[ Page 8175 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 20: minister's office — 8175

Mr. D'Arcy

On vote 21: resource management — 8177

Mr. Passarell

Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Brummet — 8177

Mr. D'Arcy — 8178

Hon. Mr. Brummet — 8178

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 12). Committee stage — 8178

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Kempf)

On vote 56: minister's office — 8179

Hon. Mr. Kempf

Mr. Blencoe

On the amendment — 8182

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Blencoe

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 20: minister's office, $197,228.

MR. D'ARCY: I have an item that I want to discuss with the minister. I have some questions for him on it. It is a question that will be before the Utilities Commission later this month. It has already been partly ruled on by the National Energy Board. This is a question of British Columbia Hydro's power sales to the West Kootenay Power and Light Co., when the customer demand in that company's system exceeds their ability to supply or their ability to purchase surplus power from Cominco Ltd.

In the past, both of these companies have usually had a surplus, but because of growth in demand in the southern interior.... I want to point out, Mr. Chairman — I'm sure the minister knows this, but in case the rest of the House doesn't — that while the name of the company is West Kootenay Power and Light, it in fact serves the southern interior, a broad swath from Princeton through to Creston, including the cities of Penticton and Kelowna.

What has happened is that British Columbia Hydro has been charging this company very high rates for surplus energy, far higher than the rates for critical industries, far higher than B.C. Hydro charges to its own customers; and most importantly, Mr. Chairman — and this is what certainly intrigued and, I think, annoyed the National Energy Board — it has been charging a utility company in Canada far more for surplus power than the price Hydro was prepared to charge for exports to the United States. In other words, if you were a utility in Washington state or in California, you could buy energy from British Columbia Hydro, even after transmission costs, at a lower rate than if you were a utility in British Columbia.

I don't want to anticipate what the Utilities Commission is going to do on this question, but I would hope that the minister, because he has some corporate responsibility for a wholly owned government subsidiary — in this case B.C. Hydro — may well consider using some influence on that company to be fair to customers in the southern interior of the province. I don't think the word is too strong to use here, Mr. Chairman, that what we're seeing is corporate rate blackmail by B.C. Hydro. West Kootenay Power and Light does not have the water licences or the ability to generate more power to meet peak demand. They do not have the hydroelectric energy sources to develop more power to meet increasing customer demand in southern British Columbia. They do not have the ability to buy from a utility other than B.C. Hydro.

Because they are in a monopoly situation, I hope the minister and the government will agree with the National Energy Board and not allow B.C. Hydro to charge a higher rate for surplus energy in British Columbia than the rate B.C. Hydro is prepared to sell it for to utility companies in the United States of America. I know this sounds totally absurd. If someone were to stand back and look at that in terms of its effect on the British Columbia economy and the cost of doing business in B.C., they would say — to use the expression of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) yesterday — that that is a totally absurd situation. I doubt that any state government in the U.S., any provincial government elsewhere in Canada, would see any utility — let alone a publicly owned utility — in a situation where they're holding out on another utility within their jurisdiction, and at the same time are giving away energy to other utilities in competing economic jurisdictions.

I hope the minister will take this to his colleagues on the board of directors of B.C. Hydro and see if they can change this corporate policy. I believe the government is going to be embarrassed by another hearing before the Utilities Commission. All that the electricity users and industries of the southern interior want is a fair price from B.C. Hydro on those occasions in the year when sufficient energy is not available in West Kootenay's system or Cominco's system.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the House, as the former Minister of Energy did last November in that very critical cold spell, that industrial users, in particular Cominco, curtailed demand. They didn't have to, but they curtailed demand and curtailed industrial operations. They didn't shut them down, but they reduced demand for their own industrial electricity so that they could give more power to the utility which was serving other smaller industries and private homeowners. So I don't think there's any question of good will here; it's a question that when there is a demand on the system — on that critical cold night in December — British Columbia Hydro should be prepared to make energy available for the same price that they would charge a utility in Washington state on the same spot basis. That's all we ask.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, not only has B.C. Hydro been charging an extreme rate per kilowatt-hour, but they have told West Kootenay Power and Light that they want a retainer. In other words, whatever the peak demand was, they want that company to pay continuously throughout the year, even in June or July. That's a totally absurd situation.

I hope I've made my point to the minister. Even though he's not from the southern interior, I hope that he will understand that there is a critical situation here. If we're not to have either excessive power rates or a brownout situation, B.C. Hydro is going to have to act in a responsible way with the large amount of surpluses that they have in their generating capacity.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know fairly well the issue of which the member speaks. I might point out that there is a slight difference between some minds — a considerable difference — in the power that B.C. Hydro needs to make available to West Kootenay Power and Light as compared to what they sell to the States on the spot market. In other words, they are pretty well required to hold and secure the power for West Kootenay Power and Light. They can't turn around and say, "I'm sorry, it isn't available," at any time. So when you mention the item of fairness, I guess that's what the argument is about as to what is fair. When you have to have a reserve supply and hold it, is that different than you selling it if it's available? So that's part of the argument.

[ Page 8176 ]

As the member knows, the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing on this issue I think started yesterday and will be carrying on, and this is before the Utilities Commission. I suppose maybe the member is anticipating again, as I understand he did on the weekend when he was making an announcement about government decisions with Cominco that haven't been decided and are still under negotiation. So are you again anticipating the decision of the B.C. Utilities Commission on this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Given that advice, the matter could also be considered sub judice in that it is being heard before another forum.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I made it quite clear in my remarks that I did not want to anticipate a decision of the Utilities Commission. What I stated was that I wondered if the minister would realize that there was a very unfair situation here and try to head off that situation.

I'm not anticipating anything and I did not anticipate anything over the weekend. What I stated quite clearly was exactly what the government has stated and exactly what the media have stated, and that is that there was a draft agreement on certain issues; but that, as with any agreement on certain issues, would be subject to ratification, rejection, modification or delay by the principals involved. I made that very, very clear.

[10:15]

Spokesmen for the government have made that very, very clear too. There was no contradiction there whatsoever. If the minister wants to construe something differently, that's his opinion. But I made it very clear that it was the principals of government and the principals of Cominco Ltd. who would be deciding, and that they had not decided as yet.

In any event, I would hope that the minister would take this question of power rates for people of the southern interior. For the minister to get up and say, "Well, there was a difference about security of supply," surely the minister would agree that in the British Columbia Hydro system in British Columbia, the first responsibility of government, both as operators of that utility and as owners of the hydroelectric resource, is to make sure that the people of British Columbia to whom the government is supposed to be responsible and who own the water resources will have security of supply, whether they live in Penticton or whether they live in Fort St. John or whether they live in Squamish.

What the minister is saying is: "If you're on the hydro system, you've got security of supply; but if you're not on the hydro system, to heck with you." Mr. Chairman, I find that an irresponsible attitude on the part of government. The government is saying: "We're prepared to continue to supply utilities in the United States on a spot market basis when and if we have the power, but we're not prepared to supply power except at extremely high rates in British Columbia" — to British Columbians who own the resource, to British Columbians who elect us in this chamber.

I would like the minister and his cabinet colleagues to consider that point and to consider that in their discussions with the management and directors of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, the B.C. Utilities Commission will be deciding that issue. The argument is really about rates. The last point that the member made is that we're not prepared to guarantee supply. I wish he'd listen to the answers. I said that Hydro has to guarantee and assure supply as required by West Kootenay Power and Light. That was the very point I was making, that that security of supply is guaranteed. That's why they see that, from a fairness point of view, as slightly different. They've got to hold enough water in reserve to make sure they service the needs of West Kootenay Power and Light as required. They do not have to ensure a security of supply on the spot export market. That's the very point I was trying to make: security of supply is assured. The member talks about fair and unfair. As I tried to point out, the discussion is about: fair to whom? What you see as fair, other people see as unfair. That's why we have a B.C. Utilities Commission who hear the evidence from both sides and render the decision about what is fair. I expect that they will make that decision.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, the minister speaks of West Kootenay Power and Light as though it were some utility in Alberta or Montana or the Yukon. The point here is not West Kootenay Power and Light as a company; the point is British Columbia taxpaying citizens who buy power from West Kootenay Power and Light, whether they live in Kelowna and buy through the municipal retailer or whether they live in Grand Forks or Creston. We're not talking about some utility in some other jurisdiction. We're talking about a utility in British Columbia selling a British Columbia resource under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia government. That's the point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the member for making that point. Obviously the member must know, and perhaps we should put it on record, that the residential customers of West Kootenay Power and Light — their various customers, and I don't know the exact rate on all of them — pay less for their service than customers on the Hydro grid system. When they need power, they just have it available. If they can sell power within their own structure.... If Hydro have to supply more power, if they have to store more power, they have a cost involved. I imagine they're trying to transfer some of that cost — in fairness, from their point of view — to anybody else who buys it, and not to charge their own customers higher rates in order to supply power at bargain rates to other B.C. citizens who are getting it at a lower rate now.

The point is being made before the B.C. Utilities Commission, and they will determine what is a fair price for the power that they have to hold in reserve for West Kootenay Power and Light — the security of supply that they have to assure to West Kootenay Power and Light and their customers. Surely they can have the evidence from all sides, and your opinion of what's fair and my opinion of what's fair will perhaps be decided by the Utilities Commission, who will have the full hearing and the arguments from both sides about what is a fair price. Is a fair price selling something to somebody else for less than you're selling it to your own customers?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting for a moment that residential or industrial customers on the B.C. Hydro system subsidize residents or industrial customers on the West Kootenay Power and Light system. I'm not suggesting that for a moment. What I am saying — and this is what I hope the commission decides — is that B.C. Hydro has to keep both firm and peaking capacity in reserve for British

[ Page 8177 ]

Columbians who must buy power from B.C. Hydro. They have no choice. That has a cost to B.C. Hydro and the customers on the Hydro system. The same cost of reserve power should be applied to all residents of British Columbia, regardless of whether they buy from B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay Power and Light. That's the point. Hydro should not have a differing reserve power rate structure within British Columbia, and the government should not permit that.

I have a feeling that if Hydro was not publicly owned, the government would understand it a lot better. That's the problem. What the government doesn't seem to understand is that citizens of British Columbia are citizens of British Columbia, regardless of where they are. The government doesn't have different liquor store rates or different taxation rates depending on whether or not you live in the southern interior. That's all we ask, Mr. Chairman, that the government have a similar reserve surplus power rate for the Hydro system and for other British Columbians who buy their power retail from companies other than B.C. Hydro. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I've tried to say that the element that is being tried to be decided now at the B.C. Utilities Commission is the.... West Kootenay is not being charged higher rates for firm power. They want firm power guaranteed at interruptible rates. So I think that's what the argument is, which is fair.

MR. D'ARCY: What B.C. Hydro wants is not just an extremely high firm power rate. They want that firm power rate all through the year. If West Kootenay Power only buys energy from Hydro one day, or even one hour out of one day in the year, Hydro wants to charge them for that power every hour every day for the next 365 days. That's what Hydro's submission says. So we're not just talking about an extremely high rate on a per kilowatt-hour basis, we're talking about Hydro's demand — and it is a demand, Mr. Chairman — that the southern interior utility pay for that power at its maximum demand all year, whether it uses the power or not. And that's what the people of the southern interior object to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would appear that we're not going to settle this here. The B.C. Utilities Commission is in the process of hearing the argument and trying to settle it, so perhaps we'll leave it to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A great deal of latitude has been allowed, hon. members, but the Chair must consider this to be sub judice and that we.... It's not a judicial inquiry, but in fact it is another forum that can properly deal with the matter.

Vote 20 approved.

On vote 21: resource management, $23,761,450.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, on resource development, I would like to just make a few short comments and particularly praise the minister on the hard work that he's done on behalf of the Atlin placer miners' association to allow approximately 40 placer miners to continue operating this summer on the creeks around Atlin, which is very beneficial. As a matter of fact, this weekend when I was at home, I saw that a number of placer miners are starting their operations as of this weekend. I would like to thank the minister for the hard work that he's done on behalf of the Atlin mining association and the Atlin mining division in regard to allowing these hard-working, dedicated individuals to continue working. It's a very important aspect of our economy.

The question I have for the minister is in regard to a letter I received from the acting chairman of the placer committee of the Dease Lake-Cassiar mining association in regard to eight creeks around the Dease Lake area that the committee has asked the minister to look at to relax the mining regulations on placer operations on these creeks. It is very similar to what the minister did in the Atlin mining district regarding six creeks there. These are not fish-bearing creeks, and the placer miners want an exemption made in the recycling regulations that are in place across the province. I agree with the recycling aspect of resource development when there are fish in the creeks, but in these particular eight creeks there are no fish in existence. Since the placer miners don't use any chemicals, would it be possible to have these eight creeks — that I could give to the minister later in discussions — made an exemption from the regulations?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to thank the member for acknowledging that. My ministry and I listen to people; we try to meet the needs. We really believe that the mining industry, small or large, in this province is a significant industry, and we try to hear them out as to what is slowing things down and blocking that development — without getting environmental damage. So when people have come in, they can sit down with us and give us rational arguments and tell us what is needed. We then try to respond as quickly as possible.

With respect to the specific question, I just got that letter in the midst of my obligations here on estimates. I have asked the ministry to expedite the decision on that so that if there are no fish problems and we can get that moving quickly, then we will get it moving as quickly as possible.

Vote 21 approved.

Vote 22: B.C. Utilities Commission, $1,450,908 — approved.

Vote 23: Fort Nelson Indian Band mineral revenue sharing agreement, $2,500,000 — approved.

Vote 24: mineral development and exploration incentives, $7,350,000 — approved.

[10:30]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
(VANCOUVER ISLAND RAILWAY LANDS) ACT

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just a few comments. As I told the House during introduction, this legislation is designed to permit exploration for oil and natural gas to take place on

[ Page 8178 ]

Vancouver Island, while at the same time protecting interests of property owners on the Island. I should point out that we have issued in the normal course of events some oil and gas exploration rights on Vancouver Island. Since those rights were issued, we found that there's some question about who actually owns the rights to subsurface oil and gas in the area. Our legal advice tells us the province owns those rights, but they recognize that other lawyers might arrive at a different interpretation in certain cases. So we've had to have this legislation to try to deal with that.

At the time the railway surrendered its rights to the province, it retained lawyers to determine what exactly it was relinquishing. I'm told that after a couple of years the lawyers felt that they were relinquishing all those rights, but there was still some legal interpretation. E&N simply surrendered all the subsurface rights to the province and said: "There you are." Now in case there are some problems, we thought we'd better be in a position to deal with them. So we have brought forward this bill to establish that, and in terms of the bill, I might point out, it applies only where drilling rights have already been granted or where exploration rights may occur in the future. If the landholder whose property is affected feels he may have a legal interest in the oil and gas rights, he will be asked to record that interest. Then an impartial board will be empowered to review the situation and determine the compensation.

In any case, with this legislation in place we clear the way for exploration to proceed as quickly as possible, so that we can at least establish what gas resources exist and what contribution they can make to the Island's energy requirements. I'd be pleased to answer any questions the members may have. With that, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. D'ARCY: This bill is a non-controversial one, especially with the members on the government and the opposition side from Vancouver Island, evidently, where it applies.

I find it rather interesting, though, Mr. Speaker, to note in this bill that the Crown in the last century.... Both the Crown vested in the government of British Columbia and the Crown vested in the government in Ottawa were prepared to grant mineral rights, which came to be interpreted as petroleum and natural gas rights as well — I'm sure those things were not significant back in the 1880s — to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But subsequently the Crown does not like to grant those same mineral rights to other owners.

One of the problems in the prairies of Canada, where a number of farmers own land with petroleum and natural gas, is that they look with jealousy across the line, and look at the lovely arrangements that landowners in the United States have, when it comes to petroleum and natural gas, that they don't have in Canada. I do notice in the bill that there is a provision for compensation for landowners, presumably other than the CPR, who feel that they have been wronged by losing mineral rights.

Mr. Speaker, we're not going to oppose this bill. But once again, I find it rather interesting that in the 1980s a government of the right — at least it likes to think of itself as the right — wants to deny private property owners the mineral rights which the government of the 1880s was quite readily willing to grant to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I, quite frankly, think that a private property owner of, let's say, some hypothetical farm in Yellow Point.... It is more important that they have the mineral rights than the Canadian Pacific Railway. The minister may not agree.

But in any event, I know that there's been no legal problem so far. I don't think anybody has sued the Crown, either here in Victoria or in Ottawa, for their mineral rights or for compensation. I know there's a legal reason for doing this: to tidy things up. It might be rather difficult to deal with Chevron, or somebody who wanted to drill, if there was some question about who owned the mineral rights on the land they were on. I know there are good legalistic and administrative reasons for doing this. In a philosophical and historical sense, Mr. Speaker, I find it rather quaint, to put it mildly.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose something that happened way back in 1873 or something like that would be described as quaint, certainly obsolete. So in their transfer to the province with all existing rights from E&N which they retained when they sold bits and pieces of land, we think, as in other cases, we own the mineral rights under there. But in the thousands of documents, there may be one where someone left out a phrase or something like that. This would allow us to cover this. Also, should a person have a legitimate existing right, there should be some compensation for it. So we've tried to look after that, and it will be dealt with by our standard oilfield arbitration board, and that of course is appealable to the Supreme Court.

We feel that we are allowing people the protection that they need, at the same time allowing the exploration for oil and gas to go ahead on the Island.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 18, Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) 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: I call committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections I to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[10:45]

Bill 12, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 8179 ]

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 15

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 56: minister's office, $208,882.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I present to the House the estimates for the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for the 1986-87 fiscal year. Before proceeding, I would take this opportunity to thank my staff for all of the assistance they have given me since assuming this responsibility a very short time ago. It's certainly appreciated, and I look forward to many months and years of mutual cooperation in the future.

With regard to the parks side of my ministry, I want to emphasize that we are ready for this coming year like never before. Not only have we expanded our facilities and dressed up our parks over the past year, but we also look forward to serving the largest volume of users ever in the history of parks in this province. With the international focus on British Columbia that Expo provides, 1986 will provide a prime opportunity to promote not only our parks system in British Columbia, but British Columbia in general as a future vacationing destination for B.C. visitors and residents alike.

Given the tremendous opportunity provided by Expo, Mr. Chairman, our parks system will be undertaking two major priorities this year. First, in celebration of the 75th anniversary of provincial parks, and with a large number of visitors expected, we will be aggressively promoting the world-class features contained in our parks system. Second, we will extend our operating season and expand in-park services to ensure that residents and tourists alike can avail themselves of a quality experience in our provincial parks throughout the duration of Expo.

Continuing our commitment to park information, we will be opening a new information centre in Clearwater to serve Wells Grey Park and the eastern Cariboo. We also will be completing the information upgrading on many of our park notice boards and incorporating improved directories of local area attractions — in partnership with our private sector associates in both recreation and tourism.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a few moments talking about how we are implementing many of these new initiatives in provincial parks. We believe strongly in building partnerships with communities and with the private sector in the development and operation of our parks system. Let me give you some highlights of what we have done. Through our new visitor centre at Clearwater, we have given the community an opportunity to promote the tourism advantages and services of the Wells Gray Park area. In Nanaimo we have given the local citizens a direct management role in Newcastle Island. Their management of the old CPR pavilion will ensure that both the province and the local community get the maximum return from this delightful provincial park. At Mount Robson we have encouraged a brand-new tourism business venture that will give all visitors to that park an opportunity to better explore the wonders of that area.

Over 50 of our provincial campgrounds will have volunteer campground hosts to assist the millions of park visitors who will stay overnight with us this year in our parks. Not only does this campground host program provide better service to our visitors; it also gives a number of senior citizens an opportunity to make a valuable contribution through their volunteer efforts in our province of British Columbia. We are now working with private campground operators in the province to develop joint strategies for the promotion of camping. This family-oriented activity is a significant contributor to the province's tourism and recreation scene.

In cooperation — and I emphasize that — with the private sector, we intend to ensure that camping remains a strong and healthy industry. Over the past two years and continuing in this current year, we have greatly expanded job creation opportunities for many small businesses throughout the province. Services are now being provided by private contractors in over 100 provincial parks, and our users are reaping the benefits of continuing quality service at reduced prices.

In order to meet our commitment to the long-term stewardship of provincial parks, emphasis will be placed on developing multi-year management programs for the special features and resources of our system. These programs will define objectives and provide a framework for ensuring that the legacy we are celebrating this year continues long into the future.

On another matter, Mr. Chairman, in recognition of changes in the economic climate and to stimulate additional economic activity, the ministry has reviewed and implemented revised policies for pricing of Crown land. The review resulted in a general reduction in rental prices, to provide an additional incentive for those interested in using Crown land in British Columbia for economic development purposes.

Important initiatives also occurred in agriculture, mariculture and the marina sectors. Agricultural policy was revised to encourage long-term management of both the agricultural and forest uses of Crown tenures. The major amendment whereby farmers can now enter into agreements for forest management on the applicable portions of their holdings represents a significant advance in multi-use management of Crown lands. In other developments, the ministry advanced its capacity to make land available to the agricultural community. Comprehensive reviews of agricultural potential were completed within the Vanderhoof, Kispiox and upper Fraser River areas. These reviews identified lands for future expansion of agriculture. Finally, Mr. Chairman, with the elimination of the Moran Dam reserve in the Cariboo region and of the Site E reserve on the lower Peace River, the

[ Page 8180 ]

path was cleared for future agricultural expansion in these areas.

During the year the provincial mariculture program, instituted in cooperation with Agriculture, Environment and Finance, was an unqualified success. Applications for tenure for the expanding fish-farming industry were received throughout the coast, concentrating on the Vancouver Island and lower mainland areas of the Strait of Georgia and extending up the coast to Prince Rupert. This program has resulted in the formation of a fledgling industry in British Columbia, one which has the potential to contribute very positively to our domestic and export markets. The implementation of this new program has produced its share of conflicts and problems. My ministry is actively engaged in consultation with municipalities and investors to permit the evolution of this important new activity with reduced conflict.

This past year, Mr. Chairman, has seen the completion of a review of marina pricing and land policies. Satisfactory programs are now in place to ensure the viability as well as the expansion of this important business. The past year saw a revival of activity in this sector with a strong, new development and strong, new initiatives occurring in the coastal region as well as the Okanagan and Kootenay areas of the interior.

As part of a consolidation of government programs, British Columbia Place's role has expanded to facilitate commercial and residential development projects in urban centres. Included in this consolidation were the Whistler project in Whistler, the Songhees project in Victoria, and the Riverview and Westwood Plateau projects in greater Vancouver. This move will provide impetus to expand the range of economic initiatives in the post-Expo period.

Specifically, it has been ten years since a major initiative has been undertaken to develop the Whistler area as one of Canada's outstanding four-season destination areas. This anniversary year will stand as a testimony to the success of this effort. Today's Whistler is functioning year round. With residential development, it has a strong hospitality sector exemplified in its hotel and restaurant facilities, a modern convention centre, a championship-quality golf course and ski facilities of an international quality.

With the completion of this initiative, the Whistler Village Land Company, a company of the Crown, has been wound down and its residential functions transferred to B.C. Place Ltd.

Mr. Chairman, in 1986 we will be assuming expanded responsibilities for social housing in British Columbia. Our needy citizens will be the beneficiaries of this change. Our new social housing program, administered by the B.C. Housing Management Commission, will target benefits only to those in need and will be based on a competitive process so we can assist as many people as possible.

We are committed to the production of quality, modest housing that will be cost effective to operate over the long term, and will meet our clients' requirements. In 1986 we plan to deliver 1,887 social housing units of which 45 percent will be allocated to seniors and older singles, 30 percent to families with children, 13 percent to disabled adults and the remainder to special needs, such as intermediate care beds and homes providing support services required by special clients such as the mentally disabled or elderly.

[11:00]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I look forward eagerly to my first year as Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I am proud to represent an organization that is increasingly dedicated to the best possible service to the public, a philosophy I intend to foster and expand in the months ahead. I look forward to questions from those across the way.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to respond initially on behalf of the opposition, specifically in the area of housing. I note that the minister this morning has basically given us a glossary of news releases that have been put out by this minister and his predecessors. But the record speaks for itself — a record of inadequacy and incompetence by this government and by this minister.

Mr. Chairman, over the last few months the people of British Columbia have witnessed this latest Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing stating and making in his rhetorical fashion accusations and allegations against those who provide housing for the needy and those who deliver that housing. In our estimation, the people of British Columbia have no confidence whatsoever in this minister's ability to administer the housing component of Lands, Parks and Housing. He has built his career on attacking those who live in affordable housing, those who require affordable housing, and he has vehemently, in a vitriolic fashion, made some unprecedented statements against those who deliver non-profit housing in the province. He has undermined, in the estimation of British Columbians, those who work hard and steadfastly for those in need. His positions and his diatribes and his attacks and his unsubstantiated allegations have undermined those who provide affordable housing.

We cannot overemphasize the feeling of non-confidence the people of British Columbia have towards this minister. We will not tolerate this minister's attack on those who live in housing because they have need based on income. We will not tolerate his attacks on those who deliver social housing. By his antics and his accusations he has attacked church groups, non-profit groups, handicapped organizations, seniors' organizations, by accusing them of ripoffs, of not serving the needs of British Columbians. He has consistently undermined their attempts to provide social housing and affordable housing. Vehement, vitriolic, unsubstantiated allegations against those who require non-profit housing.

This minister, the great pretender, while he was affording himself the benefits of affordable and social housing.... While he delivered speech after speech in this Legislature attacking social housing as rat-holes and other terms, vitriolic attacks, where was this minister? Where was this great pretender? We know where he was; he was living in social housing, housing in which the basic premise is integration of income groups. He was living in a co-op.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I draw your attention to May's sixteenth edition on page 739 dealing with Committee of Supply: when dealing with the grants of a minister, remarks must be restricted to his official conduct.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we can certainly talk about conduct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Official conduct.

MR. BLENCOE: Official conduct, if you will.

The basic point we want to make this morning is that this minister has no credibility in the area of housing — not one

[ Page 8181 ]

ounce of credibility. People who try to deliver housing have to work with this minister and achieve some objectivity, some non-partisan approach to housing, and we have a minister who, in a simple, naive, ideological fashion, believes that social housing is rat-holes. That's his position; he has stated that categorically. He is the great pretender, and he has no credibility.

We have no confidence in his ability to work with those organizations that for years and years, because the private sector has not been able to deliver affordable housing.... That's why in British Columbia and in Canada we've had to get into non-profit housing. Now he's on a search-and-destroy mission through his commission to find ways to reallocate, to sneak away funds that non-profit societies have utilized. I might add that of the national housing dollars a very small percentage, between 3 and 4 percent, goes to non-profit societies; in this province a minimal amount, because this government gives very little to non-profit societies. This minister now is on a philosophical mission to ensure that non-profit societies — church organizations, handicapped organizations, senior citizens — cannot avail themselves of those dollars that have traditionally gone to them.

We cannot accept this minister's basic premise that the non-profit societies rip people off. That's what the minister said. He has made allegations — in this House, outside this chamber, in the news media — that there are ripoffs; that the people delivering this housing don't deserve those funds to provide housing for the needy. This minister has made serious allegations, and I asked him in this House last week if he would do the honourable thing and apologize for those unsubstantiated allegations.

Mr. Chairman, what we have is simple, ideological positioning on housing; no concept of objectivity and a rational approach in trying to achieve housing programs in British Columbia. He has undermined those non-profit societies. He has attacked them without any proof, and that cannot be tolerated in this Legislature or outside this Legislature. He has been insulting to numerous groups which provide non-profit housing in the province. He has delivered slap after slap in the face of those organizations that deliver non-profit housing in British Columbia by accusing them of all sorts of gross inadequacies. He has virtually accused them of being corrupt, and that cannot be tolerated. He has not yet proved to the people of British Columbia his serious allegations that there are ripoffs in the non-profit housing sector.

What we have with this minister and his senior advisers is an attempt in British Columbia....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you going to table those NDP poll results in the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: What poll results? What have they got to do with it?

MR. BLENCOE: God knows. I don't have any poll results.

That minister is on a mission, through his unsubstantiated allegations, to find ways to reallocate non-profit funds to the private sector. That is their mission: not to allow those non-profit societies to carry out their work on behalf of those who need affordable housing, who cannot afford the high cost of housing in British Columbia. It's a front. This minister has become a front for friends in the development world who want to get some of that non-profit money for profit reasons.

We cannot tolerate that. As a consequence, we have no confidence whatsoever in this minister.

Mr. Chairman, under this minister the Social Credit patronage machine will run on. If this minister and this government have their way, the dollars that come from the federal government will continue the partnership in patronage that we have witnessed over the last few years in this province, and those vital non-profit dollars will be given to the friends of this government for profit reasons. Those organizations that have delivered housing to the needy — the non-profit groups, the churches, the Kiwanis and Rotary groups — will be left out in the cold by this minister. The patronage machine of this minister and this government will rumble on, and we'll see those vital dollars for non-profit societies go to friends of government. That's what it's about, Mr. Chairman. It's a gross patronage machine that this minister wants to introduce into British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria is recognized. Other members will have their opportunity to stand as we debate the administrative functions of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, every organization that has come in touch with this minister and this government in terms of its dealing with the federal government and trying to achieve a global agreement on housing knows their modus operandi. This minister is going to deliver under the guise of rent supplements and serving the needy. The minister should know, if he's done his homework, that those rent supplement programs which have been introduced before fail. All they are is a welfare system for developers to get handouts from government, and then after 10 or 15 years they walk away; they own the building and there's been a huge drain on the public purse.

[11:15]

He wants to continue utilizing millions and millions of federal dollars for this Social Credit patronage machine that runs on in the province of B.C. He's going to reallocate that church money, that money which non-profit societies have used for years to provide alternative housing for those in need. We cannot accept that, and we have no confidence in this minister's ability to fairly and objectively administer housing programs in the province.

This minister has attacked federal housing programs — unsubstantiated allegations. Report after report, study after study, have indicated that non-profit housing in British Columbia or in Canada is basically a model for the world. We have the evidence that other jurisdictions come to this country to take a look at what we're doing in the non-profit sector, but this minister is on a mission to take away that church money. How low can this government get, Mr. Chairman? How low can they get? CMHC reports and government reports have indicated that non-profit societies in the delivery of housing, not only in the province but in this country, is fair, is objective and serves a social and economic purpose.

We now have another commission in the province of British Columbia under this objective Minister of Housing. We know what that's all about: ostensibly to cover up the Expo fiasco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 8182 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, that's what it was all about, ostensibly: to cover up, to take the heat off what you were doing to those tenants in Vancouver. That's what it was all about. Now, Mr. Chairman, they're going to use that commission in a Court of Star Chamber fashion to put those church groups and those non-profit groups under the gun of this minister. It's the Genghis Khan kind of approach to inquiry that the Social Credit government is famous for — Court of Star Chamber by this minister.

We have no confidence in this minister, Mr. Chairman. We have no confidence in this minister to deal objectively with housing in the province of British Columbia. What's he done to the federal programs in this province? This government had the audacity to announce a provincial commission into federal programs — into programs they virtually give nothing toward. In a quasi-legal fashion, they're going to inquire into federal programs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, are you the designated speaker on the estimates?

MR. BLENCOE: On housing, yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would bring to your attention in Standing Orders practice recommendation No. 9, which reads: "A member who wishes to speak as designated member should advise the Chair as early as possible after the commencement of his or her speech." Should the member follow such a practice recommendation, the Chair would not have to interrupt the member's debate at the normal expiry of time. So the member will now have another 15 minutes allotted.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take 15 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Good. Promise?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you don't like to hear what the people of British Columbia are saying about this minister and this government.

But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has attacked federal programs, has embarrassed the federal government in the delivery of social housing in the province of British Columbia. He has thwarted getting a progressive agreement with the federal government on housing. As a consequence, we are months behind in getting those allocations of housing. The federal government, in its wisdom, is going to ensure that co-op housing stays and gets the allocations, because they don't trust this minister and this government. But we have many other kinds of programs that are stymied and are virtually dead in the water at the moment, because this minister is on this mission.

Mr. Chairman, this minister has embarrassed the federal government, and we cannot accept and tolerate that. He attended a conference in Vancouver put on by the Canadian Home Builders' Association, where my understanding is his continuing attack was once again embarrassing to those who deliver social housing in the province of British Columbia. He has no sense of fairness or objectivity, and a minister of the Crown has to have that. We have no confidence in his ability to deliver housing in the province of British Columbia. His position and his rhetoric have been shameful: allegations unsubstantiated, no apologies, no conflicts-of-interest that the non-profit societies have been accused of, and we have no major allocations of housing units in the province of British Columbia.

This minister, who has built a career on attacking the needy and attacking those who require affordable housing, has the audacity to believe that he can continue to hold the confidence of this House and of the people of British Columbia. We have a simple, naive, ideological minister in charge of housing, who is blinkered and will not look at all sides of this housing situation. As a consequence we have to indicate categorically that we have no confidence whatsoever in his ability to deliver housing in the province of British Columbia. As a result, I start the estimate debate this morning by moving, seconded by my colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), that vote 56 be reduced by $l.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion seems to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a few comments in support of the motion by the second member for Victoria. Mind you, I think he has outlined quite clearly and effectively the shortcomings of the Minister of Housing with respect to providing social housing for persons who are unable to acquire adequate living accommodation, with the economic situation as it is generally in the province and the opportunities available to people to acquire adequate housing under the present circumstances. I just wanted to say, in general, that I concur completely with the assessment of the social housing situation in the province as outlined by the second member for Victoria.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think it's appropriate to remind the House that it is not by accident — and I emphasize that it is not by accident — that the social housing situation in the province of British Columbia is in the dismal state of affairs it is. One needs only reflect on the days when the New Democratic Party was in power, when we had a provincial corporation that provided social housing, that constructed social housing, that invested in the creation of affordable housing for those people who could obviously never achieve it on their own in the competitive marketplace. A competitive marketplace, by its very nature, cannot be expected to gratuitously or altruistically have a conscience. We are talking about providing accommodation for people who need that extra assistance. It's long established, it's not a new thing, that it is a predictable condition of the free marketplace that there will be people who cannot achieve success as everyone generally may be doing. We know that. We are talking about an ideological difference of opinion about a social problem. That's really the issue that the second member for Victoria was trying to point out.

The government does not intend to construct housing. It has not spent any money on the construction of social housing in this province. It does not intend to and it will not do so. That's why, when I accuse the Premier of not having a policy with respect to social housing, I mean it. Their policy is to give the money to the private sector and ask the private sector, through its own good graces and sense of duty, to construct housing that's affordable to the public. But this does not

[ Page 8183 ]

work. It's contrary to the whole principle and concept of maximizing profit.

Let's understand what we're talking about. We're not talking about marketplace housing in the general sense of the term used by those people who can afford it; we're talking about assisting those people in need — and not only assisting those people in need, but also realizing that it's not just an economic problem. It's also a problem of social relevance. This is why the concept of co-op housing, which is subsidized by the Housing Corporation of Canada, is important, and this is why we are afraid that if the provinces are going to administer CMHC, the role it once played is now going to go to the provinces. Especially in the province of British Columbia there is fear that this government's ideological posturing and position with respect to the delivery of social housing is going to mean that we will now reintroduce social housing ghettos in this province, which means that we are going to construct projects for the poor, which means that we are going to ask those people to do a means test and determine whether or not they can afford it; and if they are destitute enough, if they are down and out enough, we will provide housing for them. We know that this government is not going to construct housing like that. I'm saying that is one of the fears.

The minister is shaking his head, and saying he's not going to do it. I tend to believe him, Mr. Chairman. He's probably not going to construct any housing, because the construction of housing in the first place is not the government's thing. The government's thing is to pay its friends to do it. So what are we going to get?

I would like for the minister to stand up and outline how he's going to use the private sector to construct housing, non-ghetto housing that will allow people to mix themselves and be involved in an integrated community, where they are not going to become stigmatized as the deserving poor, and are going to be able to be part of the regular stream of society. I would like him to stand up and explain how he's going to do that, without the approach that is now in place, the co-op mix, where that minister himself was a resident. I do not condemn him for that. I believe that people who can afford it should be living in co-op housing, as long as they pay their fair share — not $400 a month, not $500 a month, but a fair share.

HON. MR. KEMPF: That's not what your colleague said.

MR. BARNES: What my colleague is pointing out to you is that it's being abused by people who perhaps do not understand the concept, like the minister himself. The minister discovered co-op housing. He stood in this Legislature himself and said: "Hey, you know, I didn't know anything about all this. I didn't know that I was getting that big advantage; but now that I know, hey, this is interesting." You moved out. But, Mr. Minister, the point is that there is something to be learned. You could provide an educational experience for the province, and for people all over the community, about how to work cooperatively.

We don't want to build more ghettos. Let's have balance. Let's accept the fact that there are going to be those people who will need assistance, but let's not tell them that they've all got to live in the same community or the same district.

[11:30]

Mr. Chairman, I'm also very disappointed in the minister for failing to have any comment whatsoever about the condition that exists with respect to hotels that are supposedly providing affordable housing for those on social assistance, who are generally restricted to the income they receive through the Guaranteed Available Income For Need legislation in this province, specifically in the downtown east side where there has been a long-standing practice for the Ministry of Human Resources to subsidize hotels that will accommodate many of the old-timers, who are usually ex-war veterans or people who have worked in the resource industries in this province who have become infirm, generally immobile and unable to function to any great extent in society and require considerable assistance. Many of these hotels have accepted these people as tenants on a long-time basis — not itinerant, not on a day-to-day basis as normally one would expect in a hotel.

You would expect someone coming into any hotel normally to register for an evening's stay, or maybe a day or two for a weekend package, and they would be on their way. Under the Innkeeper's Act, this is the way those hotels are constituted to function. They are allowed to have what we call the itinerant customer or the client that comes and goes. There are no obligations; the person is not required to sign a lease, nor is the hotel operator required to give that person notice that the hotel is closing down or that they are going to not rent to them or whatever. In other words, you pay for each day as you go along.

But that is not the case here; that should not be the case. That is the case, unfortunately, but should not be the case with respect to these long-term tenants in the downtown east side. This is one of the things which the minister has refused to comment on and has refused to recognize in terms of what is fair. There are people in the downtown east side and I am sure in other hotels who have not just been living in those hotels for one day or two days or for a month or two months or six months or a year or two years or five years or ten years or 20 or 30. Some of them have been in those hotels for 40 or even 50 years. Yet those people have no protection whatsoever under the residential tenancy legislation in this province. It's been going on. It's been to the benefit, Mr. Chairman, of the hotel owners, and they know it's been to their benefit. In fact, many of those hotels have actually gone to city council and applied for subsidies and discounts and tax breaks because they are providing social housing for people in need, and they want it to be designated as such, and they wanted the benefits as such. That's fair enough, but it is a two-sided street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I will remind the committee that what you are discussing is the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and also I would hear it as the necessity for legislation, neither of which is allowed in Committee of Supply, particularly during the estimates of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. To the housing issue please, and not other ministries, nor the need for legislation.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with you. It is a matter which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) should be addressing. I dare say to you that I've stood in this House and asked that minister questions, and that minister has refused to get out of his seat and respond. Neither does he want to address this

[ Page 8184 ]

issue. He says it's got nothing to do with him, it comes under a different ministry. Nobody on that side of the House wants to address this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the motion that the minister should not be taken seriously with respect to delivering social housing in this province. It's not really a reflection on him personally. It is the policy of the government not to construct, not to provide direct services, but to do it through another body — the so-called private sector.

They have no obligations whatsoever. This is a free market. As it stands now, social housing is subjected to all of the ups and downs of the marketplace. Those people who are dependent on it are on fixed incomes. They are not given the benefit of cost-of-living increases when they are appropriate. They are not assessed on the standard of living that should be the right of every Canadian, every citizen in British Columbia, through what we call the poverty line. Until the poverty line becomes the bottom line in terms of planning and social justice in this province and in this country, there's no point in talking about these isolated cases of service to people. Let's look at the whole person. These people cannot function under this kind of myopic view on the part of government that is simply exploiting a situation in order to get itself re-elected.

You now have a so-called people's commission looking into social housing. That's a sham. Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) knows it is, and he's pointed that out, and I don't intend to review what he has already succinctly laid down as the situation with respect to social housing in this province and the attitude of that minister and the lack of sincerity and real commitment to resolving a serious problem.

I support the motion, and I certainly hope that this House will realize its duty and do the same thing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, before we call the vote on this motion, I want to give some background to why we think there should be a non-confidence vote in this minister and in this government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We want to know about the polls.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to know about polls, polls, polls. You'll get your poll when you call the election. The final poll will come in. You people — you unethical, squalid people — will get your final poll.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The members of the committee will come to order, and the second member for Victoria will address the motion before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I want to give some background to what is actually spent on social housing in the province of British Columbia, and some comparisons. This minister got up to say that they are expanding social housing. Well, those who know the housing sector know that that is not particularly accurate. Housing starts have fallen over the past five years from 37,546 units in 1980 to 16,000 units in 1984. This is the lowest since 1962. More housing starts took place in British Columbia in 1958 — we had 19,000 starts — and in 1984 we have this miserable housing start figure of 16,000. That's an incredible indictment of this government and its lack of action in the housing sector. In our estimation and in the estimation of economists, if your economy is to recover, it has to be primarily led by a construction recovery and job creation in the housing sector. We're down to 1958 figures in this province.

In comparison, housing starts were at higher levels in the 1980s in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba — in the smallest provinces in this confederation. Small provinces like Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia had more starts and more activity in the housing area. What an indictment of this government. And he gets up to say they're going to expand. The statistics are there. The evidence is there.

Total apartment starts are at historic lows, and there have been very few unsubsidized private rental starts. This sector of the private housing industry has all but disappeared, except when they are subsidized. I would suggest that that's what this is all about. Their friends in the private sector want to get onto that non-profit church money. They want it, and this minister and this government is going to deliver. That's what it's all about. Most of the subsidy came from federal programs in the late seventies in those MURB programs, which we all know were not a great success. But this is what this government wants to go back towards — back to subsidizing the private sector, and subsidizing the private sector at the expense of the non-profit societies, I might add.

How does this record compare with what has happened in Manitoba under a New Democratic Party government? For the third consecutive year, Manitoba's rate of new housing activity exceeded that of the nation as a whole. For the third consecutive year Manitoba's housing sector exceeded the national rate — under a New Democratic Party government, I might add again. It exceeded the national rate, and where is this government? At 1958 levels. Boy, that's partnership in enterprise! That's partnership in failure, Mr. Chairman, partnership in abject failure in the housing component, and cynicism.

The revival in housing in Manitoba is tied up with the strength of the economy because of the efforts of the New Democratic government to stimulate housing starts and create jobs. That's our attack in the province of British Columbia, to stimulate that sector, create jobs and create needed housing in the province of British Columbia. That's our goal, Mr. Chairman.

The provincial economy in Manitoba was among the first in Canada to recover from the recession and has shown few signs of weakness since that time. Construction led recovery; jobs, jobs, jobs. At the same time, housing starts led the nation or exceeded the nation's starts. In comparison, housing starts were at higher levels in Manitoba than in the nation under a New Democratic Party government.

For the third consecutive year again, Manitoba's rate of new housing activity exceeded that of the nation as a whole. The value of building permits in 1985 in Manitoba will be two and half times the level of three years earlier, the most dramatic improvement in Canada. Three and a half times the level of three years earlier — a New Democratic Party government. Progress, innovation, construction, jobs, housing — and what's happened in British Columbia? I again say, 1958 levels. Boy, great partnership in enterprise! Abject failure, Mr. Chairman.

In Manitoba, a 5.3 percent jump in gross domestic product has been estimated for 1985 — again, among the highest in Canada. It has a lot to do with construction-led recovery, jobs in the housing sector. Again, Manitoba's rate of new housing activity exceeded that of the nation as a whole.

[ Page 8185 ]

Manitoba's employment level increased by 4.1 percent between December 1984 and December 1985, compared with a national increase of 3.4 percent over the same period. Why? Because of the housing activity in Manitoba, and major programs initiated and being carried on today.

The people of Manitoba have spoken; they like those programs because they work. Here in British Columbia we have abject failure by this government to deliver jobs and to deliver housing and to deliver future to our children and their children.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's hear about the polls.

MR. BLENCOE: She knows what the polls are saying, and the final poll will come.

Mr. Chairman, the private market sector has always agreed that it cannot deliver total housing needs to all British Columbians in terms of affordability.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Surrey will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Now let's talk about social housing. Both the federal and provincial governments have been cutting back their public and private and non-profit sector programs. In 1980 some 5,200 social housing units were provided in British Columbia. By 1984 this had been cut in half, to 2,587. And what did the minister say this morning? They're expanding social housing in the province of British Columbia. The statistics and the evidence show otherwise: cut in half since 1980. This government hasn't delivered affordable social housing. Not only that, now they want to make sure that with those units being constructed by federal programs — not by the provincial government — that money is allocated to the private sector. That's what they want to do, and I've already expressed that this morning.

[11:45]

The housing cooperatives sector fell from 1,800 units in 1980 to 1984 levels of 768 units. British Columbia has the third-largest population in Canada, yet it spent less than all but the three smallest provinces, and on a per-person basis it spends less than all the other provinces on housing. What an indictment for the third-largest province in this Dominion. On a per-person basis it spends less than all the other provinces on housing. Prince Edward Island spends twice as much per person. Alberta spends ten times as much. What an indictment! What a litany of failure on behalf of this government to deliver housing — not only to deliver housing to those in need and affordably, but putting aside a construction-led recovery in the province of B.C. that.... All the economists indicate you have to have a healthy construction industry for recovery.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude this discussion to back up the non-confidence motion, I want to state the following. The minister has shown no ability to deal with this government's sad record in providing social housing for ordinary British Columbians who are in need. The evidence is there. His rhetoric and his unsubstantiated allegations are on record. He has refused to apologize and deal with that. The situation has reached the point where the province is experiencing a crisis in the provision of low-cost housing. The minister's personal statements about social housing are on record and show him to be criticizing public housing, at the same time as he personally derived benefit from this alternative form of tenure provided by housing cooperatives. We all know that. The record is there.

The minister has made serious allegations of wrongdoing and has established a redundant, costly public inquiry to try to substantiate those claims. But the claims are not being substantiated. I would point out that we have major reports by CMHC, the Cooperative Housing Foundation of Canada and other organizations that have given a clean bill of health to the non-profit housing component in British Columbia and in Canada. We are a model, and if the minister takes a look at some of these reports, he will see which countries are coming to Canada and to British Columbia to take a look at the non-profit sector.

Yet we have another commission in the province of British Columbia — at great cost, I might add. The minister refuses to give us the details of those costs. He refused to give us the details of the study on social housing in British Columbia that was done and tabled in January of '86. We have coverup after coverup in terms of this minister's incompetence and refusal to deal with the facts that are before us in learned reports. That commission under this minister has questionable jurisdiction to investigate some of the matters it was charged with by the minister.

To close and to back up our feeling of non-confidence in this minister, we feel, at least, that those non-profit societies are due some respect, are due an apology and are due a minister who is prepared to look at all those who need housing in the province of British Columbia. We have absolutely no confidence in this minister and in this government to deal with housing for those in need — for the handicapped, for seniors — and with the concept of integration of incomes in housing. We believe that this minister has indicated he wants to go back to ghettoization — the sixties and seventies style of housing in British Columbia, with all the social and economic problems that that brings. There are innovations being suggested by the co-op sector in terms of mortgage programs that could save the taxpayer even more money, but this minister has not responded to those concepts.

The federal government has wisely decided to make sure that it keeps hands on with the cooperative sector, because there's no trust in this government, which indicates that not only do we have no confidence in this minister and this government in terms of housing, but the federal government also, in my estimation, has no confidence in this minister and this government. We would hope that in the next few months the federal government will announce it has decided to go ahead on all the other areas and allocate units, because this government is thwarting the application of units — and therefore jobs — in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we have no confidence in this minister.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I've sat here and listened for going on an hour now to the rhetoric of the members opposite. Almost an hour. It's very difficult for me to stand and answer questions when in that entire hour that has been not one single policy question on this ministry, not one question as to the policies of this ministry.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that's not correct. I asked the minister to state....

[ Page 8186 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order, please.

MR. BARNES: The point of order is that the minister says he did not receive a question, and that's not correct. He did receive a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order. Any member will have an opportunity to stand in debate and correct a statement that may be made by another member if it relates to the member.

HON. MR. KEMPF: To the member for Vancouver Centre, who didn't want to talk about the responsibilities of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, but wanted to talk about the responsibilities of every other ministry of this government rather than this one....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: We'll get to you later, Mr. Member. To that member in regard to his rhetoric regarding the Downtown Eastside Residents Association situation, I guess all I can do is get up and repeat my commitment to this House, to those unfortunate people in the downtown east side and to the people of British Columbia: that is, that I will personally report to the B.C. Housing Management Commission — it's being done on a daily basis, and I'll prove that.... I personally repeat my commitment that acceptable, better, cleaner and newer accommodation will be found for each and every one of those people who want it. But I have got to tell you that not all of them want it. That's on a daily basis now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nobody believes you, Jack.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The members opposite might not believe me, but let's ask the people of British Columbia. We'll ask them — and they talked about a poll.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's go! Let's go!

HON. MR. KEMPF: You'll get your defeat soon enough, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, on a daily basis a courier goes down from the B.C. Housing Management Commission to get the names of those so-called evictees who are in need. They get them from the Red Door rental agency, and I am sure, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, that you are very familiar with that group of individuals. That's where they get the names. On a daily basis they've got a courier going down there saying: "Who are they and where are they and what do they want and what do they need?"

You know, the results are very interesting. The old adage that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink sure holds true in this situation. You can provide all the accommodation you want to those so-called evictees, Mr. Member, but you can't make them move into it. You can't make them move into it. You can provide all the accommodation you want, but if somebody doesn't want it for reasons of their own....

MR. BARNES: Where's the accommodation?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Do you want me to give you some of those reasons? Let's do that. We've got lots of time, haven't we, Mr. Chairman? Let's talk about that for a while. It is not in my ministry but we'll talk about it because you brought it up. Okay? We'll do it after lunch as well, but let's just talk for a moment about those people who have been offered accommodation. I've even got names and addresses. Let's talk about the fellow who was offered accommodation in an Orchard Park row house, and that accommodation was refused because it had a small yard. In that yard there was a small lawn. That individual didn't want anything to do with looking after a lawn. He didn't want to have to cut that lawn, so he turned down that accommodation. Need I go on?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, I'll go on after lunch, because I think the members opposite need a full stomach on which to take this information. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.