[ Page 8187 ]

CONTENTS

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill M207). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading — 8187

Oral Questions

Lumber exports to United States. Mr. Howard — 8187

Mr. Williams

Louisiana-Pacific plant. Mr. Williams — 8188

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

On vote 56: minister's office — 8189

Mr. Davis, Mr. Blencoe, Mr. Mitchell , Mr. Rose , Mr. Barnes

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1986

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today visiting from Ashcroft is Mayor Ward Bishop, members of his council and representatives from the Ashcroft Board of Trade. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Jackson from Burnaby, with their son Dale Jackson, who is an intern with the NDP caucus. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to take this opportunity to ask members to join with me in welcoming a former constituent of mine, Mr. George Fessenden, who is now living in Prince George, to the assembly this afternoon.

Introduction of Bills.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1986.

MR. HOWARD: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Before you put that question, and commenting upon it, the current government has viewed the north in general, and particularly the northwest, as being an area that should just provide raw materials to people in other parts of the world, indeed other parts of the nation and the province, to process and manufacture into finished products. What we want to do is create jobs around processing and manufacturing in our own area. We want to see the value-added concept applied to us as well as it does to others.

This bill amending the Industrial Development Act seeks to establish a northwestern aluminum products development council, comprised of people living in the northwest, whose purpose would be specifically to zero in on the processing and manufacturing of aluminum and make recommendations to government with respect thereto.

I've always held the view that people will develop ideas and solutions to problems and concerns if they are given both a challenge and encouragement — and this bill does both. I'm confident that great positive results will emanate from the bill when it receives second reading.

Bill M207 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.

Oral Questions

LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests and ask the minister whether the government of Canada consulted with him prior to making the proposal to the United States that there would be special envoys involved in dealing with the question of lumber exports to the United States.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I can advise that there was no direct overture to me with respect to the matter of an envoy. But I understand that there have been some discussions. The position which we have taken all along is the commitment which the government understands was made between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States that there would be a clean launch and that all issues involving trade would be on the main table.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether, inasmuch as it appears there might be special envoys to deal with lumber separately in the comprehensive free trade negotiations, he would make immediate representations to the government of Canada to ensure that the special envoy representing Canada comes from British Columbia and is chosen by British Columbia, so that British Columbia's interests are protected in any discussions taking place among those envoys.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the position of government has been clear from the very beginning, and that is that the trade issue as it relates to British Columbia with respect to lumber stays on the main table. We are opposed to the view, which has been expressed, that lumber be hived off and dealt with separately.

I don't think it could have been said much better than in a statement which I received this morning. It is a letter signed by a number of members of the United States Congress requesting that the United States administration embark on free trade discussions totally unfettered. It is very interesting. If I may quote from one paragraph of this particular letter dated April 21 — I'll give the member a copy of it — the congressmen go on to say: "In addition, restrictions on key Canadian exports, such as lumber, could be the first shot in a trade war in which significant U.S. exporters to Canada, from citrus and agricultural interests to high technology companies producing computers, aircraft and office equipment, stand to lose an important expanding market." The position we have taken, and that we have been assured has been given by the Prime Minister of Canada and agreed to by the President of the United States, is that all of these issues go on the main table for all discussions on free trade.

What we would really like — it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker — is if all political parties, including the members opposite and their particular party, would support the concept of free trade, because it's certainly in the interests of British Columbia. In the interest of the province of B.C. and all producers of lumber, we ask that the members opposite convey to their federal leader, as well as to other Members of Parliament, the importance of this particular issue to British Columbia.

[2:15]

MR. HOWARD: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Is he aware that well over a year ago I proposed there be established a unified committee comprising representatives of the government of British Columbia, the government party, the opposition party, industry and workers involved in the lumber industry so that we would be speaking with one voice on lumber exports into the United States? And is the minister aware that that man who sits in front of him, the

[ Page 8188 ]

Premier of the province, vetoed that idea and denied any opportunity to have that unified voice'?

Obviously the minister doesn't want to answer that question.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Are you aware of that? No, obviously not.

I'll try another question. Has the minister communicated to the government of Canada our unified opposition to the concept of special envoys to deal with lumber apart from comprehensive trade negotiations'?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the comments which I made earlier with respect to the discussions on free trade or enhanced trade or freer trade — whatever they're talking about. What I'm concerned about is exactly what was raised by the members of Congress in the United States with respect to free trade.

Our position has been clear all along. What I would like is the support of the opposition on this particular issue — the opposition party and your federal branch.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps you should ask Jim Keegstra to get on your side as well. He's a great voice in world affairs. I ask the minister if he has communicated with his friends in Ottawa, his government, which appears to be doublecrossing British Columbia on the lumber issue.... Has he communicated the views that special envoys to deal with lumber as a separate item in free trade are not to the advantage of British Columbia, because we may get double-crossed by them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is aware that all items go on the table. As a matter of fact, as I recall, the Premiers of all provinces have insisted on having reference to the discussions which are going to take place during those free trade negotiations. Our position has been abundantly clear — that we want lumber on the main table, and not hived off from all other matters which are going to be discussed.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that they received telegrams just last night respecting this new federal arrangement from Mr. Kelleher?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker, but I can reiterate to that member very clearly that this government has made its position, not only through the trade ministry, the Forests ministry and my office.... We agreed to the concept of a free trade discussion in which all items are on the table with no preconditions, no exceptions. That has been our position all along, that Canada and the Minister of International Trade nationally must stand firm against any U.S. pressure that would try to divide items and take Canadian items off the main table.

It would assist the Canadian side if the federal NDP and Mr. Broadbent, who have opposed the free trade talks, therefore leaving this country vulnerable to the very actions that are taking place, would support the concept of free trade talks. Then the United States would not feel that they have allies in Canada who do not support free trade in all items on the table, and they wouldn't have allies in Canada that would allow them to continue to make attacks not only on lumber but on fish and some agricultural products and others, which Canadians say can only be dealt with along with our concerns about American trade issues on the same table at the same time, with no preconditions and all items on the table. We have the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States that that was the spirit within which the free trade talks would start.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier confirms his concern is with respect to a doublecross, because the envoy is entirely separate. That is not the same table; that's a decision taken by the federal government. The Premier confirms, then, that his understanding has not been confirmed whatsoever; that indeed the federal government is taking a different route and that the big chip is British Columbia lumber, and we could lose this main industry of our province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I don't confirm that. I'm saying that British Columbia is standing fast, and that our position is far different from the position of the NDP in this province, who are willing to sell out to central Canada interests and Ed Broadbent any time he waves his hand and blows the whistle. Our position has not changed; our position has been, from the very beginning, that all items be on the table and that there be no preconditions. We will continue to press for that.

If you wish to attack the federal government because of the inability of your federal MPs to carry out that attack, then go ahead, but I'm telling you what the British Columbia government position is and how we will conduct our discussions within the Canadian negotiating team.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's now clear there are two tables.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development if he was warned by his own staff that the generous terms proposed and in fact confirmed for Louisiana-Pacific would endanger our position with respect to the United States and with respect to the countervailing duty that Louisiana-Pacific on previous occasions sided with the American industry on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't recall being warned of those dire consequences of the tremendous economic benefit for the northeast part of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister check his files in order to be entirely sure that he was not warned by his staff that the zero percent loans would be a dangerous precedent and would in fact invite pressure with respect to the countervailing-duty people in the United States and the coalition against B.C. lumber? Will he advise the House whether he will check on whether he was warned?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I check my files all the time, and I'll do it again.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker, again with respect to the Louisiana Purchase — I

[ Page 8189 ]

mean Louisiana-Pacific — can the minister advise the House how many American states, the western and Rocky Mountain states, give zero-percent loans in terms of interest for projects like the Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, first of all I don't think that the plant that's being constructed in the Dawson Creek area is going to produce any dimension lumber that I'm aware of. Secondly, I'd be happy to bring a very lengthy list of the incentives that are offered by all of the states of the United States in the form of free land, in the form of free training for employees, in the form of interest-free development bonds up to $10 million and beyond if necessary, and subsidized power, subsidized water and subsidized services to their community, and next week or the first opportunity that I get I will be happy to rise in question period and bring you an exhaustive list for the benefit of this House of the kinds of benefits which are offered by the States to the very kind of industrial development that we're getting in northeastern British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, just before we adjourned for lunch I was commenting on the remarks of the two members opposite who entered into debate in regard to my estimates, and I suggested that after listening for an hour, I had heard no policy questions whatsoever in regard to my ministry. However, the member for Vancouver Centre — well, the only one in the House; I don't know where the other one is; he's never in the House — wanted to hear about the downtown east side matter rather than talk about policy matters in my ministry. I am quite happy, as I said earlier, to talk about that because I wouldn't want to let that member down.

As the hour drew to 12 o'clock and we adjourned, I was talking about those individuals who, having made their wishes known via courier to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, turned down the alternative accommodation that was offered them. I gave one example, and I would like to give several more.

I would like to name names because these are very real people. They are names and situations that were picked up by a courier from the B.C. Housing Management Commission — which incidentally, Mr. Chairman, goes down each and every morning now to ensure that those so-called evictees aren't left without housing, without alternative accommodation. I gave the example of an individual, a name which I didn't mention but I will now, an S. Sharma, who was offered accommodation in an Orchard Park row house, and refused that accommodation because it involved the maintenance of a small yard. Apparently that individual didn't want to have to cut the lawn, so he turned down that accommodation.

As I said earlier, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can offer this accommodation, but if it's not taken, then surely that person is left without accommodation. I'll give you...

[2:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, the little member chatters away over there. I'll give some more examples. These examples were...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order, and the minister will avoid personal references.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I withdraw "little," Mr. Chairman. I'll give more examples. We have a J.W. E Khouri who refused an offer of a unit in the Cherry Tree complex in Richmond as "unit unsuitable." In Richmond — an unsuitable unit. That unit was too small. We have another one, an M. Guerard, who refused a unit because it was too large. There's example after example.

Mr. Chairman, that member has done his homework in this committee the same as he does in question period. He doesn't even listen to his friends.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if he had taken the time — and I'm sure that that member has lots of that — he would have watched Channel 13 last evening on which Jim Green and company, not of city council in Vancouver anymore, but a friend of that member over there, agreed.... In fact, it was Mr. Green who said on that program.... It came out of his mouth; they were his words: "Nobody is without a roof in Vancouver." Yet that member chatters away as he does, and that member brings up the subject on the floor of this House. They don't even listen to their friends. The report of the Vancouver Downtown Eastside Relocation Task Force, DERA's own arm, as late as April 24.... I've got a copy of that report and I have the figures. It says: "Number of people successfully relocated: 69. Number of applications in hand: 32. Inventory of available units: 73." I don't understand that member for Vancouver Centre. Have you been home lately? Have you checked with your friends to see what the situation is?

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House fully understand what the situation is. The situation is purely a political one on the backs of those poor people. We knew that way back on Tuesday, March 7, when this article showed up in the Vancouver Province: "Pickets May Hit Fair Gates." We know what that's all about. We know what that whole Downtown Eastside Residents' Association situation with Mr. Jim Green is. It's purely a political ploy, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, on the backs of your constituents. Shame, I say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria said that I should do my homework. Well, I want to tell you that I've done my homework. I know where that Downtown Eastside Residents' Association situation is. The trouble with that member for Victoria is that he has selective misunderstanding. That

[ Page 8190 ]

member, just before lunch, talked about rat-holes. He tried to make this committee believe that I was talking at some time or other — he didn't say when — about co-op housing being rat-holes.

MR. BLENCOE: You're living in one.

HON. MR. KEMPF: We'll get to that. Oh boy, will we get to that, Mr. Chairman. I can't wait.

He talked about rat-holes, and suggested that I called coop housing rat-holes. Nothing was further from the truth. I said, and I remember quite distinctly.... I see Jim Hume is not in the press gallery. I remember quite distinctly that when I said it on a television program, I suggested that the taxpayer's dollar was going down a rat-hole in British Columbia — not only British Columbia but all over this nation — in regard to co-op housing, and I still say that. And we haven't been able to convince the federal government otherwise, but we will before it's through. That's what I said. That member over there doesn't even know what he's talking about.

I and the members on this side of the floor believe that the taxpayer's dollar that goes to social housing in this province and in this country should go to only those in need, not the Svend Robinsons of this world, Mr. Chairman, who earn in excess of $70,000 a year and live in social housing; not those people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member said: "Well, you lived in co-op housing." Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did. Certainly I did, and I'll tell you why: because there was absolutely nothing wrong with it; and there still isn't for someone earning $27,000 a year — absolutely nothing. I lived in co-op housing when my salary was $26,500 a year, and I don't feel bad about that, not at all, because that is exactly the concept. Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I can't even hear myself talk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one at a time, please. I'm sure there is going to be an opportunity for other members who wish to express whatever views they might have to respond to the minister when the minister takes his seat.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member for Victoria screamed bloody blue murder in this chamber when he found out that it was I. And he didn't find out; I told this chamber. I told the media. He screamed bloody blue murder. But what are you going to do about Svend Robinson? What are you going to do about that socialist member who sits in the parliament in Ottawa? What are you going to do about him living in social housing?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: He said I don't understand the concept. I understand the concept very well. It's a socialist philosophy, Mr. Chairman, which says: "Do as I say, not as I do." It's a socialist philosophy, and if it wasn't, why isn't that member on his feet? Why isn't that member writing to that Member of Parliament who lives in social housing and draws the salary of an MP in Ottawa? Why isn't he demanding of the media that they print that kind of thing? Mr. Chairman, it's a socialist philosophy: "Do as I say, not as I do." Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: That member said that we have an ideological difference. You bet we have an ideological difference, and there is the ideological difference. I want the taxpayers' money of this province to be spent wisely on social housing and only on those truly in need in this province.

That's exactly why it was that, subsequent to the recommendation made by the inquiry commission into social housing in British Columbia, l am at the present time establishing a social housing advisory committee. It was pointed out quite clearly by the inquiry commission that prior to their inquiry we really didn't understand that there was a multitude of organizations dealing with all aspects of social housing, but never once did they get together. Never once was there a communication as to really what we should have...

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

HON. MR. KEMPF: It's not wrong. It came out in the hearings that were held, and it's in the report. We may be talking about many years ago, Mr. Member, but the report of the inquiry commission pointed out very clearly, and that's why they made their recommendation, that it's about time that we got together and put our heads together and made sure that the social housing that was built in this province went to those in need, people who really required it, and was built in a fashion that they require.

That's exactly why I am going to set up a social housing advisory committee. I would recommend to those members opposite that they strongly recommend to their friends in the social housing and co-op housing movement in this province that they become involved in that committee. That committee will report directly to me as minister.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't trust you.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You don't trust me, but I think they do and they will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The second member for Victoria will withdraw that remark. It's unparliamentary.

MR. BLENCOE: Which remark, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference about trust to the other hon. member. The remark will be withdrawn.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Not only will I be appointing a social housing advisory committee; I will also....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, that member is really agitated this afternoon; I don't know why.

[ Page 8191 ]

Mr. Chairman, I will also, in my ministry, and we've got feelers out now... We're advertising now for an executive director of social housing. We are going to place great emphasis on social housing in this province, not social housing for your cronies but social housing for those in need; not thousands or millions but billions of taxpayers' dollars going down that rat-hole you talked about for those who are not in need. No sirree. It's about time that stopped, Mr. Chairman.

The member suggested that I don't do my homework; and the member suggested that I was a front for developers. Mr. Chairman, I defy that member to show me anywhere that I have said that the private sector would ever be involved in the management of social housing in the province of British Columbia. Because never did I do that.

I have nothing against the non-profit organizations managing social housing in British Columbia, nothing whatsoever. I merely suggested that possibly the private sector should be involved in the construction. Why would the nonprofit organizations...?

MR. BLENCOE: It already is.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, can you stop that member chattering? That's all that I suggested, and I had been led to believe that if we did that it would be done more economically. I'm looking to get the best bang for the taxpayers' buck when it comes to social housing. That's my responsibility as the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I said nothing about the private sector managing social housing projects in this province. I think the executives in the co-op movement do a fabulous job of it, and I wouldn't want to take that away from them. I have nothing against them managing it. I do, however, think that the private sector has a place and should be offered an opportunity to build social housing, particularly if it can be done more economically on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

[2:45]

MR. BARNES: It all depends on how much of the tax dollar you're prepared to spend.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if that is done on a bid basis, then there's no possibility for ripoff that the second member for Victoria talked about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Construction only, on a bid basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre will have every opportunity to participate in debate.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Look at the mess we're in now with housing subsidized by the taxpayer. That's what I'm getting at, and that was the object of the inquiry commission, and that's the object of the advisory committee, and that's the object of the executive director of social housing — to get at those problems. I don't know why the executives of those coops are screaming as they are. I have no idea, unless they see that their opportunity is being taken away — not the opportunity to manage a co-op, which they say is what they wish to do, but their opportunity to get big gobs of money from the federal government that we really don't know whether we get value back for. That's all I'm getting at.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: A great deal, and we'll get to that, Mr. Member; we'll get to that.

There were a lot of accusations made by the members opposite just before lunch. But my policy, Mr. Member for Victoria, is to subsidize people in need — not bricks and mortar, not non-profit organizations, but those in need of social housing. I fully intend to do that. And don't think for one minute, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, that you have the edge on understanding what need is, because I've got to tell this committee that I don't think that member does. But I've got to tell you where I come from.

I come from a situation where I didn't see running water in my home until I was 12 years old. I didn't see hydroelectricity or electricity of any sort in my home until I was 14 years old. In fact, I lived in accommodation until I graduated from high school very little of which had indoor plumbing or running water or all those things. Don't think you've got the edge, Mr. Member, on understanding those in need, because you haven't. In fact, with your socialist philosophy of do as I say and not as I do, you don't have the edge at all. You don't understand at all.

The member talks about money that we might be spending for social housing and thinks because we don't spend money on bricks and mortar we aren't supplying a service to those in need of social housing in this province. Well, they don't understand, or they don't want to understand, because this province presently contributes over $15 million annually to joint federal-provincial social housing programs; not only that, but we're proposing that we spend an additional $3 million a year on non-profit social housing.

You know, you just have to go out of this province to realize the programs we have and how much those programs are respected in other jurisdictions. You know, our SAFER and GAIN programs are the best social housing programs in North America, and they are heralded as such if you don't listen to those members opposite. Our GAIN and SAFER programs in this province are second to none in supplying social housing to our citizens in British Columbia. They would have you believe different — absolutely preposterous.

You know, the member over there believes that there are three levels of taxpayer, and because it's a federal program and because the money is sent to Ottawa by the taxpayer in British Columbia, we shouldn't worry about that. But I've got to tell you that my constituents at least, and I think many other British Columbians, understand that that money is coming out of their pockets regardless of whether it's sent to Victoria or Ottawa, and they want to see it spent wisely. They don't want to see programs such as we have gotten ourselves into in the past.

Just to get it on the record, we are now in this country committed through co-op housing, through section 56(1) — committed; we can't get out of that — to $23 billion of the taxpayers' money over the next 30 years. And that member over there wants to continue to go down that road. It's estimated by my people — and we're using a very conservative figure — that $10 billion of that $23 billion is clearly going to subsidize those in social housing who are not in need: the Svend Robinsons of this world. And that's what that member wants to continue? Well, I say no. I would have

[ Page 8192 ]

abrogated my responsibility to the people of British Columbia had I not taken that on. I could have turned my back, as many people have in the past, and said: "No, it's federal money, so why should I get involved in the controversy'? Why should I have people waltz into my home, upset my wife and talk about my hot-tub? Why should I get into that?" I could have ignored $10 billion of social housing going to people who are not in need. And he wants to continue that program, Mr. Chairman. Well, I don't, and neither do other members on this side of the floor, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't note any questions before lunch, but having given the members opposite some food for thought, possibly now they can ask some policy questions about my ministry.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you may have noted that the minister made reference to a number of names of individuals in a document he was reading from, stating addresses and making comments with respect to why they would not accept relocated accommodation. Would you please table those?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tabling cannot be done in committee, hon. member. It will have to be tabled by the minister when the committee rises and the House resumes.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'll table the documents afterwards.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour has indicated for some time today that he wishes to enter into debate, and he will now be recognized.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be voting in support of the minister. In other words, I have confidence in the minister. I'll have even greater confidence in him if he gives serious consideration to a policy proposal which I and others have made, and that is in the area of what I'll refer to as reverse mortgages.

There are many elderly people in British Columbia who own their own homes outright but are genuinely in need in terms of current income. In the United Kingdom, and to some extent in France and Italy, there are financial programs available in the private sector, but facilitated by government, which allow these older people to in effect sell their homes but have the right to live in them as long as they wish thereafter. The income from the sale turns up as an annuity, as a monthly payment which they can use in order to buy groceries and cover other needs which would otherwise go unsatisfied. It's a program which sees others owning the home eventually, having right of occupancy, but only after the older person or older couple have no possible use for the home. It is certainly relevant in British Columbia, because we have a higher proportion of older people living in their homes than any other province. Indeed, some 12 percent of the population of this province are age 70 or older. Forecasts see that proportion rising perhaps to the order of 15 or 16 percent of the population by the year 2010, perhaps even 20 percent by the year 2020. So we have a large proportion of the population which could take advantage of a reverse mortgage or reverse annuity type of scheme.

The reason why we don't have schemes of that nature in Canada — indeed, in North America — is that we have two quite separate and distinct industries, the real estate industry on the one hand and the insurance industry on the other. They have not as yet got together — in other words, there's a gap between them — in order to make schemes of this kind financially viable. One of the reasons why reverse mortgage schemes exist in the United Kingdom is that for many decades they have had what is known as building societies. Building societies do bridge the gap between real estate on the one hand and insurance on the other, and they have therefore been able, because of that experience, because of that umbrella-type industry, to launch reverse mortgage plans.

Central Mortgage and Housing has studied reverse mortgages, has recommended them. I am told the main reason, other than the fracturing of the industry that exists on this continent, why schemes of this nature have not developed is that they have not been in any way endorsed by government. The other is that the monthly payout to people over 70 has not been seen to be adequate when interest rates are high. Interest rates have certainly been high in recent years in this country.

But interestingly enough, happily, with the introduction of the federal budget last year, Canadians as individuals have a lifetime capital gain allowed without tax of up to half a million dollars. This makes it possible to launch schemes whereby individuals can buy into home equity plans, avoid capital gains tax — not pay, in other words, a high tax such as a marginal rate of income tax — and finance relatively cheaply these home conversion schemes for the elderly.

This is a private sector thing. There is no reason now, given the federal legislation, and of course given the development of an industry which bridges the gap between real estate and insurance, why we can't see many of our older people living out the rest of their years in their customary neighbourhood, in their own homes in greater comfort. They won't be driven, as many of them are increasingly, into apartments or indeed into institutions. There is plenty of evidence on the health side that they will live longer. There will be less expense to the community at large. So there is really a saving to public treasuries there, as well as a savings in terms of human values and in terms of needs which are presently not satisfied and which would be satisfied in the future if reverse mortgage-type schemes were in effect.

[3:00]

Really, the home which older people live in is affordable but would be more affordable if this kind of scheme existed. What I am really asking — what I have already asked the minister privately, and I want to ask him publicly — is: how can or will his ministry look into these various schemes? There are several people in the greater Vancouver area who have looked into the accounting side of this matter, into the legalities. Would his ministry take a good, hard look at the reverse mortgage or reverse annuity idea, help the private sector do a job for a mounting percentage of our population? Among the elderly who live in their own homes over age 70, nine out of 10 own their own homes outright. They have an asset in which they live, but they can't convert those lifetime savings into something which will help them to live as they should be able to live — in dignity, and not faced with urgent needs, as many of them are now.

So here is an opportunity for government to participate by simply investigating an idea, giving it an official stamp of approval, setting certain guidelines in the process, but getting the wheels turning, essentially, in the private sector without any substantial contribution by the taxpayer; something

[ Page 8193 ]

which enables more of our older people, our elderly, our senior citizens, to live in dignity throughout the rest of their lives and to benefit from the savings which created many fine and comfortable homes, homes which shouldn't really trap them into a living condition which is unwarranted in a society such as ours.

[ Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman to the member for North Vancouver- Seymour, the answer is yes. I would just like to say, and get this on the record, that the information provided me by the member regarding reverse mortgages and reverse annuities has already been passed to officials in my ministry asking for ways and means by which they can possibly be dealt with in B.C. — and I extend the same invitation to the members opposite. I believe in looking at any positive alternatives to what we are already doing in social housing, whether it be for the elderly, the handicapped, or just those in need of social housing. I make that same overture to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I understand the problem that some of our elderly citizens are facing out there. If there's a way of doing this, and surely investigation will show if there is, it will be considered, Mr. Member.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to take a few minutes to respond, not to the personal gibes of the minister but to some of his facts and figures. First, in terms of the policy, I assume the minister is aware of the new CMHC proposal on co-op housing — the index-linked mortgages. Hopefully the government is going to get behind that new policy, because it has the potential to save a lot of money, particularly in the co-op sector-suggested by the co-op sector. All his rhetoric about the non-profit societies absorbing money: the record is there in umpteen reports that they are the best cost-effective program for delivering that kind of housing anywhere in the country.

Secondly, the minister talks about $15 million for social housing.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Fifteen million. Let's get it right. This government spends far in excess of that for media manipulation and advertising in British Columbia. They spend more money on advertising, television and everything else than on people in need of housing. So let's put that on record. It's a shabby record and doesn't stand up against other jurisdictions. I gave that evidence this morning.

Thirdly — before we call the non-confidence vote — the minister tries to confuse and use bafflegab in terms of the private sector not being able to participate in social housing. The minister is well aware that much of the construction for non-profit societies and regional housing corporations is done by private sector companies. They have shared in that. There's been a partnership in that area for a long time, so let's tell the story accurately.

I also want to give some figures on how the private sector has benefited by tax expenditures in terms of public dollars for housing. The private sector has got millions of dollars from the taxpayer. Let me give you some statistics and I'll finish with this, Mr. Chairman. I think this minister's got to be honest and admit some of these things in terms of the private sector. We have no problem with the private sector participating, but the facts should speak for themselves and there should be a little honesty in terms of when we debate this issue.

Between 1976 and 1982 the non-profit housing sector of this country got about $428 million. In that same period, about $1 billion was spent or utilized by the private sector for MURBs, ARP and other programs like that. One billion dollars — double what the non-profit sector got. What did we get with MURBs? We got tax write-offs; upper-income people writing off tax shelters. It was supposed to be housing for those in need, and the average rent was $700 to $800 a month. One billion dollars. The taxpayer paid for that. At the same time the non-profit societies, struggling to try to provide housing for those who couldn't afford the MURBs, got half as much.

That's the record. Let's tell it as it is. The private sector has done very well out of the taxpayer; $1 billion between 1976 and 1982. Above that, the Canada Rental Supply Plan and the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan distributed $800 million to middle and upper-middle households. Let's get it accurate. Let's tell it as it is. The private sector has done very well over the years. But the non-profit society is dedicated to channelling its dollars. We have the highest percentage anywhere in the country in terms of directing into integrated units — about 42 percent. The statistics are there, and I can give the minister the reports — the highest in the country in terms of targeting in integrated projects. Income integration is the key, not ghettoization. That's not what we want to return to in British Columbia.

To conclude on this point of the numbers, housing expenditures are two to three times greater than direct spending programs. Greater indirect subsidies are directed toward middle-income households. For every $100 in direct total expenditures for non-profit societies, some $200 to $300 is spent in tax expenditures or tax relief or tax shelters.

Social housing programs receive only 7 percent of the huge annual housing expenditure in this country. This minister wants to return and even up that in terms of the private sector's participation. He hopes the trickle-down theory will have an impact. The figures I give today are the reason why non-profit societies have to be supported — the church groups — in delivery of affordable housing.

The private sector can participate; they do participate in construction. We believe in a mix of housing. They have a role to play. But don't take away those valuable dollars from the non-profit societies. The figures are here. In a period between 1976 and 1982 they got twice as much in taxpayers' money for the private sector. So let's have a little clarity about the figures in terms of the private sector. Let's tell it how it is — two to one in terms of dollars.

I suspect what this minister wants to do is cut back even more on those church groups and those organizations that for years have worked for the needy in this province. It's a philosophical battle but, boy, it's more than that. There's an issue at stake here. We believe housing has to be delivered to those in need and affordability has to be an issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to call a vote, if we can, on the nonconfidence motion.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8194 ]

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 31

[3:15]

MR. MITCHELL: I was glad that that particular vote was called, because it proved what we've been trying to get through to this minister: what he is not doing. For the last two hours we have heard that minister go on and on about providing housing for those in need, but nowhere.... He has attacked senior citizens, he has attacked people in need, he has attacked individuals, but he has never given any positive — and I say positive — statement of what he is going to do to carry out what he is talking about. I find it disgusting....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you going to table Blencoe's polls?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There are a number of conversations going on. Only one should speaking and that is the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew; others will please do it outside of the chamber.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing the young lady from Surrey keep on referring to certain polls. I can assure her that the polls that have been taken in my riding show you people at the very bottom. I don't know if she's got any other polls that she would like to table, but I can assure you the polls that I have been taking in my riding show that the Social Credit Party is on the way to oblivion.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should get back to housing, and the inability of this minister to bring to this House anything else but personal attacks on individuals. The problem of housing is not a single-issue problem. There is no one simple solution. The reason we have the problem today is that this government for the last ten years has done nothing on an organized basis to provide a surplus of affordable housing for the communities.

It's easy to stand there with some philosophical belief that the co-op movement is something to condemn. Co-op housing is the centre of private ownership. To go on about how he is going to provide social housing in ghettos or some form of government-subsidized housing is not the answer in our Western Community. There are many types of housing for many types of individuals. Until we look at housing as one of the basic needs of individuals, then we are not going to come up with a solution.

It's easy to say that we are going to provide for need, but he hasn't said to this House who is in need. Is it only those who are at the social welfare level? Are they the only people in need? There has been in the democracies of this country a conception that shelter allowance should be provided at 25 percent of your income — 25 percent for shelter allowance. But when you look at what this government policy is on social assistance, for those single persons on GAIN they allow over 50 percent for shelter. For a single person there is the maximum of $375 providing they have to pay $200 for shelter. What has that done? When you put $200 as the maximum you will give, there is no flexibility. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) brought to the attention of this House the need for some flexibility, because what that $200 level did was raise the rent for inadequate housing, for a papered-over coal-bin in someone's basement with a light in it. That was the only thing available for some single people on welfare, and that was what the landlord charged. It was completely inadequate. Until we as a society have some kind of policy that there should be a surplus of affordable housing so that people can live in dignity and in comfort, in comparison to the rich country we have, we will go backwards.

I know it's nice to say that he never had inside plumbing or running water until he was 12 and never had electricity until he was 14, but this is not an answer. This is 1986, Mr. Chairman, and we have to look ahead, and we have to look at the riches of this province. So I think that if we're going to discuss social housing, we should establish some ground rules in this Legislature.

In the report done by his ministry they said that their target group was 40 percent of those on lower incomes. I don't know where he takes his figures, but the average income in British Columbia is around $29,000, according to Statistics Canada. So if you take that figure and you take 40 percent from the population base, the maximum allowance they are going to use is around $20,000 for a household. Is that the group we are going to target? I believe they have put in some other figures — they have to be paying at least 30 percent of their income for rent. If you're going to set that 30 percent as a ground figure for rents, unless you provide a variety of housing and different approaches to financing the housing, you are going to see all minimum rents for households going up to the $500 limit. There's not going to be any flexibility. You're going to get exactly the same ghetto problem that you have for single persons on welfare, for whom the minimum rent for the most rat-infested room is $200. You have to have some flexibility and you have to have some variety. The answer is not ghettoized housing.

It's nice to attack somebody because he didn't want to mow a lawn in Richmond. I don't know what his age was nor his capability, but to use the time of this House to attack individuals for some petty reason like that is not the way we're going to solve the housing problem for British Columbia residents.

The co-op and social housing provided by the Capital Regional District in their housing program....We had a form of shelter allowance in the rent subsidies whereby those on lower incomes could claim a percentage of their rent back in a grant. That was wiped out in '82, I believe. These are

[ Page 8195 ]

some in the variety of methods of providing housing. Senior citizens' housing, retirement homes are for one group....

[3:30]

But you don't wait till they get to the bottom of a disaster, and this is what we had and this is what was focused on in the Vancouver area when Expo came along. We had a problem that was allowed to fester. Time after time the members from the Vancouver area said: "Unless you come up with a proper policy that is going to look after social housing and look after those who are living in the downtown area, we are going to have a problem." So we had a problem. Everything that was predicted happened. Then instead of admitting that there was a problem and that we had to look at that problem, we attacked the co-ops. We attack people as individuals — people who don't want to mow lawns or people who have moved up the income ladder.

We have to look at mixed housing. I know philosophically the minister doesn't agree with mixed housing, doesn't agree that we should have senior citizens, single parents and those who are middle-income living together. This is the philosophical belief of many western democracies. The coop movement is just a part of it, a part of the solution to providing people with an opportunity to own.

I've been lucky. All my life I have been able to earn an income, to live in an area where houses were affordable. I never had any great sicknesses. I could own my own home. But there are a lot of people today who will never be able to own their own home, so they own a share of a co-op. It gives them a certain sense of pride, a certain sense of responsibility and a certain sense of being part of a little community. To attack that — and that is the centre of private ownership.... I mean, you can say that those who own their own homes are at the top. But also, equally as important, is the right of private ownership as part of a co-op, that philosophical belief that you can have some pride. I say this because I have one small....

Okay, before I get on to that other one, I would like to ask the minister one question. What is his maximum level of areas that he wishes to provide supplements to for housing for those in need, and what type of guidelines is he recommending? There have to be some guidelines, some floors, some top levels; then the people know where they're going and what the ground rules are. But we can't accomplish providing affordable housing by attacking individuals, attacking groups or attacking fellow colleagues in the House.

I ask the minister.... Up until now he hasn't given these answers. I say let's get some ideas of where he's going to go, what his guidelines are and what we look forward to in housing.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, that was a little difficult to follow, but I'll try to answer in a logical fashion. As to the last question, which really was the only question I detected in all of that rhetoric, I agree with the philosophy that's now in place, as far as provincial government spending on social housing is concerned, because whether the member knows it or not, no one — absolutely no one — in any social housing supported by the provincial government pays more than 30 percent of their income for rent. That's the way it is now, Mr. Member. As far as the SAFER program is concerned, SAFER pays 75 percent. SAFER assistance pays....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, it's not my ministry, but you're the one that entered it into this debate, Mr. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe).

AN HON. MEMBER: Not SAFER.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, certainly it was. You talked of social housing and the provision of social housing in British Columbia. You think the only social housing in B.C. Is co-op housing. That's just how wise that member is, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the question of social housing.

The SAFER-assisted individual in B.C. has paid for them 75 percent of every dollar that they pay over and above 30 percent of their income. So that's my philosophy. That's the way in which I want to see the taxpayers' dollar spent in B.C. on social housing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But before I sit down, there are a couple of other things I want to say. I want to place on the record, particularly for some senior citizens that I see in the gallery this afternoon — and I want to place it firmly on the record — I have never, to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), attacked a senior citizen in my life. I just wanted the member to know that.

The member said there is no one single answer to social housing, and I agree with that statement. The member said housing is a basic need for all individuals, and I agree with that statement. That is exactly why I called for an inquiry commission to inquire into social housing in British Columbia — exactly. That is exactly why, Mr. Member, I will appoint a social housing advisory committee, and that is exactly why I will appoint an executive director of social housing in British Columbia — because housing is a basic need. Before you can provide that basic need to those who are in need, you have to know who they are and where they are and what their needs are. That's the whole object of the exercise.

The member talked about a surplus of available housing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: A surplus of affordable housing, if you want to use the word affordable. Well, I would rather, when spending the taxpayers' money, think in terms of an adequate supply, because if it's the taxpayers' money that's been expended, I would rather we didn't have a surplus. I would rather we just had an adequate supply.

I agree as well with the member's feeling that we should have mixed housing, and never, ever did I say that we shouldn't have. But I just can't, for the life of me, see what difference it makes as to who builds that housing, as to how those living in it can or cannot be of a mixed group. If the member can enlighten me on that, I would certainly look forward to that.

Before I sit down, and in talking about people being mixed in social housing, I've got to ask a question of that member, and ask how he would feel about someone making in excess of $70,000 a year being in that kind of mixed housing, and where he feels there is justice there, where he feels that Mr. Svend Robinson, the silk-purse socialist, has a right utilizing taxpayers' dollars to be funded for a good part

[ Page 8196 ]

of his monthly rental. I would ask that member how he would justify that situation.

MR. MITCHELL: You know, as I said before, the only thing that member can do is attack personalities. I know we can all tell stories, and I know when the minister was speaking earlier on he was telling the House that when he lived in that co-op house he was only getting $26,000 a year as an MLA. He and I know that is untrue because that particular coop was never in his name. It was never in his name; it was in his wife's name, and the rent was based on that particular income.

It was not based on her income and his income, and to come in here and mislead and say: "Oh, I was only getting $26,000...." I'm not getting into personalities. I don't care about personalities; I don't care about individual cases like Svend Robinson or anyone else who was living in co-op housing. I am wanting to know from that minister in the questions I ask: what are his guidelines? What is the top maximum level of people that he is designing social housing for? Is it $29,000, is it $26,000, or is it using the figure out of his ministry's report which sets it around $20,000?

Now let's get some positive figures. Let's not get into this garbage of talking about individuals. He said he never attacked any senior citizen. Well, he was making fun of somebody who didn't want to mow a lawn. I assumed, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, and the person that was evicted out of the hotels in lower Vancouver or Vancouver Centre was not a senior citizen. But a lot of them were. A lot of those who were evicted were senior citizens, old-age pensioners, war veterans, people on GAIN. To pick out an individual because he didn't want to mow the lawn.... There are a lot of people that don't like mowing lawns. And there are a lot of people that live in rental houses and apartments. There is a need for smaller accommodation in the city core. We have to look at all these problems. We're not going to find an answer by picking out some individuals and attacking them, saying one thing and meaning another.

I ask the minister: what are his ground rules for the group that he is going to provide with social housing? I'm sick and tired of another study. This government has been in power for ten years. We have the mess we have today because of their inaction. Are they going to stall it with another study? When we get into Parks, we'll go into some other studies that that ministry inherited. What's he going to do about those?

I didn't say anything about the SAFER program. I mentioned in debate that the provincial renter's tax credit system was a type of subsidy and provided accommodation. It helped those who were on a low income and who were renting, outside of the provincial housing corporation buildings, or outside of co-ops; they were renting from the private sector.

He keeps on saying that he wants to see construction built by private industry, I guess. Name me one co-op project that was built by anything else but the private construction industry. All the co-ops are just like any other person who has a house built: they put out their contract for tender, and they supervise it, and they provide some kind of inspection and design service. They're all built by the private section of the construction trade. They're not built by individuals. They'd be a lot cheaper if they could get a real co-op working and building their own housing, but that would be so radical that the minister, I'm quite sure, would find a reason to get rid of that.

[3:45]

Again I ask the minister: has he considered returning the rental tax credit? I hope that he will answer my question, not attack another individual or attack me. I'm quite a harmless person. I'm asking questions. I'm not trying to get into personalities.

I ask him: what are the ground rules, in what field? You say "in need." Is it going to be $10,000? Is it going to be anyone who gets over $12,000? A thousand dollars a month? Is that "in need"? Is that for an individual or is that for a household? There have to be some ground rules. He can use the figure that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) uses: $3.65 an hour, the minimum wage. Is that going to be the ground rules he uses? Let's get some facts, let's get answers to questions, and let's not attack individuals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is advised that the rental tax credit is, again, another ministry.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the member repeated, I guess, a question that I answered before, in regard to my philosophy for the provision of social housing. I must repeat what I said before. My philosophy of social housing is not to spend taxpayer money on those that don't need it, not to subsidize those who are not in need. It's also to subsidize people rather than bricks and mortar; to subsidize those of our citizens in a way in which they can obtain the kind of housing they require.

I don't know how I can put it more clearly. The member surely doesn't know the difference between a contractor and a builder, and I would ask that member, on leaving this chamber, to get a dictionary and find out the difference between those two terms. He seems to think that in order to provide social housing, in order to build something in the province, you've got to have a third party. I'm saying that that's not necessary at all. Social housing can and will be built without that third party, and in a way in which the cost to the taxpayer will be less. That's all I'm looking for: a situation which will ensure that any tax dollar spent on social housing in British Columbia be spent solely on those in need.

Mr. Chairman, I can't make that any clearer. I'll reiterate for the member what I said before. Maybe it will help him to realize that his question has been answered. No one in any social housing supported by the provincial government in British Columbia pays more than 30 percent of their income on that housing. I guess that clearly sums up the philosophy of this government when it comes to social housing and the provision of social housing in this province.

MR. MITCHELL: I don't know if the minister is now attacking developers. There are developers — do you want to call them builders? — the type of people who organize it. If a group of people get together, then they are builders. I take it that he says that you have to buy it as a turnkey operation from some contractor. How can a group of people who are building...? The most important thing of their life is their home, and they don't have an opportunity to be involved in the design, in how it's put together?

You say there's a difference between the construction trade, the contractors and the builders. There has to be a middle person who puts any project together. You can call him a general contractor, a builder, a developer. If you're going to have individuals who sit down as a group and put this project together, there has to be some input.

[ Page 8197 ]

The co-op movement deals through affordable housing societies and a variety of groups, church groups. In my riding, Kiwanis has a large program. They dealt with a developer. They didn't go out and deal individually with the plumber, the carpenter, the electrician. Is that wrong? I know that if the government does something, they'll deal with some person who puts the project together. We always get down to where we're attacking names or individuals. Call it a builder, a developer or a contractor, it's somebody who puts it together. There's nothing wrong with that.

The minister still hasn't answered the question: what is the group in need? What is the level where the 30 percent comes in? Is it 30 percent for those on a $70,000 income? That they won't pay any more than 30 percent of that? Every other province in Canada has set the shelter allowance at 25 percent, but in this province we have taken 30 percent. Maybe next year they will want to eliminate a few more and it'll be 32 percent. We know that, but we still want to know what the maximum income or the minimum cut-off for a household is. That's a simple answer; let's not have another study.

I know you say that that renter tax credit would come out of another ministry, but it comes out of another ministry because it is part of providing shelter and was brought in to help provide shelter like the SAFER program that the minister talked about.

One other thing I would ask the minister. We can go out and say we're going to buy a pig in a poke. Has he got any standards that he is going to use for construction? What is needed for a family of three or a family of six? In the Capital Region Housing Corporation they do have standards. If you have four children, you need a three-bedroom house. If you have two children of both sexes, you need three bedrooms. You know there are certain standards. Are we going to go back to the standards when he was a boy where a lot of us lived in crowded quarters? Is that going to be the standard, or are we going to have the standards set out by the National Building Code? This is the important part. We haven't had those answers from the minister.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the member has made my argument exactly, and that is exactly why I am taking the recommendation of the inquiry commission to set up a social housing advisory committee in this province — for the very reasons the member just gave. In the past and right at the present time it is not known what is needed. It is not known who needs it. It is not known where it is needed. That is exactly why we are accepting the recommendations of the inquiry commission in this ministry, to make sure that from now on in British Columbia only social housing which is acceptable by those who use it is built.

I guess I do have to draw him a picture. It has been done very successfully all over this province for a long time in regard to senior citizens' housing. We have a group like the Kiwanis come to us as government and point out in their community a need for senior citizens' housing. That need for senior citizens' housing is accepted by government. A tender is called and a senior citizens' housing project is built. That is exactly the kind of situation I want in this province for all social housing.

I'll give you a scenario. We've got a social housing advisory committee. They report directly to me as the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. They point out a need for a certain type of social housing in your community, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. As a ministry we then call a tender. We then build that complex. We then offer the management of that complex to a non-profit group, whoever it be, a church group — the ones you're saying I'm attacking — or any one of those groups to manage that complex. That group, as do many co-op groups all over this province, sets its own rules within that complex. Now tell me, what's wrong with that? Our third party would be an advisory committee reporting directly on the need for certain kinds of senior citizens or mentally disabled or disabled persons or any kind of social housing, reporting on that need directly to the minister. I fail to see the problem with that kind of situation. The problem is, and we see it and the commission saw it.... They saw it up in Kamloops where a social housing project was built in an area which required anyone living in it to own an automobile in order to get to town to buy their groceries, to do whatever they had to do in the city.

[4:00]

Now you tell me if that was the right decision, to build that particular social housing unit or set of units in that area. The commission heard time after time that no thought is given to all kinds of social housing in one unit, and you talk about mix. I defy you to go up to Wilderness Place that I lived in, and am now moving out of, and find one ramp which could accommodate someone in a wheelchair living in that complex. Why shouldn't they be permitted the opportunity to live at Wilderness Place?

How much thought was given at Wilderness Place, when it was built, to those in wheelchairs? That's exactly what we're trying to get away from in appointing a social housing advisory committee reporting directly to the minister in this province. Did they say that we should set up a housing advisory committee, Mr. Member?

MR. BLENCOE: What a coverup!

HON. MR. KEMPF: Was a recommendation that we set up a housing advisory committee in the province of British Columbia...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please. The second member for Victoria will withdraw the word "coverup." It is unparliamentary. Please withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: If the member took offence, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair found offence. Thank you. The minister continues.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good dialogue we have going on here, because it points out the very reasons for the inquiry commission, the very reason for the setting up of a social housing advisory committee in this province, the very reason for appointing an executive director of social housing.

MR. BLENCOE: How much?

HON. MR. KEMPF: How much what?

MR. BLENCOE: How much does the commission cost?

[ Page 8198 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, whatever it costs, and I can't give the member that figure now because it isn't available, if it gets to the bottom of the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on co-op housing for those who are not in need, it's worth every cent of it, every last nickel. Does that one suggest that we should have a social housing advisory committee in this province? No it doesn't. It does nothing, and that's why an inquiry commission was appointed.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Victoria will withdraw that phrase. The Chair finds it offensive. Please withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just referring to the fact that they've already done a study.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair heard a reference to another hon. member which the Chair found offensive. The member will withdraw the word "coverup."

MR. BLENCOE: If the Chairman took offence, I withdraw it.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy. I'm really happy that the second member for Victoria is making these remarks at this time because I've got to tell you that the inquiry commission into social housing in British Columbia has not finished its work. It hasn't printed its final report, and I want that member's remarks, such as those just made, on the record of this House so that they can be utilized at the time that final report comes down. I look for that member to make more of those kinds of remarks. I appreciate that.

For the very reasons that were pointed out by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), an inquiry commission was set up, and we are acting on those recommendations made. There will probably be more because we are concerned, and I am concerned as the minister responsible for housing, that the taxpayers' money be spent wisely and be spent in the right place. That's why the inquiry commission was called.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: Still I keep asking what are his ground rules, what are his income levels that he is classing as people in need.

Mr. Chairman, I'll save him a lot of money. Right now if he'll go down to his office, or when we get out of the House if he phones the Capital Region Housing Corp. and says "How many units do you need?" they'll give you a figure. There's a need right now for affordable housing. If he phones up the Indian Friendship Centre and says "How many homes do you need for those people from your community who are living in the core area?" they'll give him a list. If he phones up his own organization, the B.C. Housing Corporation.... I phone them nearly every month wanting accommodation for people from my constituency who are in need, and they tell me they have a waiting-list anywhere from a year to two years. So if he's only looking for a reason to get into providing affordable housing.... All these groups have already got an established base-line for income. There is a need. So all he has to do, if what he's looking for is the need.... I don't know what it's like up in Vanderhoof or in other areas of the province, but I do know in this area there is already a need. There are organizations that he approves of in place, and they'll give him the answer. So let's not say we're going to have a study to find out what's needed. We know what's needed.

This is the important part: this is a stall. It's a stall to spin their wheels, to do nothing, and we have to have something positive. We have to look at housing. Housing provides a need, and with a proper program it provides jobs, and it provides people with a right to live with some dignity, not to be attacked, not to be ghettoized, not to be ridiculed and not to drag red herrings through the debate on individuals. We're not interested in that. We're interested in action. So far, in all this debate, this minister has not shown any action but to do another study, studying the problem that they have had for ten years.

MR. ROSE: I've listened relatively attentively all afternoon, and it seems to me that the minister tends to wallow in nostalgia. He told us all about his early life and how he was born in a log cabin without mother or father, how he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, how he went from no water to hot water and it took him 50 years. I suppose that's progress of a sort. I was really wondering whether he did it all himself, or whether he ever got any help on the way. He raised himself. Probably like Romulus and Remus — raised by the wolves? I know he's very fond of wolves; he likes shooting them. The bull, too.

However, I have two or three quite serious questions. It may come as a shock to the minister, but I do have the odd serious question to ask. I don't want a reply all hyped up with all that pseudo-indignation that the minister can muster from time to time, because it's not good for the minister. He might have a blood-pressure problem. If he doesn't watch out he'll blow his stack.

I was thinking when he mentioned Kamloops how he built the social housing somewhere in the bush. Well, they built a coal-mine up in the bush too. It's called northeast coal. And they built a rail-line to it; that's called infrastructure. The government did that. If you build social housing out in the bush, I don't think there would be anything wrong with running a bus to it, so that people who didn't have cars... And that is a responsibility — that's part of infrastructure. So don't damn the planners entirely. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, knowing our record on transportation, but there certainly was a reason for that.

The other one I was going to mention is that there are all kinds of examples.... The minister was up in my riding the other day. Very ideological — he proclaimed to all the private-enterprise house-builders that he believed in private enterprise. This came as no shock to them, I guess.

Hey, will you two guys be quiet for a while? You're interrupting my flow. The minister is polite to me. It's you guys who are causing me the trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair thanks you for the help, but please carry on.

MR. ROSE: Schools are going to be required in that new subdivision. Those private enterprisers could really be criticized along the same lines the minister criticized the people in social housing in Kamloops. Because you know what?

[ Page 8199 ]

They put all those new houses in there for families and there is no school there. What a dumb place to put a subdivision — no school.

Just on the other tack of it — those were just preliminary observations; I got everybody's attention — it's really tough out there, even for people who are working, to get housing. I have examples of it in my own family. It's very difficult to get housing. The Greater Vancouver Regional District housing board have got some in New Westminster on McBride. It's over $600 a month for three bedrooms. It is virtually impossible for working families, especially single-parent families, to afford that.

So there is a crying need for affordable social housing — not for lavish housing; there is all kinds of that stuff, such as the minister opened in a subdivision in my riding. I don't object to that; that's fine. But I don't think anybody is going to need a study to find that out. You can study it to death, it makes no difference to me. But spend your money building, not studying.

The minister talked about spending $15 million on social housing. You know what that is? That sounds like a generous amount. I mean, I don't have $15 million. I know there are people over there on the other side who do, but I don't have $15 million, and I don't think the minister does either. I know he's got a hot-tub, but he doesn't have $15 million. You know what that is in comparison to the education budget? It is one hundredth of what we are spending on education. It is roughly half of what we are spending on government propaganda — information from the ministries. So you see, we're not focusing.... The minister wants to save the people's money. I think there are lots of places I could suggest rather than social housing. I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if they were to provide social housing for people, because I am very lucky and so is the minister and so are most of the people in this House. We really don't know. It took the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) one month down on skid road to find out what it was really like. We don't know about it. We talk about being poor, ill-housed, living in a log cabin, but most of us never really feel that. But those people do. I can't really speak for them; all I can do is make comparisons.

There is a vast need for social housing. It is very difficult to get housing that is affordable. For working families and single parents earning even $20,000 a year it's difficult to have to spend $600 a month of that money just for shelter, to say nothing of all the other things.

I know from my own family's experience that there is a tremendous need for chronic-care homes. I don't care if a private contractor builds one. I don't care particularly who builds them. I would like to see them out to tender.

[4:15]

Why isn't there more free enterprise, limited-dividend, limited-profit housing? You know why? Because there is no money in it. There's no money in building limited-dividend housing. There is an example of that in Port Moody, the only one that I know of. If you ask CMHC where the limited dividend housing money is, I think you'll probably find — I haven't checked on it lately; I haven't made this speech for a while — that nobody is interested in building. Or maybe the legislation doesn't even exist anymore. It became redundant like the vestigial tail or appendix. It wasn't being used, so it just withered away. I don't know. So that's one thing.

But I know there is a tremendous need for chronic-care facilities — that's housing for the elderly. Even though it may not come under the minister's direct control, he should sure look at that, because it takes over a year, sometimes two years, to get people who need chronic-care housing into one of those facilities. Sometimes they have to move away from their own communities and their own friends in order to find a place in one of them. That is a tragedy, and that is one I do know about.

The second one I would like to mention, again, really doesn't come under.... Well, I'll stick to housing. But I want to talk about assumable mortgages. That doesn't come under the minister's direct control, but I want to make a representation to him about it. What I wanted to ask him is: is he aware of the granny cottages in New Zealand? Has he any plans to institute a similar thing here? For the benefit of those who don't know what I am talking about — including sometimes, I am accused, me personally....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Not by the hon. members — not today. The New Zealand experience is simply this. There are modular units. Some people might even call them trailers. These small, temporary modular units can be put in a back yard in a single-family zoning and hooked up to sewers, water, etc., and Granny or Grampa — if he is so lucky; most of us work so hard we die earlier — can live on the back 40 of a single-family lot, hooked up to all of the facilities, have her own independence, and not interfere with the independence and privacy of her children, grandchildren or whomever. This has to be, of course, accomplished through the Municipal Act. It has many benefits: it prevents the building of large institutions; it prevents instances of improper use of the zoning, because these modular units are rented — from whom, I don't know; perhaps some people might say from a co-op; the minister might say from a company — to make a few bucks, which is, I think, a reasonable kind of activity in our society, a mixed economy.

I would like to know from the minister whether he's considering that avenue as a possible innovation, which he'd have to clear through, first of all, Municipal Affairs, because zoning restrictions would have to be listed in those cases. It has some fine advantages. I think it's a great idea.

This is the last one, really, on my list. It has to do with the assumable mortgages. I have had in my riding, I guess, at least six complete horror stories, where vendor A sells to purchaser B, and purchaser B takes over an assumable mortgage. The Law Reform Commission has had some things to say about this. Purchaser B, though, occasionally forgets to make the payment, and vendor A is not notified until perhaps a year's payment, plus interest, has accumulated by the lender. Purchaser B walks away from this, with no legal obligation whatsoever, and leaves vendor A holding the bag. I would like to know, since the Law Reform Commission has suggested there be changes, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), I think, is certainly sympathetic to this.... If I've had six of these cases, where people were left with huge debts and, as a matter of fact, threatened by a takeover by the lender — in this case, often a bank.... What's the Minister of Housing got to say about those things?

I'm not here to beat the minister up; he can do that for himself, when he feels like it. Instead of scapegoating and hurling unsubstantiated charges, putting motives in the mouths of some people who aren't here to defend themselves, I would like to hear what kind of innovative ideas,

[ Page 8200 ]

protective ideas and security ideas, on the subjects that I've raised the minister has to offer.

HON. MR. KEMPF: On the question of assumable mortgages, certainly the member opposite realizes that that's not something that comes under my ministry at all. Really, he should be discussing that.... I agree that there's a problem there, but certainly it's not for me in this committee to make comment on that particular item. It's for another minister at another time.

As far as granny housing is concerned, I'm very aware, Mr. Member, of the granny housing situation, particularly in Australia, where, I understand, it has for many years worked very well. In fact, I began, I think, three or four years ago to put together a file of information on granny housing. I have quite a file at this time on, I think, every aspect of granny housing. I agree with you 100 percent: if we really want to save the taxpayers money, in relation to senior citizens' housing, the granny housing situation is the way to do it. Not only will it save the taxpayer money, it will also look after our senior citizens in a much better fashion. It will also allow the family of elderly senior citizens to take more of a role in looking after them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Certainly I will. I've only been here for 90 days, Mr. Member. Certainly I will.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Not really. I look forward to the next ten years with great anticipation, Mr. Member. Certainly that is high on my agenda. I agree that there are going to be other ministries that have to change their ways or change their legislation or change their regulations in many areas of this province in order to allow it. I think it's a fabulous way of providing senior citizens' housing.

The member talked about the opening of the first phase of River Heights, and the fact that there was no school. Well, that's true, but had the member stayed — and he really should have because there was some great wine and great cheese served after the official opening....

MR. ROSE: I don't drink wine.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You don't have to drink wine. You could have stayed to go in to see the whole plan, because the plan does in fact call for a school among other things. I'm sure the member will agree with me that you don't put the cart before the horse. First you have to have a community with children in order to merit building schools, and that's exactly what will happen at River Heights. I really suggest that the next time you partake of such an opening you stay around and talk to those entrepreneurs and really find out what it is that's going to be the end result in that development and in that total subdivision. That's only the first phase; there are four more phases to take place over the next five years, which will include infrastructure such as schools.

MR. LAUK: Is entrepreneur a French word?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Entrepreneur — it could be.

Mr. Chairman, the member talked about profiteering. He was saying that housing wouldn't be built unless there was a profit, and I agree. I don't think profit is a dirty word. I really don't. But I've got to ask the member whether he really thinks that units built for social housing in the province of British Columbia costing the taxpayer of this country and this province over the life of that mortgage — a unit built at a cost of $180,000 in an area where you could buy, at the same time as that is being built, single family dwellings for half that price.... Does he believe that there is a profit involved in that? I just throw that out, because that is happening and that is exactly why something has got to be done about the way in which the taxpayer's dollar in this province is being spent on social housing. That's exactly the reason for it. That's exactly what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are being expended under the guise of social housing for those not in need. Certainly the need is not for silk-purse socialists. How many times do I have to tell you that? People who sit in parliament in Ottawa and draw the kinds of salaries they do — that's not need at all. Let's talk about that. I'm saying that the federal government is spending literally billions of dollars under the guise of providing social housing, at least 50 percent of which is going to those not in need. That's what I'm upset about, on behalf of the taxpayer of British Columbia and the taxpayer of Canada, and it's got to stop.

MR. ROSE: I warned the minister about huffing and puffing again and how hard that is on his blood pressure. I would just like to say that the reason I didn't hang around and drink wine with him after the opening was that I had reviewed that whole thing. That was my point. After all, I was there for an hour and a half, because the minister was an hour and half late.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Because I sat in this House. Where were you on Friday?

MR. ROSE: I was over there trying to meet the minister on time. And I went by ferry; I didn't go by private government plane. But even at that you weren't on time, so you're late again. The late Minister of Housing.

The point that I was trying to make about profits is that the private sector, other than ripping off these places at $180,000 a unit.... It obviously wasn't built by somebody who owns a co-op. It was built by a construction company, presumably, and it presumably was sent out to bid. I don't know about your horror stories. You may have these nightmares from time to time. It's not my problem; it's your problem. But what I was saying was that we used to have limited-dividend housing, and the reason we don't have the housing now, built by the private sector, is because there isn't enough money in it. They would rather put their money into highrises, investment MURBs and all kinds of things, rather than limited dividend low-cost housing. So the state had to step in. We're just as concerned as the minister, although we don't yell about it quite as loudly, that we get a bang for our buck. That was the point I was trying to make, and that's the only point I want to make.

Now just on the end, on the silk purse socialists crack, I think that it'd be nice if we had a few more silk purses around here, because we've sure got enough sows' ears.

[4:30]

[ Page 8201 ]

MR. BARNES: I wonder if the minister would answer a question. Earlier this afternoon and this morning he accused the opposition of asking no specific questions. He's made reference to the B.C. Housing Management Commission having an excess of spaces or accommodation available. This, I think, is very good news. Now I've been in the Legislature for a number of years, and have been so accustomed to that particular commission having a shortfall in terms of requests for space by families and individuals over the years that it's become common knowledge that they have a waiting-list of several hundred.

Obviously it appears, from what the minister has said, that they no longer have a waiting-list, that accommodation is there in abundance. In fact, they have an excess of space. I would like for him to clarify for the House: is he in fact saying that there is no longer a waiting-list of hundreds of applicants for space applying to the B.C. Housing Management Commission?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad that that member asked me that question. BCHMC has a turnover of clearly 100 units per month available. Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, you weren't listening this morning when I quoted from a report of the Vancouver DERA relocation task force who themselves, on April 24, 1986, reported — and I quote again for the record: "Number of people successfully relocated, 69; number of applications in hand, 32; inventory of available units, 73."

What the member doesn't realize in regard to the B.C. Housing Management Commission is yes, they have a long waiting-list, but only one out of three who puts their name on the waiting-list accepts housing that is available. They've either in the meantime found their own, or they don't like the kind that's being offered and say: "No, we don't want it; we'll look for ourselves." But only one out of three of that long, long list you talk about...

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, I'm saying I told you earlier that there's a turnover of 100 units available per month. If you can give me a hundred names a month, we'll give them accommodation. Again for this House and for their information, I pledge that if anyone is in need of housing in the province they need only go to the B.C. Housing Management Commission and it will be provided. I can't be any clearer than that.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) — and he has left his seat — asked a question about affordability of housing in British Columbia. I think that's straying a bit from social housing, but I think maybe we should place on the record, at least, that people not only in this jurisdiction but in many jurisdictions have had over the years to give personal priority and some sacrifice — and I think we've all done that at one time or other — to buy their own home.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Yes, it's not easy; yes, it is a sacrifice. But it's one which we make because we feel that the home is probably the dearest thing to the heart that we can have. Today house prices are lower, in fact much lower. That same member talked about the opening of River Heights. House prices today are much lower, as are mortgage rates, than they were five to ten years ago. And yes, we may have to make a sacrifice. Young people may have to make a sacrifice to own their own home. But that's nothing unusual, nothing new. It's been done for decades. Housing in this year is probably easier to obtain than it has been in over a decade. Right now, to that member who is no longer in his seat, housing is more affordable than it has been for many years in B.C.

MR. MITCHELL: In wrapping up Housing, there are a couple of things I would like to bring to the minister's attention. He still failed to give me any figures on what he considers a need. In his own case I believe it would be around $40,000. Is that the figure he feels social housing should be? Or should it be $12,000? Or should it be what the report said: $20,000 per household? There have to be some figures.

We still get back to attacking the individual co-ops. He brought to the attention of this House that in his own Wilderness Co-op there weren't ramps to get into the units. I agree, that's wrong. But I can show in my own riding.... Handicapped people in a wheelchair couldn't even get out of some of the parking lots that are provided by private developers. I don't go around attacking private developers because of some parking lots you can't get through with a wheelchair. In fact, I can show you some multi-storey apartment buildings built by private developers that you can't even drive a fire truck around, which is an offence under the National Building Code, the fire code or the insurance code. But you don't go around blindly attacking private developers and private apartment-owners because of individual cases. It is quite true that there are mistakes and that there have been shortcomings in housing and in co-ops, but you don't attack blindly on individual cases.

I think it's important that we look at housing in a lot broader sense than we have. I personally don't have that much faith that this minister will do any differently than his predecessors in a government that he has supported for the last ten years. I know the next person that comes to my constituency office and needs a house, needs accommodation.... When I phone the B.C. Housing Corporation and they tell me they have a two-year waiting-list, the next phone call I'm going to make is to the minister. He has promised in this House that he has a turnover and he will provide it. I thank the minister in advance for the next set of constituents who come to my office, because.... Two weeks ago the Ministry of Human Resources was paying to keep a single parent — or a widow or divorced or something — and four children in a motel. We tried every agency in greater Victoria, and every one of them told us that there was a waiting list and that we couldn't get anything for months and months. If there's a waste of taxpayers' money, it was that. The only problem, Mr. Minister, is that the money over the shelter allowance was taken off that family's food budget because there was nothing else provided.

I think we should digress to other housing. I'm not happy with the minister's answers. He gave me one that I hope to use regularly. But I think we should get onto....

My co-debate-leader asks that we go a little longer on housing, and I will sit down for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour has indicated that he wishes to speak, and he will be recognized.

[ Page 8202 ]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a point very briefly. I feel strongly about it. I believe that shelter assistance for those in need can be best provided by turning the funds over to the individual, the human being in need, rather than the government, in its so-called wisdom, providing bricks and mortar. I believe that this would not only be less expensive, from a taxpayer's point of view, but would also better suit the individual in need.

First of all, in this country and on this continent, but certainly in Canada, people are better housed than anywhere else in the world. They're better housed, basically because the private sector, through the workings of the laws of supply and demand, provides housing. If individuals in need receive a financial contribution from government, and go out and shop around for the housing they believe they need, I think, in this excellent and healthy market for housing in this country, they will be much better served than if governments erect a barracks, erect housing, erect social housing, in effect creating ghettos. This is the way to go: give the people a choice, give the individual in need the choice. Don't provide them with housing which government designs, which government finances.

There's another very good reason for this. If the individual goes out and shops around, they're likely to find a home in a community where there's a cross-section of people, not only from an income point of view, but from many social, ethnic and other points of view. You avoid this problem of creating ghettos, creating institutions in which people in need are housed. We seem in Canada to have been overly concerned about creating communities in subsidized housing in which people of various levels of income are housed, people in various circumstances are housed.

The minister said — and I've read various studies which indicate it — that at least half the people in heavily subsidized housing are people who are not in need. That is doubly foolish. We are creating a ghetto of sorts. But we're certainly subsidizing using the public purse to support those, subsidize those, at least in equal number who are not in need. By definition, a policy which gives the money to the individual, the person, and allows them to select the housing they choose is going to save half of the dollars we now spend on public housing; or to put it another way, where you could spend twice as many dollars more effectively looking after people in need.

I say that the commission the minister is setting up should at least look at this obvious alternative of paying people a shelter supplement and letting them shop, rather than putting up money for social housing, which often is a blot on the landscape.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has referred a number of times to various reports conducted in the province of British Columbia in terms of social housing. I think the people of British Columbia deserve some answers and some cost figures of what they're paying for this duplication of reports.

I have indicated on a number of occasions that in January 1986 the British Columbia Housing Management Commission conducted a fairly exhaustive report on social housing for British Columbia. In January 1986, I might add, Mr. Chairman, this report was tabled. The report lists numerous organizations who are a part of the consultation process. The report is endorsed by Mrs. Mary Kerr, chairman of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

[4:45]

Without getting into specific details of what this report said, or recommends, the interesting part is that in January 1986 this exhaustive study came down on social housing in the province of British Columbia, and then suddenly, a few months later, now you see this report, now you see Mrs. Mary Kerr, now you don't. Suddenly, a few months later, there is an attempt by this government to convince the people of British Columbia — they just finished one study, an exhaustive study, and consultation — that we need to do another one. April l, 1986, was the preliminary report, a matter of months after this one was done and tabled in January 1986.

Well, we all know why this report was done. I've gone into the reasons why a number of times in this Legislature: it was to cover up for this government's inadequacy in terms of dealing with the Expo evictions; this government's reluctance and refusal to deal with what was happening in Vancouver.

I'd like to know, and so would the taxpayers of British Columbia, what this first report cost the taxpayers — the report that was tabled in January 1986. I'd like to have those figures. I'd also like to know what this latest report, this latest commission, this Court of Star Chamber that the minister is holding in the province of British Columbia, cost. How much are you paying the staff on that commission? How much are you paying the researchers on a per diem basis? And what will be the total cost to the people of British Columbia? They're entitled to those answers, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. KEMPF: To take the last question first, Mr. Chairman, as the commission's work is still going on, there's absolutely no way I can tell at this point what the inquiry commission into social housing is going to cost. I will undertake to make those figures available to this House and to that member when they are available. As for the cost of the first report, I don't have those figures at my fingertips. We'll get those and I'll make them available to that member.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times I have to suggest to that member that mixing the social housing question with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association question is mixing apples and oranges. There is no relation.

I called a commission to inquire into the delivery of social housing in British Columbia because it was quite evident, on the basis of the information I was given — I don't care how many reports were done in the past — that there's a problem with the delivery of social housing in British Columbia and with how taxpayers' money is spent in that area. I intend to get to the bottom of it, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, regardless of what you and your friend Jim Green might do or say, and regardless of whether he'll picket Expo. I intend to point out to the people of British Columbia that there is a problem; that people who are not in need are being subsidized by use of the taxpayer's dollar not only in British Columbia but all across this country, and that's wrong.

There are other problems. I don't wish to prejudice the work of a very good commission of inquiry, but those problems will surely be brought to light when the final report comes down. I wait with bated breath for that final report, Mr. Member, because it will surely prove.... Whatever the cost of that report to the taxpayer of this province, if the recommendations that are brought down are accepted and dealt with, it will surely save the taxpayer....

MR. BLENCOE: The federal taxpayer.

[ Page 8203 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Federal taxpayer! Do your constituents not take federal tax money our of their pocket'? Is it a different taxpayer that pays to Ottawa? You don't seem to understand that it's the same taxpayer. I ask that the member, when he goes home tonight, phone his constituents — any of them — and ask if a different tax dollar comes out of their pocket to pay Ottawa or pay Victoria. It's all the taxpayer's money.

I told you before, I would have abrogated my responsibility as the member responsible for housing had I not acted upon the information given to me. That's why I called the inquiry; that's why they're bringing down reports, and will bring down a final report. Yes, it's costing the taxpayer money. I'll make that figure known to the people of British Columbia and let them decide whether it was worth it. It's not for that member to say whether or not it was worth it to the taxpayer of British Columbia. It's up to that taxpayer.

If you want to talk, get in your own seat, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister's comment is well taken. It's unparliamentary to interject, and not sitting in your own seat is most unparliamentary.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) talked about the ceiling — where was it that I thought the ceiling should be as far as those who live in co-op housing are concerned. Well, that's not up to me. That decision has been made since the inception of co-op housing by co-op executives, and if you take their figure, which is in the vicinity of $26,000 a year, which I think is not someone in need.... But they have made that decision. They say that's where the ceiling is.

I've got to give that member a little bit of an education here. Of course he, being an urban member, doesn't know. He said that the salary of a back-bench MLA was $40,000 a year. That's where he is totally incorrect, and he knows it. The only difference between him and me in that respect is that I spend the difference between $26,500 and $40,000 on my constituents, because that is paid us for expenses. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) laughs. He wouldn't know either. He wouldn't know what it is like to serve a rural riding in this province, and what that costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come to order. That's all very interesting and well known to all of us here, but it does not really fall under the purview of the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I know it's been discussed, but I think at this point we should cease discussion on that item.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with you more. But I was not the one that raised it, and I felt it had to be put on the record that there are some members of this House who do in fact spend their expenses on their constituents. I see one over there right now: the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). He does it all the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has been well canvassed. To the estimates, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite remarkable and indeed once again a sign of why we on this side of the House voted no confidence in that minister. I have asked at least once for the dollar value of this report. I have asked in this House, and you took it as notice and said you'd bring it back to this House. You have not done that. You are the minister, this is under your purview, and you don't have at your fingertips the costs of this. You're stalling, Mr. Minister. You don't want to give us the facts. You don't want to give us the numbers on how much this study cost the taxpayers, because you know that you've just started another one, a total repetition of the work that has been done already. We know why you have started this other report.

Is the minister telling us he doesn't know how much he has budgeted for this second report, this commission currently studying so-called social housing in the province of British Columbia? He doesn't have a budget figure? He doesn't know how much was budgeted for this report that was tabled in January? No wonder people have no confidence in him. That's what you're supposed to do in this House. You're supposed to have that information. You're supposed to be able to tell us. The people have a right to know what you are spending their money on. You talk about trying to save taxpayers' money, and you don't even have the decency to do your job in terms of telling us what the dollar value is on these reports.

How much are those researchers getting paid to do this current commission? A thousand dollars a day? Five hundred a day? How much is it costing us daily to repeat the work done in January 1986? The people of British Columbia want to know, because they can't believe when we tell them that you have just done a report in January and now you're doing it again, on federal programs that have been studied by the federal government, and they put changes in place to make the corrections that are necessary.

Give us the value. Give us the dollars. Let the people know. We're debating your ministry and your estimates, and the people are entitled to know what you are spending and, I believe, wasting their money upon in this latest commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 56 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister telling us he has no budget estimate? He has done no figures on this latest commission, so it is wide-open? The chequebook is open? Is he saying that he will spend any amount of money to give his friends in the private sector dollars that the non-profit societies and those church groups want? Is that what he is saying? The chequebook is wide open? Any amount of money to find the trumped-up dirt this minister is going to find on non-profit societies and churches in the province of British Columbia? Is that what he is telling this House? The chequebook is wide open?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I've told that member on two different occasions that it is impossible for me at this time to say what this commission of inquiry is going to cost this province. As soon as the inquiry is over I will make those figures public and available to the member. As far as the last report is concerned, I have no idea what it cost. I will get those figures, and I will return them to the member.

MR. BLENCOE: I find it absolutely incredible that a minister of the Crown doesn't have fiscal control on his ministry. For a commission that is supposedly being set by this minister or by the Minister of Municipal Affairs we have no budget item, no cost predictions, no per diem rates, no

[ Page 8204 ]

research figures. Is it a wide-open chequebook, Mr. Chairman? Can he not give us a figure that he sets in terms of the limits to this commission, or is he prepared to spend any amount of money so they can do his dirty work on the churches and the non-profit groups of the province of British Columbia? Wide open, is it? It's total fiscal irresponsibility, if what the minister is saying in this Legislature today is that he is prepared to pay whatever bill they come up with. A blank cheque for whatever it costs — well, what a way to run an operation. Here's this man who pontificates about saving the taxpayers money in the province of British Columbia. He wants to get to the root problem of what's happening in social housing, and yet we just had a report in January 1986. And he's telling this Legislature that there's a wide-open chequebook for dirt-hunting on church groups and non-profit groups in the province of British Columbia. That's what he's telling this House. That's his idea of democracy; that's his idea of a commission. He can't even give us any figures on how much it's going to cost. That's fiscal irresponsibility. He talks about saving taxpayers' money, and he can't tell us how much he's given in terms of the budget for this commission.

[5:00]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, the member wants to know what the members of this commission are being paid. I don't make that decision. I don't make the decision as to what they're being paid on a daily basis. They're being paid as per a Treasury Board directive, that which is paid those who serve the people of this province on such inquiry commissions. That's what they're being paid, and the total figure is impossible to divulge today because the work is not done. When the work is done, I have undertaken to the member to make available to this House and to that member that figure.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister telling us he doesn't have the figure that he's paying on a per diem basis, or salary, or whatever, to the researchers?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I don't set that.

MR. BLENCOE: Come on, tell us how much you're paying those people. Is he telling us that the legal fees for the people he's got on standby or retainer to give legal advice...? Does he not know what the rates are, and how much that's costing the people of British Columbia? You can't give us any figures on what you're paying some of these people at all?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, that's why we've got this commission, and the chequebook is wide open — any cost to find what they want in terms of destroying social housing and non-profit housing in the province of British Columbia. That's what the case is all about, and that's what the minister is bent on doing. That's what he has got senior staff doing. That's what it's all about, and this minister can't even give us any figures on what he's paying various people who are working on this commission. Well, that speaks for the record, and that's why we introduced a non-confidence motion in this Legislature.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I did throw out to the minister the figure of $40,000. Maybe I should have thrown out the figure of $46,000. I think if he adds $20,000 to $26,000 he'll know where I got the figures. I'm not interested in that. I'm just saying I wanted to know a figure of your need, and I wanted a figure of what your top rate is. Now you say $26,000, but let's have some of these figures.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to the other section of his ministry that he started off with in very glowing terms, and that's dealing with the Parks section of Lands, Parks and Housing. I think it's important that we as a Legislature and especially the minister should really view the parks of the province as the asset they are. If you go back over the history of the development of our provincial park system, there have been changes in the philosophical evolution of our parks, but I believe we have a potential within that Parks ministry to create something that this province needs, something we have failed to capitalize on in the last four or five years under this government: that is, to develop our parks with a perception that they are an asset and have a potential of job creation second to none.

From the minister's own figures and the documents, last year we had 15.9 million visitors to provincial parks. These are the ones who have recorded their stay in the park. That figure, Mr. Speaker, is more than the first-predicted number of visitors to Expo. We have in our park system — with our resources, with our beauty, with our lakes, our marine parks — an opportunity to develop those parks as a destination point, not only for people within British Columbia but for all of North America. I think in the last few years under this government we have looked at our parks as a group that we should attack. We started off really bringing it to a head in 1983 when, in our so-called restraint program brought on to the heads of the people of B.C., we started cutting back in parks. We started that simple answer: "We're going to privatize parks." I don't believe, in spite of what the minister says, that that has been a successful program, either for providing services to the parks or for providing and developing these parks as a destination resort for all of North America and for creating jobs.

I would like to go through some of the problems, I guess, that have developed in B.C. over the last few years. We have had a lot of unemployment. But we have always been looking at the salvation of our unemployment being to export more of our resources out of the province. We have failed to build on our internal economy, build on the 70 percent of the people of this province that are still working in spite of this government. It's really important that we provide to the recreation section of that community and to those who are on holidays an incentive to travel in B.C. and also to provide something so that, when they do visit and stay in B.C., they are going to be able to share some of the beauties but also sell our parks system.

We are falling down on that. We're falling down on developing it. We have made it a kind of scapegoat. We attack parks or we attack people who work in parks. We lay them off or threaten them with their jobs and say we're going to privatize this park and privatize that service. I don't think that is building up the esprit de corps within the Parks ministry that should be there. If you go through the history of the Parks branch and how they evolved in British Columbia, the majority of those who have developed our parks today were from the forestry department. When they developed a park, they looked at it from a forester's position. They did a little selective logging. They did a little harvesting in the development of those parks, which was excellent, because they had

[ Page 8205 ]

people who were trained, and they were interested in developing the resources. Parks are a resource.

The problem with our outlook in looking at parks is exactly what this minister is doing in housing. We have had studies and studies and studies, and again this minister is having another study in the housing section of his portfolio. Last year when some of the parks came under the debate that we must look at developing those parks, what did they do? They set up another study, a report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee. I know that particular report was set up under another ministry, but what it did take into consideration was the parks of British Columbia that come under this minister.

I'm not going to go through the 24 parks that they were given an opportunity to study, nor am I going to make any comments on the recommendations that they have made, because according to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), that report has not been received yet. But I want to bring them to the minister's attention, and we'll go down them from number 1 to number 24 and pick out various parks that I feel this minister must make a decision on. I hope that he has the same clout in the cabinet in comparison to the shouting and ranting that he does in this House — that he has that clout and he exercises it when he is trying to get some of the recommendations through.

The number one park in the government's request for a study under the wilderness parks was south Moresby. Now this minister knows that if any park or proposed park is being studied more than south Moresby, I don't know where it is. In fairness to his predecessors, when they set up the last study on south Moresby, they used input from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands; they used input from those who work in the forest industry; they used input from the native Indian community, who are involved in protecting certain native heritage sites on south Moresby. They brought in technical staff from Environment, from Forests, and from Lands and Parks. They brought in staff and input from federal parks personnel. I believe it took two to three years to develop their report and present it to the government. It has four options. I've said this to the predecessor of the present minister: I'm not saying which is the best of those four. I have my preferences. But that minister and that government have an obligation to do something, to adopt the number one proposal, the number two proposal, the number three proposal, the number four proposal, or a combination of all four. We can't continue to stall and put our heads in the sand, and say we're going to have another study. Let's do something and get jobs created.

[5:15]

That one park alone.... I'm not saying that it's only going to provide jobs for those working in that particular park. The spinoff effect, if we make south Moresby a destination point for British Columbia, for North America, will be immense. The spinoff effect of private entrepreneurs who will be taking guided tours down in charter boats.... They have some excellent charter boats right now that travel through those 138 islands in the south Moresby chain. What the public needs is some guidance and some leadership from this government to develop that asset that is recognized not only in British Columbia, not only in Canada, not only in North America, but by the United Nations as something that must be protected and as something that can be developed that will create jobs in the local community, with a spinoff effect throughout British Columbia — something that is going to be great. We have to have that leadership from the government so people can get on with doing something.

I ask the minister, as he says he has these reports now on south Moresby: what is his belief in developing parks as destination sites, as job creation, as the protection of something that, if you continued the do-nothing policy of creating solely a logging show.... If the logging operations are anything comparable to what is in the northern islands on the Queen Charlottes, we'll have a great park there. We'll have a lot of stumps to put picnic tables on. But that's not what we want. We want some long-range program on it, and I'm asking the minister for his viewpoint on it. We'll start off with south Moresby.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm sure glad that the members opposite are interested in more than just the Housing aspect of my portfolio. I'd just like to say that unlike the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), I know where south Moresby is. I know where the Queen Charlotte Islands are. In fact, when talking about listening to the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands, I just spent my whole last weekend on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and I think I know how the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands feel about south Moresby.

AN HON. MEMBER: One weekend is all it takes, Jack.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member who interjects, once again, not from his own seat suggests that it is only one weekend that I have spent on the Queen Charlotte Islands. That couldn't be further from the truth. I was born 51 years ago in the province of British Columbia, and I have been on the Queen Charlotte Islands many times. I think, as I said to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I know how the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands feel about south Moresby.

Mr. Chairman, the south Moresby issue was addressed in the report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee. That report is now being seriously considered by this government and by my ministry, and I am sure that very soon some indication will evolve in regard to how the government will react to that report. But the member talked about the report and about the proposals in the report, and he talked about logging, as if it were something that would absolutely decimate the Queen Charlotte Islands, or at least south Moresby. Had he read that report closely, he would realize that in option two, even that committee, who listened to many British Columbians, including the citizens of the Queen Charlotte Islands, suggests in its report that Lyell Island be logged; that other logging could possibly take place on south Moresby; that we could have the best of both worlds through a little bit of cooperation and a lot less confrontation; that possibly we could have both parks and jobs for our citizens through logging by doing the right thing in regard to south Moresby. If there's anything that I, as the minister responsible for parks in this province, want to see it's that. It's the best of both worlds. We can have the best of both worlds. All we have to do is cooperate a little. Certainly that cooperation will come from my ministry when considering the report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee.

Mr. Chairman, nobody is more aware of the importance of the parks system in British Columbia than I. That's not because I'm the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. That's not because I've been the minister responsible for parks for the last 90 days. That comes from living my 51 years in

[ Page 8206 ]

British Columbia, working in the outdoors, earning my living in the rural outdoors of this province, which I've done all my life. All my life has been spent earning a living in the outdoors of this province. Nobody is more aware of the importance of a good parks system to the people of British Columbia and those who visit than I am. Nobody. Any actions that I might take as the minister responsible for parks will be a clear indication of that.

Mr. Chairman, I am a firm believer in multiple use, and I think I said it when I answered the member's question about south Moresby.

MR. WILLIAMS: Both sides of the fence.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Not both sides of the fence. That's the only way you can see it, Mr. Member from Vancouver East, as either being one side or the other, either black or white, or the fact that you've got your feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. It's not that way. All you people can think of is confrontation. Every issue has to be that of confrontation. That's not the way in which we in this most beautiful province can have the best of both worlds. We can have that. We can have a good parks system, a viable logging industry, a viable mining industry, but we certainly won't have that in a confrontation system. That's the socialist way, Mr. Chairman, and I don't accept that for one minute.

I'm very aware of the importance of a good parks system. We've got a good parks system in British Columbia, and it's going to be better. I've travelled a bit. I know what there is in other jurisdictions. I know how much a good parks system means to the citizens of North America. We're not just concerned here with British Columbia; we're concerned with all of North America. There are other industries in our province that are very concerned and that play a great part in having a good parks system. Tourism cannot be successful unless we have a good parks system in this province.

The member talked about contracting out. Yes, that's our philosophy as government. It's certainly my philosophy as the minister. Let's use one park as an example. Cypress Bowl is one area that's near and dear to the hearts of many of those who don't get out of the lower mainland and really don't know what's happening in rural British Columbia. I've got to report to this committee that literally thousands of happy Vancouverites are skiing at Cypress Bowl and are very happy with what is happening there. As I said earlier in this House, yes, a few people, a handful — very few, when you come right down to it — aren't happy with the situation at Cypress Bowl, but in my ministry even they are being recognized. We're working very hard to find ways by which even they, because they are citizens of British Columbia, can be given what they would like at Cypress Bowl.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, when talking about parks, mentioned jobs. We've got to put on the record that 1,400 contracts regarding the parks system in British Columbia were let to the private sector last year, creating many hundreds of jobs for British Columbians, many of them students who need that kind of work for the summer, who need those jobs in the parks system providing maintenance and development.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Surrey...

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm sure happy to see that the debate on parks is such a hot issue in British Columbia. But to answer the member's question, I'm very concerned about having a good parks system in B.C., because I know how very important that is to the people of this province and to those who visit us.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That's why we're having a very big birthday party in your constituency, Mr. Member, tomorrow afternoon, and you're invited to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of parks in British Columbia. And you will see, when attending that birthday party.... And I hope you don't leave like the member over there did and not really find out the whole story; I hope you stay and enjoy and find out what we're doing in parks in British Columbia. But you're invited, and you will see the emphasis that this ministry puts on the parks system of British Columbia.

[5:30]

MR. MITCHELL: You know, Mr. Chairman, the ignorance of this government never fails to amaze me, and as far as any dignity in positions of MLAs or parliamentary procedure.... I'm quite surprised that they're going to hold a big celebration in my riding. As the MLA I've never been invited.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're invited now.

MR. MITCHELL: I've only just been invited. At 5:30 the day before, he blurts out an invitation. That's a great deal. But, you know, that is this government's attitude. They don't believe in parliamentary dignity. They don't believe in parliamentary procedures. They don't even believe in the parliamentary committee system. But they believe in the arrogance of standing there because they have the power. And he very graciously invited me to come to his party. I will be very gracious, and I will go. Maybe when he gets around to answering the other questions, he'll tell me where it's going to be held and at what time. And do I have to stay around to get the refreshments you gave the member for Coquitlam?

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Minister, I have the floor. I know I asked a number of questions. This minister runs all around the mulberry bush. We'll get to Cypress Bowl on my time.

The minister was very gracious in inferring that I didn't know where south Moresby was. I'll tell you, when you were seven years of age I was working up in that area. In 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 I went all around it. So don't tell me how great you are, that you know where it is. There are a few of us around here who also know where south Moresby is. I'm not going to get into personalities. I get fed up with that minister continually attacking individuals, trying to show us that, boy, he's got a jet, he's got a government airplane, and it flies them up there. He lords it over us. He has never had to work. I had to work to get up there. I didn't have a government plane that took me up there and flew me around. I couldn't put down $45 a day for expenses and charge up my hotel and my food. We'll have to look at the vouchers and see what you charged to go up there.

[ Page 8207 ]

The thing is, I heard the same story from your predecessor — that we were going to do a study on south Moresby. We were going to have these reports, and it was just a matter of time before one of these reports — the first recommendation, the second, the third or the fourth — would be adopted. We get the same story from this minister. For five years this government has done nothing but stall and stall and stall. I ask the minister, when he gets up, after he tells me when.... I'll give you a couple of days — I mean a couple of weeks, or a couple of months, or four months. This government has given us five years and still has never brought in any answers. Now I ask in broad terms when we can expect some kind of answer on south Moresby — some kind of answer, not that we're going to study a study. We've had studies, and we've had a study that studied the studies, and then we got a cabinet that's studying the studies that studied the studies. I think I got all those studies right.

When you're finished that, Mr. Minister, when you give me that answer, I'll be very grateful to know the time, date and place for the celebration tomorrow. Do I have to bring a present? I can just come?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, I can assure the member that he's present enough. In answer to his three questions: soon, Goldstream Park, 3 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. MITCHELL: From a parliamentary point of view, do I get excused from the House for an invitation by the minister?

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Are we going to be finished your estimates by this time tomorrow? Tomorrow's a Friday, isn't it? No, tomorrow's a Wednesday, and we don't come in until 2 o'clock. You're going to be in the same position you were in at that party that the member for Port Moody went to. You were late at that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 56 pass?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I haven't got an answer. I got an answer for the party tomorrow.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Soon.

MR. MITCHELL: Soon. We got the answer from your predecessor: "Soon." I ask you: give me four months?

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, this is sooner than that soon.

MR. MITCHELL: That other soon was five years.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Within four months.

MR. MITCHELL: Four months, all right. I shall put a check beside one answer.

Mr. Chairman, another park that was studied by the wilderness committee, a park that has been before the cabinet, is the Cascade Wilderness and the Manning Park areas where all the studies have been made for the protection of the Hudson's Bay Trail and the various trails that go through that area that do have some significance in the history of British Columbia. I know that your cabinet committee has made studies of these areas and they have given local forestry permission to log provided they stay off the trails and don't cause any damage to them. The reason that these trails are located there is that when the settlers were travelling through that area they followed the line of least resistance — the valleys and the flat areas. The funny part about it is that when they log and they build logging roads, they follow the same trails. This is what has been found by the logging firms and the local committees who have been fighting for years to protect the historical trails in the Cascade Wilderness: there is going to be a conflict. There have been studies by forest consultants showing that if they go to the expense of putting the roads in where they will not destroy the trails and they harvest the timber that the forest company has been given rights to harvest, the province of British Columbia is going to lose money on the stumpage rates for that harvesting — or that multiple use, as the minister likes to say — of the Cascade Wilderness park.

I ask the minister: what studies have been done and what consultation has been done within that park area with those who have studied that area over the last five or six years, who are actual experts on that park, on the historical background of it and on the value of the timber that is going to be removed from it? What studies and what input will there be from that local group? I know the local group has met with the cabinet and has met with the park people. What is the status of those negotiations at this point?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'll have to give the same answer to the member in regard to that area as I did for the south Moresby. The Wilderness Advisory Committee has made recommendations. Those recommendations are being seriously considered by this government and this ministry, and soon, as I told you a few minutes ago, Mr. Member, you will hear from the government in that respect.

MR. MITCHELL: Is that another four-month promise. Maybe I am interested in having the minister explain. Are you either going to adopt these recommendations or reject them, or are you taking these recommendations and working with the talent that you do have in your ministry and the people in the local communities who are also in their own right experts on the Cascade Wilderness area? Are you meeting with them, or are you studying this report? That's what I want to find out. Is there some dialogue? Is it either yes or no, like we had on the original south Moresby Island report, one of four issues? Is this only guidelines? Is there still the opportunity for local input and some negotiations and flexibility?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, some latitude has been allowed, but the committee must be reminded that we are discussing the affairs of a committee of the executive council which the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing could not speak for, and secondly the Journals will show that this matter was well covered during the estimates of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), which have already passed through this Committee of Supply. Therefore I would ask that all members relate their remarks to the administrative and day-to-day functions of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

[ Page 8208 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: In response to the member's question, the answer taking only my ministry into consideration is yes, we're doing all of these things.

[5:45]

MR. MITCHELL: I'm sure glad that that ministry is doing all these things, because when I spoke in the Ministry of Environment estimates — and it was well canvassed — my big concern at that time was that this whole Wilderness Advisory Committee study was basically a smokescreen to hide doing nothing. They say: "Well, we did this under the other Environment...." These parks come under this minister, and all I'm getting out of him is that we have agreed to do a study of the study of the studies, and we have a commitment that it is going to be four months. "Soon" now means four months, which I think is an improvement; the last minister's "soon" was five years. So at least we have pinned that down.

Another report that I have canvassed in previous reports, and I also have spoken about it in earlier debates in this House, and again it was one of the parks that we talked about in the wilderness committee.... That's the development of Robson Bight. When I spoke to the minister earlier, I said we have to start looking at our parks in British Columbia as destination sites that we can sell to British Columbians and to North Americans. When you look at some of the marketing procedures and some of the assets, they are nothing compared to what we have in B.C., but they have been sold. I guess one of the greatest examples in North America is Yellowstone Park where we have Old Faithful, that geyser that comes up. Hot water comes out of the ground, and all kinds of things. Everybody in the world wants to go and see that. There are geysers all over the world, but it was marketed; it attracted tourists and created jobs. People bought gas, they bought camping supplies, they travelled there, and that created jobs.

We have in Robson Bight a world site where killer whales come in and rub up on the beach. This is something that attracts all kinds of outdoor groups, school groups, environmentalist groups and the ordinary citizen like you and me. If that was developed with some ideas that it's going to be created, not just run a little line around it and say this is an ecological reserve.... Your own ministry released a report in June 1981. Sure, I disagree with parts of that report, but it has a conception and a perspective that there is some future in this particular site within your parks system as a destination site. Not only can it be marketed to create jobs, but it should be something that... we must give a better protection to it than the report in the advisory committee.

There has been lots of correspondence. I know that the minister, if he's had the time, has gone over some of the correspondence. But we have to look at that. If we're going to protect it, we have to look not only at the section where they drew the red line with the ecological reserve for that particular area — or where they moved it back another 200 metres under wilderness — but also at some protection of the upland area, to protect the river that comes down and feeds that bight and feeds the area. If we're going to protect that heritage area where the killer whales come in, we have to push the line back at least as far as Catherine Creek, which I believe is four or five kilometres, for two reasons. The first is that that river is fed by smaller streams coming into it. It is the salmon river. It is a cutthroat river and a steelhead river. If you're going to log the hills around it down to 250 metres, something that the wilderness committee is recommending, you're not going to protect that river. I'm not asking you to take me as an expert on it. Go to the groups who have studied it, both in your own ministry.... Their recommendation was to protect the whole Tsitika River watershed, and to make some viable trades for the timber in Strathcona Park.

There is some flexibility. I know the logging firms have the rights to log up there. They have been logging in small patches, but the blowdown.... Don't take me as an authority, but they are having blowdowns. I'm only the messenger. The blowdowns are not conforming to the logging practices or the program that they brought in, and you are going to have a disaster in that logging area because of the winds. It wasn't the socialists who brought the winds in there, it was Mother Nature.

There should be a study to move that area back at least to Catherine Creek to protect it and take some of the recommendations of those who have studied it. It is a Canadian point of interest. It is an environmentally sensitive area, and it has the potential to be a destination point in B.C. It has the potential of creating jobs, and it has the possibility of some future development.

I would like the minister to tell the House what studies he has made of it. What studies has he made of his own particular reports, his own ministry's recommendations and the rest of it?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'll give an undertaking to the member to seriously consider what he has brought to the committee.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would advise the House that we will meet tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.