?" I say to him, what if we hadn't done this? You can conjure up all sorts of grim pictures, you can continue to be pessimistic, and you can continue to look on the side of life that sees everything wrong. I would say to that member that if we hadn't done this, things would be a lot grimmer. As anyone knows, anytime you extend credit to anyone there's always the possibility that someone may not, or may not be able, to pay you back. I believe that as a result of joining this program with a number of other programs and having in place a restraint program which is the basis for restoring some economic stability in this province, there will be less likelihood that the people you express concern about will have that problem. There's always a possibility that some will. Let us hope and pray that three to four years from now we've come through these difficult times and that the things we do together, working together as British Columbians, will have brought us through and the problems you are attempting to foresee, if any, will be minimal. That's the intent of this program.

The program is intended to get us and our people through a difficult time. It is not a long-term program. It is not an area where government should be involved on a continuing basis. The credit of the people and the cost of money should be part of a sound economic policy developed by the federal government. They have some concern that the ups and downs — the on-again, off-again — high deficits and massive public debt, instead of giving the people of Canada something, have given them nothing positive, but have given us problems. That is where interest rates should be lowered. Mr. Chairman, you know it and I know it, and so does that member. That doesn't mean we can't help our people through this period. The regulations are assisting us in that respect. The regulations under this bill are really the heart of being able to undertake a plan that will assist us.

It's very important, then, that this legislation be passed. It's very important that this House and this assembly pass it

[ Page 9295 ]

speedily so that this program, which is underway, will proceed with confidence and have the confidence of the people. It should also go through with the positive support of all the people in this assembly. I know that all the members of this House, if they support it, will go out and support it publicly and try to assist the people of this province in taking advantage of this opportunity. It will be of tremendous assistance at this particular time for the individuals involved and, in fact, for the total B.C. economy. It's not the total answer — of course not. There is no easy and total answer today. There are those who offer solutions which they suggest might be. That's the sort of pie-in-the-sky promise that got this country into trouble in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important part of this government's program. It relates to other areas. But this and other programs will not work or be the final solution if the basic commitment to the restraint program is not made by each and every member of this Legislature and the people of B.C. The restraint program is fundamental. It may be hard to sell; it may not be politically popular. I have to tell you that all the programs and all the promises and all the things that we can do will not work unless they're part of a major package.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Introduction of Bills

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Rate Increase Restraint Act.

Bill 81 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the, House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

43 The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 43) intituled Commercial Appeals Commission Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 10, by deleting "and" after paragraph (b) and adding the following paragraphs:

"(d) the order where it is in writing, and

(e) where the officer gave written reasons for the order, the written reasons."

SECTION 11 (2), by deleting "an appellant" and substituting "a party" and by adding "within the time specified in the order," after "ordered under subsection (1)".

SECTION 14 (2), by deleting "to the appellant" and substituting "to a party or a witness".

SECTION 15, by deleting subsection (2) and substituting, the following:

"(2) Section 38 (3) of the Evidence Act does not apply."

SECTION 17 (1), by striking out "shall" and substituting "may".

SECTION 18 (3), by deleting "requests them," and substituting "requests them within 90 days from the expiry of the time limited for appeal to the Court of Appeal,".

SECTION 20 (2) (c), by deleting "transcribed" and substituting "recorded".

SECTION 21, in paragraph (a) by adding "and deposits" after "fees".

SECTION 53, by deleting "Section 6" and substituting "Sections 5 (2) and 6" and by striking out "is" and substituting "are''.