[ Page 9795 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sound Public Spending by Government

(Bill M205). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9795

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 32).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9796

An Act to Enforce Pollution Offences and Create an Environmental

Protection Fund (Bill M206). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9796

An Act to Prevent the Contamination of Land and Water (Bill M207).

Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9796

Oral Questions

Rental and social housing supply. Mr. Blencoe –– 9796

Severance payments. Mr. Clark –– 9797

Collective bargaining rights for Independent truckers. Mr. Sihota –– 9798

Payment to former NDP employee. Mr. Vant –– 9798

Candidate's advertising claim. Mr. Clark –– 9798

Silviculture and annual allowable cut. Mr. Miller –– 9798

Tabling Documents –– 9799

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9799

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Bruce

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Many of us in the House have had the privilege of meeting last evening or today with His Excellency Brian Fall, the newly appointed High Commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada. Mr. Fall is in the Legislature with us at the moment, and I'd like the House to welcome him and his wife, Delmar Fall, and also Mr. Tony Joy, the consul-general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the loyal opposition, I would like to echo the welcome to British Columbia expressed by the Minister of Finance. We had a meeting this morning and also a very enjoyable lunch. I'm sorry the Minister of Finance wasn't able to be there for it, but he probably had other more important things to do. We enjoyed our luncheon, and we enjoyed meeting these distinguished Britons. We hope their stay in Canada will be enjoyable, and that they go to Salmon Arm by way of the Okanagan.

MR. DE JONG: I am pleased to ask you to welcome several raspberry growers from Central Fraser Valley who are here today visiting several members of the Social Credit caucus. Together with the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck), I would like to introduce them to the House at this point. Their names are as follows: Jatinder Sidhu, Hardev Bath, Gurpal Gosal, Norm Sangha, Nurmal Sivia, Avtar Mann, Chiminder Malli and Steve Thompson from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who is accompanying them. I would ask the House to give them a pleasant welcome.

MR. BARLEE: I would also like to echo the greetings by the second member for Central Fraser Valley to the hard-working raspberry growers from the Fraser Valley. We're glad you're here.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are two very good friends of mine, residents of Aldergrove. Would the House please join me in welcoming Cheryl Strongitharm and Rich Coleman to the precincts.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I won't repeat all the names of the raspberry growers, but many of them are prominent members of the Indo-Canadian community, and I'd just like to welcome them with a warm "sas ri akal."

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we have some very special guests in the gallery today visiting us from the city of Morioka in Japan. Morioka has a twin in its Victoria sister city. The distinguished guests are the Hon. Diazo Ohta, the mayor of Morioka, Mr. Ito, chairman of the municipal assembly in that city, Mr. Anbo, director of general affairs for the municipal assembly, and Mr. Kawamata, principal secretary to the mayor. Accompanying the delegation is Ald. Janet Baird from the city of Victoria and Mr. Jay Rangel, chairman of the Victoria sister city advisory and liaison committee.

This is a very special visit. Our friends from Japan, in a cultural exchange, have brought artisans with them and will be having a number of meetings in our beautiful city. I would like both sides of the House to welcome our friends from Morioka.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I'd also like to welcome the raspberry growers, because albeit an amateur I'm also a raspberry grower, and my father is one of the most accomplished raspberry growers in my riding, so I'm glad to see them here. I share many of their interests.

MR. GUNO: I don't get an opportunity very much to introduce anyone from Atlin, but I'm pleased to introduce to the House a special guest of mine, my son Norman, who is visiting from Terrace. I ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. ROSE: I won't take very long with this, Mr. Speaker. A venerable member of the press gallery, Hubert Beyer, had a quadruple-bypass heart operation yesterday down in Seattle. Apparently he's sore all over after the surgery, but it's a piece of cake compared to the aftermath. He's apparently doing very well and expects to be on his feet today. I wondered if perhaps we could have unanimous consent to send him a telegram at the University of Washington Medical Center.

You'd be interested to know that one of the wags in the press gallery had this appended to the update on Hubert Beyer: "Hubert, you're lucky the Highways ministry didn't do your bypass. There's no telling how much it would have cost and/or where the gravel could have ended up."

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will send the appropriate message on behalf of all members. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will look after that.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SOUND PUBLIC SPENDING BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sound Public Spending by Government.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, government and Crown corporations spend millions of tax dollars on paper products each year. This bill provides incentives for the B.C. pulp industry to move quickly to sharply reduce the levels of toxic chemicals in their

[ Page 9796 ]

products; and further, to gain a share of the recycled paper product market.

It does so by requiring the B.C. government to encourage the production of environmentally sound products as follows. It requires that government, after 1992 or such earlier time as they become available, purchase only products made by pulp mills that meet the stiff standards for pulp pollution proposed in the Pulp Pollution Prevention Act. Secondly, it requires that prior to 1992, the government purchase recycled paper with a high post-consumer content. Thirdly, It establishes a public spending advisory group to review products commonly used by government, to set environmentally sound standards and to require that government purchase only products that meet those standards.

Bill M205 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.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce today the Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990. This bill amends the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act, which were passed in the 1989 session of the Legislature. The Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act establish a modem, balanced regulatory framework to govern financial institutions in this province.

This bill amends oversights, corrects errors and clarifies uncertainties in the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act which have come to light during continued consultation with the affected industry and the public over the past year. I commend this bill for your consideration, and I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now

Bill 32 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.

AN ACT TO ENFORCE POLLUTION OFFENCES
AND CREATE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FUND

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Enforce Pollution Offences and Create an Environmental Protection Fund.

MR. CASHORE: This bill gives courts far greater enforcement powers and strengthens the deterrent effect of fines for environmental offences. Environmental offenders will encounter a greatly strengthened court system enabled to act swiftly and effectively. Courts will be able to require polluters to publicize the offence, post bonds, pay for preventive action and cleanup costs, perform community service, fund research into ecological effects, and disclose financial records. The court may order the polluter to pay compensation to persons injured by the pollution. Where it appears that the polluter is about to commit an offence, the court is given power to issue a restraining order.

The bill also sets penalties for pollution offences at up to $1 million. Where a polluter has wilfully committed an offence, a maximum fine of $5 million and a jail term of five years may be imposed. Under this bill, all fines collected from polluters are to be paid into an environmental protection fund, to be used for environmental enhancement projects, preventive environmental action, research and development, and environmental cleanup.

Bill M206 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.

AN ACT TO PREVENT THE
CONTAMINATION OF LAND AND WATER

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Prevent the Contamination of Land and Water.

MR. CASHORE: This bill prevents the contamination of land and inland and coastal waters in British Columbia by prohibiting the dumping of toxic, hazardous and dangerous wastes, and by creating a mechanism for cleanup of contaminated sites. A B.C. polluter-pay fund is created, funded by industrial contributors to hazardous wastes. It shall be used for the cleanup of dumping-grounds and orphan sites, and to accelerate research and development into environmentally sound methods of hazardous waste disposal.

It further enables cleanup costs to be recovered from present and past owners and other responsible parties by cutting through legal red tape, to ensure that cleanup takes place and costs are recovered wherever possible. Owners of land used for industrial purposes or as dumping-grounds must test for the presence of toxic substances prior to redevelopment of the land. Sellers of land known to be contaminated are required to disclose such information to any prospective buyer.

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.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

RENTAL AND SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Despite what your government's glossy TV ads claim, it's clear that your housing programs, are not working and that they are an abject failure.

[ Page 9797 ]

Figures released by CMHC show that we have the lowest rate in Canada — a zero vacancy rate in key parts of the province — and no indication that things will improve. Has the minister decided to increase his ministry's creation of affordable housing to help B.C. renters find a home? Has he decided to live up to the TV ads that he is putting on television every night?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking that member whether he is so concerned about housing that he would go to Esquimalt council and ask why they turned down a social housing project just the other day. That is just one example that I face in trying to get housing on the market. It is not just the provincial government; it is also the municipal government. It is also up to the individuals on that side of the House and on this side of the House to phone their aldermen and their mayors and ask that these housing units proceed as they ought to in a time of crisis.

Secondly, I would like to say.... I wish the member would be quiet. A question was asked; please be kind enough to listen while I answer it. I would also like to say that when we announce housing projects or announce that we have moneys available to build — whether it's rental supply or social housing — we expect that the developer and the municipalities will cooperate. Other than that, all I can do is say that the money is available and that so many units have the green light to go ahead. Don't shake your head, member.

Mr. Speaker, to ask a question and shake his head.... How would he produce a house? It isn't done by talking and yapping; it's done by building a house. We've got the green light to go ahead.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Please wait to be recognized. I am waiting for quiet before recognizing you.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister should check his budget. For the entire province, 0.27 percent of the budget is to be spent on social housing — $35 million That's the problem. Blame local government and everybody else for your problems.

Supplementary to the minister. Last Wednesday, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) said that the housing situation is slowly going away. Yet renters all over the province, including the Fraser Valley, are phoning crisis line after crisis line trying to find a place to live. A question to the minister: what steps has the Minister of Social Services and Housing decided to take to help find affordable housing for renters, or is he prepared to leave them on the street until the market somehow miraculously provides a home for the people in need of housing in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: The member is asking about social housing; he's asking about rental housing in general. We don't really get involved with the private sector developing housing starts. There were 40,000 housing starts in the private sector last year. That's all rental housing or housing for someone by the private sector.

We came in with social housing. We take our full allotment that we can get from the federal government under the social housing program, which until this year has been roughly 1,886 units per year since 1985. That is a good program. They've cut us back by 15 percent.

I had an appointment to meet with Mr. Redway last Monday and Tuesday. About an hour before we were getting ready to leave, we got notice that the meeting was cancelled because one of the provinces would not agree to a fair share of allocation for social housing. Perhaps again the member who is responsible in the federal government — which is the MP of their own kind — might take that message back to Ottawa to try and get a larger allotment.

As far as the rental supply program is concerned, by the end of the year we should have another 1,200 units completed. To date, there are roughly 800 complete and under construction.

So the program is working well, but I can't move these people fast enough to get the zoning, to get their okays, their green light, from the municipal governments — and the member should know that very well, because he used to serve in municipal government. Since he left that office, he somehow no longer has a connection and feels it is up to me to go hammer and nails in hand and build a house. It doesn't work that way.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Government Management Services. Can the minister confirm that over the last five years the government has paid out over $30 million in severance payments to non-bargaining-unit employees?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, no, I can't.

MR. CLARK: Has the minister decided to table in the House the severance formula used to award this incredible amount of government largesse?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't been asked to.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the minister can give cute answers. The questions are simple. Can she confirm or will she undertake to confirm in this House that the government has spent over $30 million in severance payments to non-bargaining-unit employees, and will she tell the House what the formula was for arriving at this phenomenal amount of public money being given to former employees of this administration?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm what the member is asking me to confirm, but I

[ Page 9798 ]

would be happy to take the question on notice and bring it back to the House in the fullness of time.

MR. CLARK: Thank you. A new question to the minister. While she's reviewing the question — bringing it back as a question on notice — will the minister finally come clean and inform the House how much of this $30 million went specifically to David Poole and table in the House his full severance package?

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS
FOR INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

MR. SIHOTA: The independent trucking industry is virtually on the verge of chaos. Independent truckers are denied the ability to organize and affect their working conditions, a right that is available under the Canada labour relations act but not under B.C. legislation. My question is to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister not agree with the need to provide full collective bargaining rights to independent truckers?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, that's you. You're the Minister of Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair and all members would have been assisted if, when the member stood, he had advised the House and everyone listening to which minister the question was addressed.

MR. LOVICK: He said "to the Minister of Labour."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can read the Blues and read what the member had to say in the fullness of time. The question was addressed to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour may wish to respond.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I would be happy to respond, I'm sure, but there was a lot of noise in the House and I could not hear the question.

MR. SIHOTA: For the benefit of the minister, the minister knows that the independent trucking industry does not have the ability to form a trade union or to engage in collective bargaining, by prohibitions under provincial legislation. Does the minister not agree, given the state of that industry now, that there exists a need to provide full collective bargaining rights to independent truckers?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think the question would require a great deal of discussion and a great deal of thought. It is not something I would be prepared to give an answer to at this particular time.

PAYMENT TO FORMER NDP EMPLOYEE

MR. VANT: I have a very succinct question for the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. Respecting the Jim Hayes affair, will the minister advise the House how this $125,000 settlement was reached? Was Mr. Hayes fired, and if so, who fired him, who negotiated the secret deal and who asked for the expenditure of public funds?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm having some difficulty getting to the root of this secret deal, insofar as the Leader of the Opposition is absent from the House yet another day. Obviously, he's a key player in such a discussion. I have determined, at least, that there were two years involved. Apparently, for some reason I can't fathom, these sums are hidden in the accounts of two successive years. In any event, I can't bring any further clarification to the House on this secret deal until the Leader of the Opposition returns once more so he might throw some light on this mysterious event.

CANDIDATE'S ADVERTISING CLAIM

MR. CLARK: A question to the Attorney-General. Diane Hartwick is a Social Credit candidate in West Vancouver. She recently placed an ad that stated, "Money alone cannot buy a clean candidate," obviously referring to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). This ad has cast a cloud of suspicion over the Minister of Environment. Has the Attorney-General's staff interviewed Ms. Hartwick to determine if she has any evidence to back up her advertising claim?

HON. MR. SMITH: The premise to the question is so outrageously false, silly, presumptuous and indecent that until and unless the premise is withdrawn, I would be ill-advised to dignify it with an answer.

SILVICULTURE AND ANNUAL ALLOWABLE CUT

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Forests. Two weeks ago in the House the minister, in response to my question, said that the ministry is practising intensive silviculture and that that would allow an increase in the annual allowable cut within the next few years. Last Thursday, ministry staff indicated to the Forest Resources Commission that less than 10 percent of the silviculture budget is being used for intensive silviculture. Would the minister now agree that the statement he made about an increase in the AAC in the next few years is simply not true?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No. The answer I gave is still valid; it's still quite true. We are practising intensive silviculture. We intend to get more and more into it, especially if we can strike a deal with the federal government. It's been impossible to date to

[ Page 9799 ]

negotiate FRDA II. We hope to bring that to a conclusion in the very near future.

But what I said two weeks ago was true and is true today. We are practising intensive silviculture.

MR. MILLER: Supplementary to the Minister of Forests. The Ministry of Forests staff advised the Forest Resources Commission last Thursday that the Queen Charlotte Islands timber supply area faces "an imminent falldown." Mr. Minister, this is one of the best growing sites in British Columbia. Why are they facing an imminent falldown in their timber supply if, in fact, you're practising intensive silviculture?

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer to the member's question is that while it's probably the finest growing site for softwood lumber anywhere in the world, it does take a few years to grow a tree, even on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think the member should know that.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled a summary of the borrowing amounts for the purpose of government operations for the '89-90 fiscal year, in accordance with section 43(2) of the Financial Administration Act; a report summarizing amounts borrowed by the government in currency other than Canadian or U.S. dollars for the '89-90 fiscal year, in accordance with section 45(3) of the Financial Administration Act; and a set of statements regarding borrowings, loans to government bodies and payments out of a special fund for the 1989-90 fiscal year, in accordance with section 41(6) of the Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: just before we get on with the business of the day, I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome two friends from Warner, Alberta: Ms. Andra Johnson and Mr. Gary Bradbury.

Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 59: minister's office, $331,553 (continued).

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I want to do some housing discussion this afternoon. There will be others of my colleagues who want to join the debate on this very important topic, because the evidence is now in from various recording agencies that the current government's housing program is in tatters. We have shown that it is extremely thin and, indeed, the latest vacancy rate announcements by CMHC show that this government has not done what it's claiming to do in its TV advertising and in the millions of dollars it spends to convince the people of British Columbia that it has a housing program.

I want to ask the Minister of Social Services and Housing right off the bat: what happened to two years of announcements? What happened to recycled news releases? What happened to all those promises in the last budget of an action plan on housing and supposedly this budget — a billion dollars for housing? Why this dismal showing now in our vacancy rate? Spiralling rent increases and all sorts of demolitions, evictions and people in crisis in terms of housing....

What happened to this government's program, and when is it going to finally recognize that it has to do a real housing program in British Columbia? Could we get the minister to tell us what happened?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, the question is asked: what happened? Another statement was made about recycled housing announcements, and on both counts he's very wrong. Much has happened in this period of time.

We announced a billion dollar housing strategy program, and that particular program — which the member well knows — is not just housing construction but anything related to housing, whether it is shelter relief, rental supply or social housing.

I can go over this, and perhaps I should. A billion dollars was increased from last year — a $120 million increase — to help British Columbians meet market determined prices for housing, to increase the supply of rental housing, to help British Columbians buy and maintain their homes and to maximize the participation of the private sector in the meeting of housing needs.

The program is divided into three areas: the rental supply assistance program, the rental assistance and the home ownership. In the rental assistance program, we had social housing. Yes, the budget was $35.7 million, or it will be in 1991. Since 1986 we have filled the total allotment that was given to us and fought hard at every turn to have that increased.

This year I have announced in various media and here in the House that we've been cut back 15 percent, which is a large amount of housing when there is such a crucial need, particularly in British Columbia at this time.

I should also mention at this time that we have just under 60,000 subsidized housing units in British Columbia. The member also knows that. He knows everything I'm going to say, but he keeps twisting and turning and doesn't want to know the facts. He just wants to ask questions and doesn't want answers. He says he wants answers, but really he doesn't.

We also have to realize that in 1989 we had a net in-migration to this province of approximately 60,000 people. It's easy to shrug that off and say: "What does it matter? An extra 60,000 people really has no impact." But we only have three million people in

[ Page 9800 ]

British Columbia, and we're talking about a net in-migration of 60, 000 people.

That member knows very well — at least he should know — that you can't provide housing overnight; it takes a long time. There is no miracle fix for putting up housing; it takes a long time. Therefore we have the programs in place that will alleviate — and have already begun to alleviate — a lot of that pressure.

In the social housing area, of course, we have continued and will continue to take our full allotment.

We have the program for independence; that's the shelter allowance under the GAIN program. That is also housing, where we provide moneys for people from age 19 to 64 who have a problem paying their rent. The maximum shelter allowance will be increased this year, as I mentioned yesterday in the House. These are reviewed every year. We have the shelter aid for seniors, SAFER, and there will be an announcement made very soon on the increase of that this year.

Incidentally, on the program for independence — the GAIN shelter allowance — the total budget for '90-91 is $469.5 million.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How much?

HON. MR. DUECK: It's $469.5 million.

The shelter — that's the SAFER program — total budget for '90-91 is $14.7 million. We lowered the age from 65 to 60, so people 60 years and up can apply for the shelter allowance. It is then reviewed, and if they're eligible they will receive that.

In '89-90, under the SAFER program, we assisted 9,130 senior citizens in one year. The member can sit on that side, mock the programs and say: "Where is the billion dollars?" I can tell him that it is made up of various pieces of very large expenditures.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I wouldn't think that if you told a senior citizen who is getting SAFER.... If you asked any one of those 9,130 senior citizens whether their senior cheque, which was doubled last year, is smoke and mirrors....

MR. BLENCOE: I'll tell you about seniors.

HON. MR. DUECK: Ask senior citizens. I have far more to do with senior citizens than you ever will.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Sure, I can name you incidents too.

Mr. Chairman, he keeps interrupting. His turn will come, if you will remind the member of that.

The renters' tax deduction: $24 million is allocated this year for rental tax deduction. That is not a small piece of change. This program has been enhanced from 1990 due to the shortage of affordable rental housing, and it was increased from $200 to $225.

For example, a family of four with a net income of $30,000, who would have received a tax deduction of $289, this year will have a tax deduction of a greater amount. An additional 40,000 individuals and families who rent will be eligible for the expanded program, bringing a total number of beneficiaries to 120,000 this year.

That is not smoke and mirrors. How can a member say that's smoke and mirrors, when we're talking about assisting 120,000 people under this portion of the program alone? How can that be smoke and mirrors?

MR. BLENCOE: Sit down and I'll tell you.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, I'm going to put it on the record. The residential tenancy branch extension of services, which comes under the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, is $2.3 million. In the rental supply program this year we will only spend $6.9 million, because we only spend that portion that is due this year under the construction that becomes available. But listen, I've got $80 million of this; houses can be built this year. I have an allocation of $80 million that can be spent at this time. Eighty million dollars isn't smoke and mirrors, and this is just the enhancement or the subsidization of some interest for the development of this housing.

Business immigration program. It appears now that we will be able to use a good chunk of that money for social housing, for affordable housing, and I am very pleased. We haven't got the final approval yet from the federal minister, but it appears that this money will be coming through.

Start-up grants for non-profit senior citizens — we have $20,000 per project for development. If senior citizens want to put up a housing project, we will advance some money to get it off the ground, because they may not have the wherewithal or the knowledge to do that.

For the homeowner grant program there is $418 million for '90-91, and that was increased $50 in '89 to $430. For seniors, persons with disabilities and others entitled to the supplementary grant, it was increased by $70 to $700.

I am putting this in for the record — not that I'm trying to answer the individual's question, because he knows all this. He has all this information. And he can also receive any other information that he may desire if he just asks for it.

With the land tax deferment program, homeowners who are 60 years of age or older can defer their taxes, and it will be added to their property taxes at the time when they wish to sell or move, or when the estate may want to get rid of it. At present we have 3,700 people who have taken advantage of the tax deferment program. And that was a budget of $3 million.

[2:45]

The property purchase tax relief gives a special relief of property tax for houses that are valued at

[ Page 9801 ]

$150,000 or less. And for those people who are eligible because of their low down payment, that has now been increased to $200,000. An additional — we believe — 5,000 homeowners in '90-91 will cost approximately an extra $4 million.

The B.C. mortgage assistance program is $500,000.

I can go on and on about housing. When the individual mentions about regurgitating announcements, that is absolutely false. He knows that. I don't have to repeat it; I have said it many times in this House. We announced there are 8,000 units available to be built under the subsidization of interest — as fast as they can be built and as long as they meet the criteria. The biggest roadblocks we have to date are two things: one is the zoning; and secondly, of course, the requirement that financing be arranged through a financial institution — which sometimes takes a while to do.

So when we talk about housing, I think there has never been in history a government that has done as much for housing as we have done this last year and a half. But it takes a long time to get housing on the market. I have been in this business; I know what it takes. I have been through many of the hoops that he is speaking about, and he knows it very well himself.

I just wish the people on that side of the House would help me when it comes to their particular community — to go out there and say, '"Why are you not zoning these particular properties? The pressure is on. There are people in the community who have no place to live, and we want to help them." Rather than criticizing and rather than talking smoke and mirrors — and that's all he's doing — he would serve the public much better by helping me, as the minister in this portfolio, and see if we could get some housing on the road quickly.

MR. BLENCOE: I just wish every British Columbian in need of housing today — every one of the million tenants in the province today who is subject to any rent increase, every young British Columbian who wants to buy a first home, every British Columbian who is about to face a demolition or an eviction because of condominium conversion.... I'd like them to hear you talk about your marvellous housing program.

Here is the reality of what this government is doing: great big TV ads — millions of dollars expended on misleading advertising. "A billion dollars for the construction of affordable housing. We're going to house you; we're going to help you."

When we take a look at the numbers, do you know how much this government increased the affordable housing construction program this year? It was $5.6 million. That's all you increased that budget by. And yet they are saying they are spending a billion dollars on housing.

We have the worst housing crisis in the country, the worst vacancy rate, the worst rent increases and the worst gouging. We lack rent review and the rentalsman. And this minister had the audacity to say they are doing all these wonderful things for the people of British Columbia. At the same time, what does he do? He makes excuse after excuse after excuse for the abject failure of their programs.

HON. MR. DUECK: A point of order. He said: "The worst gouging." He mentioned in turn the ministry and the minister on many items, and one was "the worst gouging." I certainly haven't gouged anybody, for gosh sakes. So if that's the case — if I heard him correctly — I certainly would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member impugning the motives of the minister?

MR. BLENCOE: No. Indeed not, Mr. Chairman. I was talking about — as I have tabled in this House and brought up in question period — massive rent increases, clear gouging by owners who are taking advantage of the tight market.

Most landlords are fair and reasonable. But some landlords, some owners, are taking advantage, and this minister knows that. Yet this government is prepared — and there's the other minister responsible for residential tenancy in British Columbia. They sit on the sidelines and allow our one million tenants and their families to be put into a position where any rent increase is permitted in the province.

I want to get back to what I consider to be smoke and mirrors, to what I consider to, be misleading, to what I consider to be misrepresentation of the real facts in terms of what's happening in housing in the province vis-à-vis this government. First, they are saying $1 billion for housing, giving the impression that $1 billion is going to be spent on creating housing. That is not accurate. Take a look at the budget. Take a look at the figures, and you can see where the money is coming from. It's coming from existing programs, existing ministries. It's not for housing construction. Indeed, there is $5 million extra for affordable housing construction.

A miserable, paltry sum of $35.7 million for affordable housing in British Columbia. That's all. This government, through its property purchase tax, is taking the money out from young British Columbians who are buying their first home, and this government is going to make in excess of $330 million on that property purchase tax. They can only give back $35 million to create affordable housing. Nearly $340 million is estimated in property purchase tax for that awful tax on young people buying their first home, and all they can return to create affordable housing is $35.7 million, an increase of just over $5 million over last year.

Those are the facts, and that's the reality. This government should go on television with their ads and say: "What we're doing in affordable housing construction is not what we've been telling you for the last month." What they're doing in affordable housing is spending 0.27 percent of the provincial budget for housing — not a billion dollars. It's totally misleading, a total misrepresentation of the facts, and it's time this government.... We've asked other

[ Page 9802 ]

questions, and there is misleading advertising on the budget in all sorts of areas.

Can you imagine a tenant in British Columbia facing huge rent increases with nowhere to go? This government's answer in the past has been: "If you've got a huge rent increase, you can always move." That's this minister's current attitude, I'm sure: "Oh well, they can always move." Where do they go? Where do they move to? There's nowhere to go. There's certainly hardly any affordable housing being built by the provincial government. A paltry $35 million. Heavens, the property purchase tax is taking $340 million a year out of young British Columbians. They can't even return a fraction of that horrible, obnoxious tax back into affordable housing. A total of 0.27 percent of this provincial Socred budget is for affordable housing. It's scandalous.

Every night we see the minister or whoever coming on television telling the people: "We're spending a billion dollars to create housing. We're going to help you and those young British Columbians to get all the housing you want." Take a look at the reality. Take a look at the real facts.

Let me add, and I'll get to this in more detail in a minute, that the other so-called affordable housing component is the rental supply program, but the minister won't dare call that affordable. He knows the rental supply program that's subsidizing the developer will rent at between $800 and $1,000 a month. He dare not call that affordable.

HON. MR. DUECK: We never did.

MR. BLENCOE: That was going to be your answer to affordable housing, Mr. Minister. Now we have it. They never called the housing programs affordable, and that's the truth. That's the reality coming out today. They never intended to create affordable housing.

Mr. Chairman, $35 million is $5 million more than last year for social housing. We have the worst housing track record in the province, the worst vacancy rate, the worst kind of gouging we've ever seen in the history of this province. We see senior citizens.... A minute ago the minister said he knows more about seniors. I'll tell you, I've got the highest proportion of senior citizens in the country per capita in my riding. I deal with seniors every day. It's the highest proportion per capita in the country in my riding. Every day they're coming to me and saying: "Why doesn't that Minister of Housing, why doesn't that residential tenancy minister, why don't those two ministers at least have a rent review procedure? Why don't they allow that?"

Let me ask a question. There are a number of things I want to get to this afternoon, but let me ask a question of the minister. He's talking about senior citizens. I've got a question to the Minister of Housing, who's so concerned about senior citizens. I want him to talk to my tenants — his tenants, his constituents, your constituents — who are facing say a 40 or 50 percent rent increase in their homes. It's clearly taking advantage of the market, clearly a gouge, clearly unfair. I have them; I've documented them; I will provide them to the minister. He knows about them.

If a senior citizen, or a group of seniors in a building, come to the minister and say they can prove that their rent increase of 30 or 40 or 50 percent — and we have them that high; I have one, and I will use it again today, of $310 to $610 a month — is unfair, why won't you have a mechanism to review that rent increase? Why won't you have a democratic system of review of these unfair rent increases?

So far, Mr. Chairman, this government has refused to introduce a democratic system of rent review between landlord and tenant. They just refuse. They say I'm talking rent control.

HON. MR. SMITH: Sure you are.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Attorney-General. I'm talking a system of fairness, of dialogue between a landlord and tenant.

If the minister has a senior citizen come to him and say: "Mr. Minister, I've got a huge rent increase; it's clearly unfair; I can show every evidence that it's unjustified," how does the minister say no to that senior who is paying 70 to 80 percent of his income now for housing? How can he say he shouldn't have a review of that increase?

Does he tell him to go look elsewhere? There's nowhere else to go. Does he tell him to go find an apartment that only takes 60 percent of his income? Is that what he says?

How does he face those senior citizens who are getting massive rent increases that are eating up their incomes? Some of them are 60 to 70 percent. How does he face them? Does he say: "Well, I'm sorry, senior citizen; we believe in the market. We believe in everything they do to you because that's the market. We don't believe in a review and a fair system for our seniors."

The minister might even agree privately that it's unfair. Heaven forbid, we had this minister over here go quietly to a Social Credit landlord and concoct a rent review behind the scenes and roll it back, to turn it into a political game show, to try and get to us; a political game show with tenants in Oak Bay riding. He did an unofficial rent review, Mr. Chairman.

When he was asked by me and asked by the fourth estate if he had done a rent review.... And the question I had put to him through the media was: "If you do it for one group, why can't you do it for all?" You know what he said? He said rent review was dangerous, but that he'd do it behind the scenes with his Socred landlord friends, and play a political game with it.

They don't have the guts or the determination to do what they did quietly with insiders in backroom deals in a public fashion for all the people of the province. They don't have the ability or the determination to do that.

[3:00]

I want to ask the minister today what he says to that senior citizen who's lived in his apartment, his

[ Page 9803 ]

home, for 15 to 20 years and who is facing a 40, 50 or 60 percent rent increase. And we've got them; I've got them; I can show you lots of them. I'm sure he's got them in his riding.

As a matter of fact, in his part of the world now they have a crisis line, and they're shutting the crisis lines down because they can't deal with the requests anymore. They've been told a billion dollars is being spent on housing, but we now find that the reality is that only $5 million more is being spent for affordable housing. How does he face those seniors and say they can't have rent review?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister responsible for housing could perhaps advise the House on a couple of issues.

It's interesting in this place how the adversarial system in our parliament works. We have here today a situation of a very sensible and experienced minister, who is himself a senior citizen, talking about issues relating to seniors. On the other side of the House, we have a noisy, vibrant, unctuous, jittery young chap who takes a scatter-gun approach to the issue, but who discloses by the way he does it that he really doesn't have the maturity and, I say with respect, the common sense that the minister has.

But the question I have for the minister is this. First of all, I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House — because I know that the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) is very interested in this matter; she raised it earlier today — on the limitations that will be placed on the provincial budget with respect to CAP.

I'd be curious to know what impact, if any, that will have on your ministry, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, not so much in terms of the social services side, but in terms of the shelter side — particularly, I suppose, the shelter allowance, and maybe even other programs that would impact you.

So that is the one matter that I think is important that we get out on the table, because it relates to the second half of my question, which is this. You alluded to meetings that you have arranged with your federal counterpart, Mr. Redway, in relation to developing an agreement for housing, and you indicated that agreement had not been reached yet. I'm wondering if you could share with the House how long those negotiations have been going on, and what in your view is the stumbling block to agreement.

This is not a partisan issue, when we go to make agreement with Canada; it is a British Columbia issue, and it's important for citizens to know who speaks on behalf of British Columbians. I'm wondering if you could advise the House what assistance in negotiating, supporting or furthering British Columbia's cause in Ottawa you have received from John Brewin, David Barrett and Lynn Hunter, as representatives of the people in Ottawa from this greater Victoria area.

In dealing with matters that go on in Ottawa and in relation to federal-provincial issues, one of the things that I have always had much admiration for with respect to Quebec on these contracts is that when a member goes to Ottawa from Quebec, he or she speaks to the interests of Quebec first and foremost, and to partisan considerations second.

I think that we have not served ourselves well from British Columbia in our nation's capital by frequently having people go down there who speak to partisan interests first and to British Columbia interests second. I know that there are a number of members, who now are elected, who have expressed a desire to change that phenomenon.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could share with the House, in terms of this agreement he's trying to negotiate, what assistance he has received from those members from this area, where the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has said there's a problem — MPs John Brewin, David Barrett and Lynn Hunter — and what information they have sought from him so that they could further the interests of the senior citizens living in this area in Ottawa.

HON. MR. DUECK: The CAP program, of course, will affect my ministry quite a bit, depending on how the economy grows and whether we have a downturn and more money is required in various areas. As far as the housing in particular is concerned, CAP will affect, for example, the shelter allowance. We heard from the federal government in a recent announcement that the CAP program would be held at a baseline of last year plus no more than 5 percent for the next two years — 5 percent for each year for the next two years.

That doesn't sound like an awful lot, but we have to take it in context, because last year our baseline was very low. If they had taken a baseline some years ago and said 5 percent, we would have been in good shape. But we had a very low caseload. It was dropping, and it's still dropping. So to use that as the baseline and say you cannot have any more than 5 percent is very harmful to my ministry, and it's going to have a great impact.

I also want to say that the agreement itself.... I think the Attorney-General probably knows better than I do that the agreement we signed many years ago was an agreement that should not be altered. We should be given one year's notice, I understand, and any alterations would be by agreement. As everyone knows, we have taken that to the courts. Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, ourselves and the native community have joined in a protest to.... Pardon me?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: A reference. Okay.

Anyway, that has got some impact, I hope. Perhaps we can turn that around.

Yes, it will have a great impact, and perhaps the impact will be a lot greater if the economy should turn and we have an increase in clients and the caseload. Yes, we will be in trouble.

As far as the impact on the social housing end of it.... I think the federal Housing minister is a very sincere person, and I think he would like to do everything he can. There was an agreement signed —

[ Page 9804 ]

I believe In 1986 — which was called the Regina Accord. This particular agreement was signed by British Columbia, and the reason we entered into this particular agreement was that we couldn't get unanimity from all the provinces to get on with it and not be stalemated. We agreed — provided they would open it up within a year and look at that issue again to give us the fair share of the housing market. That was agreed upon by every province at that meeting.

We've tried for four years. I've been at a number of these meetings, and we seem to come to an agreement until we get together as ministers. There's one province in particular that vetoes it every time, and away it goes again. We can't come to an agreement, so not only did we lose the fair share that we should have, but they have now decreased it by 15 percent.

MR. BLENCOE: More excuses.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, a question was asked exactly on housing, and I wish that he would pay attention. If he doesn't want to, I can sit down. That doesn't bother me.

MR. BLENCOE: I didn't ask a question, I don't think.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, you were going on the same issues, exactly the same issues.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no, no.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, no, they were both on the same....

MR. BLENCOE: I'll get back to the real question in a minute.

HON. MR. DUECK: Anyway, as I said before, it is not smoke and mirrors. We have $80 million. I've got authority to spend $80 million. If that can be spent in the next two months, that's fine. The money is allocated. It may not show up in the budget, because houses can't be built that quickly. If someone could show me that they can put 8,000 units up....

MR. BLENCOE: They're not affordable. You said that. They're not affordable.

HON. MR. DUECK: I said that they weren't social housing. They were market rents, and for the working people to create vacancies so that in fact people have a place to live. Your same question was: where will these people go? You weren't talking just about seniors or poor people; you were talking about rental in general. You change your tune every time it comes to a certain question. Then you say: "Oh no, that was social housing." Then we talk about something else. Then it's suddenly market rents — not affordable. So make up your mind. Which one do you want to talk about? Do you want to talk about social housing? Do you want to talk about rental in the area for everyone? Or do you want to talk about housing at all?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How much help did he get from Barrett, Brewin and Hunter?

HON. MR. DUECK: That's another question that I would very much like.... I offered the invitation, and I mean this very sincerely. Housing shouldn't be something that we play football with, which we're doing right now. That member knows. He's been on municipal council, and he knows how many times he's turned down projects. He knows that. I've been on city council. I've been in the development business. I know. I've taken projects forward. I know how the whole process works and how long it takes, and when I hear again just a few days ago that we had some housing projects turned down again by Esquimalt, it makes me sick. It literally makes me sick to think that we have a crisis, and that that member who's speaking from the greater Victoria area.... His own communities have turned them down again and again and again. Then he has the audacity to get up and say: "What are you doing about housing?" It takes all of us, every one of us.

He was talking about rental price reviews, which is not my ministry, but I would just like to put this on record again: an independent survey was done in Ontario, where they have rent control. To begin with it was supposed to cost somewhere between $5 million and $7 million total to put in a rent control system. Last year they spent $40 million in administration on rent control alone. So they did a survey, and they said: "Let's just find out what the atmosphere is out there and what people are saying about rent control. How is it affecting the market? Is it affecting rentals? Is it affecting construction? Is it affecting people who need a place to live?" This is what they found: "New apartments needed, but rent controls interfere"; "Survey shows Ontarians worse off today than four years ago under rent control"; "New survey finds control unfair to low income tenants"; "Tenants want right to purchase their apartments — rent control does not offer this."

[3:15]

Mr. Chairman, the Rental Housing Protection Act will accelerate urban decay, and they're finding that buildings, because of the rent control, are going down in maintenance. They are deteriorating and no one is willing to do anything because there are controls in place, and no one is willing to gamble and fix up the buildings. Tenants — now listen to this — see rent controls as hurting apartment availability. That member has the audacity to say that he wants to put in rent controls. It's really foolish.

He was talking about senior citizens. When they have a problem and they have to pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, we have a program called SAFER. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: $14.7 million was spent last year under the SAFER program. We reduced it to the age of 60 last year, and last year's average cheque under SAFER doubled. It's not smoke and mirrors when you double

[ Page 9805 ]

the amount of the subsidy. I find it objectionable for the member to say that.

Last year 9,130 senior citizens took advantage of the SAFER program. I've got a whole file of letters, where seniors have written to me and said: "If it wasn't for the SAFER program, we would have a hard time. Thank you for having the SAFER program in place so that we can take advantage of it and lower our rent in these times of crisis."

I never said that $1 billion was for the creation of rentals; I have never said that. I said that it was part of the housing strategy. We're spending $1 billion in that area.

Here's a letter: "Dear Sir. I would like to let you know that I received my new SAFER cheque in the mail this morning. What a big help it is to me with my rent. Mr. Dueck, the amount was most generous. Thank you so very, very much for this help. Without it, I could not manage." That's just one of them.

If we want to play games, you talk about one senior who's unhappy and I'll talk about one who's happy; we'll go back and forth and accomplish absolutely nothing. I'm saying that the SAFER program is working. The shelter program for those who are unfortunate is working. In general the programs are working well. I wish the people who represent us in Ottawa would do their part to help us look after housing and put some pressure on the federal government so we can get an increase in our allotment.

MR. BLENCOE: That was very interesting. I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) got up to be the minister of defence and allow us to hear his wonderful questions — non-partisan questions, I might add; very mature questions, unlike a few days ago, I recall, when we had some name-calling from that same Attorney-General, the chief law enforcement officer of the land. But today we had mature, non-partisan questions. Very good — a great improvement over Friday.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's because you weren't here Friday.

MR. BLENCOE: We have the minister of miseducation over there, barking away in the corner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Among all of these other things, we have vote 59 as well.

MR. BLENCOE: If we ever needed a new government, boy, it's being shown today when we do the Housing estimates. It's time for change in the province. This minister and the Attorney-General can get up and do all of their little defence mechanisms, all of their little smoke and mirrors and dances....

MR. RABBITT: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: There's the mental giant from Yale-Lillooet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 59, hon. members.

MR. BLENCOE: If you would perhaps call to order those baying hounds, Mr. Chairman, I could get to the serious business of dealing with housing for the people of the province.

As I was saying, all of the defence, the TV ads, the announcements and the news releases can't cover up the fact that only 0.27 percent of the provincial budget is going to affordable housing and that this government only spent $5 million more on affordable housing. This government is taking an estimated $339 million in property purchase taxes out of many young British Columbians who are trying to get into a home, and they can't return a small fraction of it to create proper, affordable housing.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I am repeating it, because it has to be repeated. Do you know why? Because this government is spending millions of dollars on misleading advertising on television. The people of the province are paying for that. The only answer we have is to indicate in this chamber, and hope that it will be picked up by the honourable fourth estate and others, that what they have, in terms of announcing $1 billion for housing programs, is only $35 million for affordable housing.

I still have a question for the Minister of Housing. I want to go back to rent review. I want to go back to that question, because the Attorney-General said....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You're the Minister of Housing. I hope you two talk together, because you are building rental housing — I hope.

This senior citizen — the Attorney-General told me the minister was a senior citizen — is not prepared to answer on behalf of senior citizens who are facing a 50 to 60 percent rent increase. He's not prepared to give an answer to all those thousands of older British Columbians who are in their last few years — the Chairman is exempt from my comments, I might add — and are trying to have a decent lifestyle and have enough money to enjoy their retirement, and are dealing, in some circumstances, with very unfair landlords. The minister is saying that rent review doesn't work, and we'll get to that in a minute.

I want to know how the minister responds to a senior citizen who's facing a massive rent increase, clearly unfair, clearly taking advantage and can be documented. But somehow we can't have rent review. We can't have somebody fairly take a look at that — as the minister did, I might add, on one massive rent increase in Victoria. He did it because that landlord, I guess, was Social Credit and had a direct line to the minister. They concocted a little deal behind closed doors and said: "We'll get that member for Victoria; we'll announce a rollback." But he didn't

[ Page 9806 ]

think: "I did it for one; perhaps I should look at others." No, he says it's dangerous for others. He's prepared to do it behind closed doors, a little inside deal with a Social Credit landlord here in Victoria, but it's dangerous for others.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I know that that member does very little thinking before he speaks, but I think these accusations of a private little deal behind closed doors are a little much to take. I think he should withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) impugning the motives of the minister?

MR. BLENCOE: Would I do that, Mr. Chairman? Absolutely not. I would not impugn that minister. I assume the door was closed and the phone....

MR. CHAIRMAN: A satisfactory answer.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The door was closed when he made an agreement between this Social Credit landlord and himself to roll back the rent increases. But when asked by me and by the media: "If you're doing it for that 38 percent rent increase for those senior citizens...." He said it was fair and reasonable in those circumstances for that particular building. He announced it here in the Legislature, trying to score a political point. But when asked if he would have such a rent review procedure for all British Columbians, the minister said it was dangerous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevancy.

MR. BLENCOE: It's very relevant, Mr. Chairman, because vacancies are negligible and rents are skyrocketing. One million seniors and young British Columbians living in tenancies have no protection.

I want to ask the senior citizen Minister of Housing today what he thinks about a senior citizen who gets a 38 percent rent increase — in this circumstance — or 40 percent or 50 percent, as I can show the minister... What does he think when he says: "That's very unfair, but I won't have an official system of review. As the Minister of Housing, I can't endorse that, because I believe in the marketplace." On the other hand, he has a colleague who did it unofficially behind.... Sorry, I don't know if the doors were closed. But they made an arrangemen.t How does he answer that as the Minister of Housing responsible for tenants in terms of their housing situation? I know this minister is not responsible for the actual residential tenancy law, but I assume this Minister of Housing has some responsibility to those one million tenants, in terms of their housing accommodation. The Attorney-General said he was a senior citizen. How do you answer those tenants?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, that last comment, "He claims to be a senior citizen" — I can show him my birth certificate and prove that I am, if that's what you want to know. But for every year that I gain a year, he does too. Some of us live longer and some of us live less long, if we want to go on that tack.

How do we respond to senior citizens? I would like to tell the member — and I guess I can repeat it — that in '88-89 the average monthly amount in SAFER to a senior citizen was $59.98.

MR. BLENCOE: Go ahead.

HON. MR. DUECK: You weren't listening. That's why I stopped.

The average cheque last year for a senior citizen aged 65 or over was $59.98. We changed that to 60 or over, and the average cheque last year was $95.20. So not only did we change the age, but we changed the amount. That will be reviewed again — and I hope to make an announcement very soon — to increase SAFER again for senior citizens, which should help immensely.

If you find someone.... The member mentioned earlier that there were senior citizens who paid 75 percent of their income in rent. I would like to offer a suggestion to the member: my office is always open. When someone pays 75 percent of their total income for rent, then perhaps we should sit down and help that individual. I think we can, unless they have other income or live in an apartment of their choice that perhaps is higher in rent than it would be if they lived in something more in keeping with their income.

[3:30]

In no way am I going to stand here and.... You have been putting words in my mouth, saying that I don't care: "It's smoke and mirrors. This government doesn't care." That is just not the truth. Again, when we talk about a billion dollars this year — an increase of $120 million in the housing strategy — it is not smoke and mirrors; it is a fact. Furthermore, we have increased the social housing stock by 1,886 units — sometimes a little more or a little less — since 1986; that is continuing. I am opting for a greater allocation, so how can that member say that we're doing nothing and that this minister doesn't care? It's just not the truth. It's not what we're doing, and he's not speaking the truth in that area.

Over and above that, we are, of course, going on this rental supply program. As far as the rental supply program is concerned, we are asking developers and municipalities to zone property, to get construction underway as fast as they can. The authority is there to build, and I'm begging them. I've said: "Please build these units." The member keeps asking: "Where are they?" Have you gone to your municipality and asked: "Why did you turn down those units? Why did you turn them down last month" — or the month before? That's where it's at. That's where the roadblock is, because it's not in my office.

You say we don't build enough houses. The green light is there. We'll build all we can — 8,000 units — and by the end of the year we'll have roughly 2,000

[ Page 9807 ]

constructed, I hope. If everything goes well, there will be 2,000....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, if you worked on municipal council and knew anything at all about construction — which I doubt very much that you do, because by the questions you ask, obviously you know very little about it — you would know that from the time you get the okay to the time it is a turnkey and someone can move in, a house takes a while. If you don't know that, then perhaps you could check with your builder or real estate friends and get that information.

Have you ever been in real estate — through you, Mr. Chairman? Someone mentioned that he's been in real estate once in a while, so perhaps he knows a little about loss and profit. Some others on that side of the House have made a little profit on flipping, on renovation, on asking people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Others on that side of the House have evicted people to change to condominiums. So it's not just this side; it's not just free enterprise. It happens on both sides. When a dollar can be made, they suddenly forget they're socialists.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I have been in real estate — because I own a house and I live in it. And I do have real estate friends and developer friends — private sector and public sector.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You're surprised. Well, you should come over here and chat a little more.

To get down to serious business, I have a question for the minister. He is obviously not going to answer the rent review question. It just occurred to me — an important question. He was talking about SAFER, and he just said to me: "Well, if you've got huge rent increases for senior citizens, you should send them to see me." I just thought of a very important point, and I want the minister to answer this question.

The point I am making is that many of those major rent increases are clearly a gouge.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: A gouge — unfair, unjustified, taking advantage of the market.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not saying you are. But I'll ask the minister: would he rather have a rent review procedure that rolled back those unfair rent increases, or would he prefer to see the taxpayer pay for the gouge and the unfair rent increase? That's what you're saying today, Mr. Minister. The taxpayer is going to pay for your landlord friends who are passing on unfair rent increases, and you just said to send them to see you so the taxpayer can pay those increases. Does the minister want an unfair rent increase to be dealt with in a proper review procedure and rolled back so the taxpayer doesn't pay all that money in SAFER, or would he prefer to see the taxpayer pay those unfair rent increases?

I think that's a legitimate question. You're saying that the taxpayer is going to have one deep pocket for all those unfair rent increases. The taxpayer is going to pay millions of dollars to unfair rent increases. I don't think that's right. I want to protect the taxpayer. I want to protect that pocket. What you want to do in your program is allow those unfair rent increasers to come and see you, and you'll pay that unfair rent increase. Is that your program? Is that your policy? Is that how you are going to use taxpayers' money?

HON. MR. DUECK: I find it very interesting that the member states that he has friends in real estate and development, but when he talks about gougers, they're suddenly my friends. This is ridiculous.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: He just mentioned he had a lot of real estate friends. He had developer friends, but then he's talking about gouging and he says: "Your landlord friends, the gougers." I am just as much opposed to a gouger as anyone on that side. I am absolutely opposed to anyone who takes advantage of anyone in society. I think anyone that takes advantage of another individual is a person that I do not wish to support. Neither would I, in any way, even lend credence to that kind of an individual.

That's why I said from the beginning, when I got into this ministry, that there is one way to control gougers, and that is to have an adequate supply. That has been my aim from the beginning.

MR. BLENCOE: How long do they have to wait?

HON. MR. DUECK: You tell your friends down the street to get on with it. With respect, I would like every member in this chamber on that side or on this side to go to their particular constituency and check with municipal councils where there is a vacancy rate of less than 2 percent and put the pressure on them and help them talk to real estate, talk to builders — not what that member is indicating again and again, that he's talked to builders and they say this and say that. They don't talk that language. I know the builders and the realtors.

He's dreaming it. There's only one way to do it, and that's to get supply in the market. That's exactly what we're doing with this program. We're trying to get the supply in the market.

The question was.... I've forgotten the question. You yap so much, I don't know what you're saying. Just before, he was talking about the baying hounds. I can identify one baying hound in this House, and it isn't on this side.

[ Page 9808 ]

MS. MARZARI: It's an interesting debate between values and ideologies, but it really reflects a real absence of planning in government expenditures around housing. Let me just point out a question put forward by the Attorney-General a few minutes ago. He asked about Canada Assistance Plan and whether or not any money that was allocated by the federal government actually went into housing. The minister answered that yes, GAIN and shelter aid were in fact cost-shared by Canada Assistance Plan.

He also said the Canada Assistance Plan was capped in a particularly bad year because the caseloads were down; therefore the baseline upon which the 5 percent will be calculated is going to be a low baseline rather than one we might have lived more comfortably with. Let me suggest one area where appropriate planning might have been useful. In fact, if you read the Canada Assistance Plan carefully, a plan that offers us 50 cents on every dollar we put into fighting poverty, we gain.

We do nothing but gain. With that 50 cents we are basically buying ourselves the ability to plan, deliver service, be innovative, even go to the business of helping self-help groups in communities to plan their way out of poverty and to work with governments and develop other programs, whether they be employment related or even recreation related. Canada Assistance Plan covers a myriad of services.

Why did we allow the Canada Assistance Plan contribution a few years ago to drop? When our caseloads went down, why didn't we say: "We're going to maintain our level of investment so that our 50 cents will be matched by the federal 50 cents so we can actually use that dip in caseloads to do some long-range planning to eradicate poverty in this province." Why weren't we working to hit at the roots of poverty? Why weren't we setting up programs to prevent child abuse? Why weren't we investing in women? Why, last year, when the welfare rates were down, weren't we taking advantage of federal 50-cent dollars to plow that back into groups in Vancouver and in this province that are planning for their own housing and developing housing? There are groups around ready to build — building societies, cooperative societies — that are themselves poor. Many of them are women's groups. Why didn't we do that?

Let me answer that question, since I have a few minutes here today with the consent of my colleague the housing critic. Why? Because we don't plan. The suggestion is made that our rental housing stock has been depleted, and all the sins of the world revolve around the fact that we had rent control in Ontario. The minister actually suggested that rent controls themselves are the reason for a housing crisis.

HON. MR. DUECK: I didn't say that.

MS. MARZARI: Well, you implied. You read a report into the record that rent controls in and of themselves added to the rental housing crisis we have in this country, and you were pointing out Ontario, which has rent controls.

Let me suggest that if this were reasonably thought through, with any kind of planning at all, we would understand that the sins of the past have been vested in the federal government, who, ten or 15 years ago, invented numerous federal housing programs that sucked up provincial dollars, basically investing taxpayers' money into a housing market supposedly to shore up the rental housing stock.

What happened with those MURBs and MERVs, and whatever we called them in those days, is that the rental housing built with that money — our money, taxpayers' dollars — has now come onto the market. It is no longer rental housing or social housing or affordable housing. Those rental units are now in the process of being converted into condominiums.

Nowhere in this province is that pinch being felt more than in my own riding, in Point Grey. And nowhere is the need for proper planning for affordable housing more apparent than in Point Grey, a riding that people would not consider to be in need because of its affluence, because of the fact that it has a high per capita income. In fact, the stress and the pressure on the market value of land is so great in my riding that every day my office is receiving phone calls very similar to those mentioned by other members of this House, with rent increases varying between.... Well, we only hear about them when they are over 25 percent. But the have received letters and phone calls from people who are basically facing rent increases of up to 100 percent. Now these are not just rent increases; these are obvious attempts to remove tenants from their accommodation because the apartment is going condominium.

We have, in Point Grey, a lodge — Quilchena Lodge — which has 65 rental units renting for between $365 and $400 a month. It is due for demolition. It's not strange that many of the people that call us, or that I have visited, are women, and elderly women at that. That is not strange to me — the fact that so many women are affected by these evictions and by these rental increases. I'll explain that later. But what we're going to replace these 65 units with are 45 high-income condominiums.

[3:45]

The developer has offered to build 30 moderate income rental housing units if the developer gets a density bonus. Once again, it's an interesting offer by the developer, but it basically takes zoned land in the city of Vancouver, in Kerrisdale, and suggests boosting the density so that the developer can put in some medium-income housing. Interesting because, first of all, the elderly people will be moved, and they will not be able to avail themselves of the rental housing units because it will be two or three years down the road. But more interesting because the city of Vancouver has been racking its brains to come up with ways in which social housing can be built for rental, and the best deal that they can come up with is with the Vancouver Land Corp., which is basically using the equity of $50 million worth of Vancouver land and an innovative money-gathering scheme whereby they are going to be able to finance, supposedly, 2,000

[ Page 9809 ]

units per year. Even the Vancouver Land Corp., a partnership of public and private investors and developers, can't come up with rental housing for less than $800 a month for a two-bedroom unit. They are not able to meet their 2,000-unit quota. They are finding it difficult to build, even with a $50 million equity from the city in the form of rent, for less than $1.25 a square foot.

This, in the city of Vancouver, is deplorable. It's not something we can live with easily. It's not something about which we can easily sit and hurl invective back and forth across the House; it's a problem which has to be worked on, because there are a lot of people suffering, either being forced to move or, worse still, being totally disjointed in their lives. Elderly people being moved is not the best route to go; the medical health officer of Vancouver has suggested that. People do die in the process of being wrested out of their home of ten, 15 or 20 years. It is a concern.

What are the solutions? In Vancouver it's difficult to know. Rather than tackling you on the absence of policy and planning, let me put forward a few suggestions which we have mentioned in this House before.

First, give the city of Vancouver the power to install a temporary demolition moratorium so that housing at least will have to go through some kind of city or provincial tribunal — I would prefer municipal tribunal — in which everybody's interests are considered before demolition permits are granted.

My own neighbourhood in Kitsilano has formed an association to try to slow down the demolition of affordable housing units, and the test of that will be next Tuesday night, when the council will vote on a plan that my neighbours have come up with. It's a unique plan, because usually it's neighbourhoods defending their single-family status. In this case, it's a neighbourhood defending its multiple-family status, with affordable housing and rental units built in.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Second, introduce a speculator tax, so that some of the pressures on this market can be somewhat alleviated.

Third, introduce a rent review program. This side of the House is not recommending a rigid or usual rent control program; it's saying let's look at the possibilities of a rent review mechanism in which people of reasonable goodwill can come together and have high rents adjudicated by an impartial rental review officer.

Fourth — and this particularly pertains to Point Grey, my own constituency, and in fact my own neighbourhood — we need to make proper provision for the proper planning of the 50 acres, which are now provincially owned, called the Jericho lands; and that in Vancouver could go a long way to beginning (a) a neighbourhood plan for the development of potentially 100 acres when the defence lands come available at Fourth and Alma; (b) if properly handled, a model for this province — certainly for the city — in terms of neighbourhood or city planning to accommodate its own seniors and its low- and moderate-income families.

There is a strong neighbourhood association and coalition of neighbourhood groups that are ready to start planning now and to sit down and take seriously non-market housing and moderate-income housing. It's not what you might expect. The minister has constantly been talking about municipalities not allowing social housing and preventing the building of moderate-income housing. I'm saying that the city of Vancouver and Point Grey are ready to start talking about planned neighbourhood involvement in the creation of some hundreds of units of appropriate housing for citizens of Vancouver.

The final recommendation that I would ask the minister to comment on is the status of the Jericho lands at this moment. We have been asking this question for two sessions now, and those lands seems to have been bumped around between Government Management Services, the department of Social Services and Housing.... A few weeks ago it seemed to be back to Government Management Services. I would be interested in knowing from the minister where the Jericho lands actually sit right now in terms of any kind of planning being done for them.

The final recommendation I would make is to stop bashing municipalities. It does not help to stand in this House and list those municipalities which, for one reason for another, are listening to the citizens in their communities talk about the pressures on those communities. I've been on city councils. On one occasion that I can remember I've been in the position of voting against social housing on a piece of land that was totally inappropriate. That piece of land happened to be a piece of a land bank on a very inappropriate site, removed from transportation facilities, removed from schools. It simply was not appropriate. Don't bash the municipalities. These people are your partners. These people are the ones that we need to sit down with and discuss (a) appropriate land-banking....

HON. MR. DUECK: I wasn't bashing.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, you were. No, you haven't been saying, "Please help me," and neither have members....

HON. MR. DUECK: On both sides of the House.

MS. MARZARI: The government side of this House has been taking advantage of this issue to bash municipalities because municipalities have been making decisions about social housing that don't seem to meet your 2,000 or your 8,000 or your magic number of social housing units.

You have to land-bank with municipalities. You have to service the land with the municipalities. You have to sit down with municipalities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing orders.

[ Page 9810 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important point about local government, and I would like my colleague to continue.

MS. MARZARI: We have to land-bank with them and plan with them, but more important — and this is something that should perhaps be tested out with the Jericho lands — it might be time for the provincial government not only to get reinvolved with planning with municipalities and planning for the servicing and land-banking with provincially owned land, but also to work closely, with dollars attached, with neighbourhoods to help them plan best for their communities. Because neighbourhoods very often do not like change. They have to be helped. Very often neighbourhood planning processes will increase government's ability to build moderate-income and low-income and social housing in communities. It's those incentives that could be provided with coordination with the Municipal Affairs and the Housing ministries. The serious, tough stand with the federal CMHC....

I think that's the route we have to go, because you're going to get turned down. You cannot be the bad guy and come in and foist housing on communities that are not ready to take It. You have to look at education, availability for young children, traffic patterns, and whether or not there are bus stops. Why put a handicapped housing unit, for example, on the top of a hill and with no bus?

There must be ways for the provincial government to stop hammering municipalities, but rather to start working closely with them. Then I think that, working with neighbourhoods and municipalities, you'll find a very different answer coming back to you when there is a joint housing plan that both partners own. I shouldn't say both; I should say three partners own, if the federal government can be pulled in.

I leave you with those few thoughts, but the major question I want to leave the minister with is the one about the Jericho lands. When can we expect to hear about the disposition of those lands, since the Jericho Hill School is about to be moved?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, again there were a number of points made and a number of questions asked, and I did write most of them down.

To begin with, mention was made of 50-cent dollars, and had we spent more we would have had a greater baseline. That's absolutely correct, but I must tell you too that since 1977-78 we have increased the CAP payments. The average annual increase in CAP payments to the province since '77-78 has been 10.5 percent, so it's not that we've cut back. The caseload has gone down, but we've increased it every year, so there has been an improvement in that area. I'm sorry that our baseline isn't greater. What can I say? Had I known this, perhaps I could have squirrelled away a few dollars somewhere else.

You mentioned also about the city of Vancouver and demolitions. I believe you will have the opportunity to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) about that legislation, because it comes under his ministry. At that time it would certainly be in order to ask that question. The demolition aspect of it doesn't come under my ministry.

You've seen this too, but it's interesting to note a letter from Phillip Owen to the editor, when he says: "What has been accomplished to address the housing issue in Vancouver?" He asks the question because this is what people are saying. "From 1983 to 1989, 8,400 housing units were demolished." Fact. But in that same period, some 21,700 units were built. So what he is saying is: "Yes, there have been some demolished, but there have been a substantial number of units built."

In 1989, 588 multiple housing units were demolished in Vancouver, and 2,478 multiple units were built. In the past ten years, 2,393 units of public and private non-profit subsidized rental housing have been built in the central downtown and Strathcona areas alone. There are now more than 18,000 social housing tenants in Vancouver, so you can paint two pictures. You can say nothing has been done. On the other hand, I can say quite a bit has been done. I don't necessarily agree with tearing down a building that houses, say, 50 people — someone comes along and demolishes it and puts up an expensive condominium that houses maybe ten, 15 or 20. 1 don't agree with that, but you can ask those questions when you come to the minister's estimates.

You also mentioned that rental housing decreased because we had rent control. That's not the case at all. You and I know very well that rental housing pretty well stopped when the federal government discontinued the personal tax deduction.

[4:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Oh yes. I know all of those people who were involved. At that point, rental accommodation construction came to a complete halt. I have a lot of doctor and lawyer friends, and know all kinds of people who were building those units left and right. When that was taken away.... We all know this; it is nothing new.

That member doesn't agree with that, but he knows so little about housing that I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition puts him in as housing critic. He is the one who knows the least about housing in this whole chamber.

Talking about bashing governments, I said very clearly that if both sides of the House would assist me in speaking to municipal governments and in putting up housing, not putting these roadblocks in the way.... It wasn't a matter of bashing. I do that in my own community — I phone city council and say: "Look, there's a housing project coming forward. What are the objections? How can we get this through?" It's very important in these times.

Since I am the Housing minister, a lot of people on the opposite side criticize me for not having enough housing units: "What are you going to do about it?" But at the same time, we have to do our part in these bad times to try and convince people who have a stake in it to get on with it.

[ Page 9811 ]

It's not a matter of bashing. It's easy to bash me; I'll take it. What the heck — I've been bashed all my life. I go through it, and I'm challenged on it. But you can't just bash one individual and not bash others. You can't just bash me. You've got to bash the opposition, municipal councils, the federal government, the builders, the developers, the realtors, everyone. We all have our part to play. That's what I'm trying to point out. Just because I'm the Minister of Housing, it's easy to use me as a target and say: "It's you." Well, it's not just me. It's also the responsibility of that member who's yapping again. But he doesn't believe that he has any responsibility in this issue except barking away like a hound dog.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, Jericho land belongs to BCBC, the Crown corporation. I understand there's a review being done on that at this time, so hopefully there will be some change in that. I'm certainly in favour of doing something with that school at another location and using it for other purposes. But that's not for me to say; that's under the ministry of government management and women's issues.

You mentioned the Vancouver Land Corp. You mentioned the city and the private sector. Don't forget that the provincial government is also very much involved in that, because they're doing a lot of the rental supply program for us. I'm very pleased with the attitude of the Vancouver Land Corp., in tremendous cooperation with the city. It's still taking a long time.

Here's a perfect example. Here's the city of Vancouver — a partner with the private sector in the Vancouver Land Corp. — and we come in with the subsidy for the interest. Even the city of Vancouver, which is a partner in this corporation, has a heck of a time getting through the system to get it on the road to develop these houses. It's their own company. They're partners in this company.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not bashing them; I'm saying it takes a long time. But to stand there and ask: "What are you going to do about it...?" That's the system.

MR. BLENCOE: How many years do you need?

HON. MR. DUECK: Ask the city.

MR. BLENCOE: You've done it for four years; for four years we've had problems. How many years do you need?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it's not four years. It was announced in last year's budget speech It was then the proposals were made up, and I think they went out in July. Then I believe it was in August that we accepted those proposals. This year, of course, they're on stream, and they're going ahead.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: If the member would just quiet down a bit, I could finish. Mr. Chairman, I'm confused now as to which member asked the question. Would you please help me? Is it the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey or the first member for Victoria?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor, hon. minister. Continue on with what you want to say.

HON. MR. DUECK: I called him first member; actually, he's the second member, is he not? I don't want to honour him by saying "first member."

There's another area of housing that would help a great deal, and that is in the secondary suites. I would hope that the municipalities and cities that have experienced below 2 percent vacancy would look at that very seriously. The city of Vancouver has tried to come to grips with it. I think that is an area where we could have a very quick fix to some of the housing needs if they would designate certain areas and legalize secondary suites. I lived in a secondary suite — a basement suite — when we first got married.

Mr. Chairman, to the question that was asked not through the chair. Illegal suites today are occupied by thousands and thousands of people in the city. There is some pressure coming to bear now to evict some of those people because they haven't gone through the process and made them legal, and they're not in an area where they've had a vote. Unfortunately, some of these people are going to lose their homes. They won't have any place to go unless they find other accommodation.

In these times of very low vacancy it's hard to believe that any municipality would take that action. I believe that secondary suites can provide good housing. It's not very often adequate for a family, but singles and young marrieds....

As I was saying before I was asked the question not through the Chair, I lived in an illegal suite when we first got married, and if I'd been any taller, I would have knocked off the light bulb every time I went through the one room. But we were very happy, and we lived there for approximately a year and a half to two years. So I have no objection to living in a basement suite.

You also mentioned a speculative tax. That's an interesting concept. Again, I have to give you evidence of communities, cities and provinces that have tried this. Again, the example is Ontario. They had it for a number of years. Then they did an analysis. Guess what they found, Mr. Chairman? It cost them $1 for every three cents they collected. Is that what you want us to do? These are facts; I've got the evidence. It cost a dollar to collect three cents.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to see that.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, I'll give you that information. But what I'm saying is that it's easy to have all

[ Page 9812 ]

these quick-fix answers. It's easy to say: "Why don't we do this?" It will sound so good. "Hit the developer. Do this; do another thing."

But you know, you can't do that. There is a certain process to go through. It costs money to set up an agency. They found it cost a dollar to collect three cents. Surely you wouldn't want this government to spend that kind of money on something that's foolish. Surely you wouldn't want us to do that.

Anyway, I think I've answered most of your questions, and perhaps we can continue with some more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the next speaker, I would just like to comment that we may all be very eager to participate in this debate. However, for the most effective and expedient debate, I think it would be appropriate to wait your turn and address your comments or questions through the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, as I sat and listened to the debate, I was wondering where we were going to put the Christmas tree come Christmas time, because I'm sure at this rate it's going to take at least that long to conclude the estimates for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

The chatting that goes on in some of the answers.... I'll have to admit I was a little tempted to contribute my "just when I got married" story too. But I don't think that is particularly going to help the people we represent in this province, nor deal with their situations on an individual basis. We're looking for system solutions. We're looking for equity of treatment rather than individual treatment. We're looking for recognition that those people are not suffering individually, but are a group that needs a group answer.

The minister talks repeatedly about the need for each and every member to go and talk to their municipalities and "put the heat on," as he says; to pressure these municipalities to do something to provide land, and get on with the job of allowing the provincial government to forward its housing plan. But the minister said that he himself often picks up the phone and asks his municipality what he can do to help them get on with developing rental or social housing in their area. The minister didn't tell us what the answer was. I'd like to hear what the answer to your question was.

I suspect the answer is the same answer that many municipalities are giving this government: they need some comprehensive assistance to deal with the pressures of growth. You can't just insist on the municipalities opening the floodgates without a recognition that they are up to their eyeballs already. You've shifted the responsibility for growth onto them. You've abandoned the field for social services. You've abandoned the field for health care. You've abandoned the field for recreation, for schools and for transportation. All you have to do is look at what's going on in the suburbs now — the municipalities that have land for development — to recognize that those municipalities are operating with the best conscience they can, given the circumstances.

Take a municipality like Surrey. We've got two beds for every 1,000 people, compared to a provincial average of four beds per 1,000. We've got municipalities that are totally clogged, where people can't drive out of the municipality to get to work. We've got municipalities that cannot provide recreational opportunities for the kids, where the school fields are filled up with portables. And you ask why those municipalities won't allow you to encourage more housing.

Again, I think you are completely out of touch with the realities in this province, and I hope that at some point you wake up and realize that the only way these municipalities are going to become partners is if you act as a responsible partner in your provincial capacity and start recognizing the tremendous burdens and problems these municipalities have to face. Until such time, I don't believe you are going to see them opening their arms and embracing your plans.

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask of you, and this goes back to the issue of equity and fair treatment. The minister talks about the SAFER program for seniors, and there are a couple of inequities that I am aware of. I'd like to refer to them and ask the minister to answer specifically. One is that when seniors are paying rental on mobile-home pads, they do not at this time qualify for SAFER — that's my understanding. I'd like to ask the minister for the rationale behind that and if he would reconsider that policy.

[4:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: It's true that currently they don't qualify. We are reviewing that issue at this time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Again on the issue of SAFER, a senior who is the recipient of GAIN for Seniors does not qualify for SAFER. I'd ask the minister to explain that.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I was momentarily not listening. I would like her to repeat that question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A senior who is currently a recipient of GAIN for Seniors does not qualify for a top-up, cannot apply for SAFER.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, that's correct.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister also reviewing that? The reality is that seniors who may have a pension equal to or, indeed, perhaps more than GAIN can qualify for SAFER, recognizing that they cannot meet the rental market that we talked about. I wonder what the justification is for not extending that ability to obtain SAFER for these other people.

[ Page 9813 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, that's a good question. I'm willing to look at it. I think we should look at that a little more closely. As a matter of fact, I should say that at this time we're reviewing programs constantly. I've been in this ministry now for about six months, and I mentioned yesterday and again today that we're reviewing also the GAIN increases, the shelter allowance, the SAFER — all these programs that we have in place. We're reviewing them to see whether we're equitable: where do we stand with the rest of the provinces in Canada? We don't necessarily want to be the first one up, neither do we want to be the worst one. But if we can be an average and look after our citizens the best we can, that's our aim, and we will continue to do so. In this particular area, we will review it. Perhaps we are negligent in not looking at it seriously and perhaps topping up.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank the minister for making that commitment to review it, and I'd ask him, once that review is finished, if he would advise me in writing of his decision.

Thirdly, my question has to do with GVRD housing — I understand the province is involved financially with the GVRD housing program — and want to ask you about a policy of the GVRD housing. This has to do with subsidizing rent for low-income people in GVRD housing. At this point they have a policy that 30 percent of the gross income will go to rent, so they top it up for people who are asking for subsidized housing to ensure that no more than 30 percent of their income does go to that rent. However, they differentiate between recipients of their housing accommodations, in that a person on GAIN cannot apply for that subsidy.

At this point, it's my information that the GVRD takes the full shelter allowance for rent from a GAIN recipient and does not take into consideration the costs of hydro or telephone, which for co-op housing at least is taken into consideration for that 30 percent. On several different occasions we have intervened and ask the GVRD housing to reconsider; we've not been successful. I'm wanting to know what the minister's opinion of that is, and whether he will have some discussions with GVRD on two counts, one, that the province is involved financially in supporting that housing; and two, because it impacts GAIN recipients directly.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm familiar with it. As a matter of fact, I've talked to the federal minister on that very issue. When those agreements were signed, they did not have an exit clause; therefore they've asked people who earn certain numbers of dollars to perhaps make room for someone who qualifies at this time. But they cannot force the people to vacate. I've asked the minister to review that, because we're not involved in that particular area; it's the GVRD and the federal government. However, for any units that we have under our control, we have an exit clause, and it is 30 percent of their income — no more than 30 percent of their income on housing. So if someone earns $50,000, they will soon find housing less expensive somewhere else. So we have a self-policing policy.

With any of our units that we control and that we have moneys in — especially since the 1986 program, the new program with the federal government — this does not occur. I'm concerned about that, because in times like this we don't want people earning $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 in these housing projects that were meant for people who want less expensive accommodation. This is why we objected to some of the co-op housing as well, because some of the co-op housing.... In fact, they said there must be a mix of people earning more than others, so we have a mix of people. But what happened, Mr. Chairman, was that so often the rents did not increase to the market level; and here we had people with big incomes living in homes that were subsidized by the federal government. Although they paid a little more, it was not market rent, which they could well afford to pay. So we object to that. But we do subsidize individuals who live in some of these GVRD units. We have clients living there who we subsidize under programs. But we have nothing to do with the actual capital construction of the buildings.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm afraid the minister must have misunderstood my question.

These are for people who are actually living in GVRD housing at this point in time. They are on GAIN. Where the policy for that housing says that you pay 30 percent of your income and they will subsidize the cost of the rental unit over and above that 30 percent.... If the people are on GAIN, they have to pay the full amount of their housing portion on GAIN, and the housing is not subsidized.

What happens is that if their shelter allowance is a certain amount, that's the amount of the rent, and they end up having to pay hydro and telephone over and above that. They end up paying their heat and light out of their food money, though the intention of the shelter allowance was to deal with hydro, telephone and rent.

What I'm asking is that the policy for the GVRD housing be assessed and that we ask the GVRD to take into account the full amount of the cost for shelter; in other words, reduce the rent so that it includes both the hydro and telephone, so those income assistance recipients don't have to take their hydro out of their food money.

HON. MR. DUECK: As I mentioned, these units are controlled by the GVRD. To break even, they raised the rent. Our shelter allowance, as the member well knows, is an amount for rent plus utilities, to a maximum. If they raise those rents higher than that, there will be a problem with some people who will not be able to pay — because they have raised the rent to meet the deficiency or the payment part of that particular building. This is unfortunate. In our units that we control this does not happen, because we strictly stay with the 30 percent.

[ Page 9814 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's my understanding that the province is involved in a 60-40 financing for GVRD housing.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: No. The province does not provide money for GVRD housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address your questions through the Chair, Madam.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll continue, and we'll let the minister answer.

My understanding is that the province is a partner in that housing, and that they contribute money to provide social housing through the GVRD housing corporation.

I am assuming that we're not communicating or that there's a lack of understanding. It could very well be that the minister understands full well and has decided not to deal with it, but we'll explore it a little further and see where we go.

At this point in time this is subsidized housing. It is part of the low-income housing to service the GVRD area, and people on low incomes can apply for a subsidy so that they don't have to pay any more than 30 percent of their total income on the rent. However, there is a double standard, and that double standard is that there are different rules for people on GAIN. People on welfare have to pay the rent to the full amount of their shelter, which makes them have to then pay for heat and light out of their food money.

It would seem to me on two counts — one, that the province is a partner in this housing; and two, that we're talking about the GAIN recipient shelter allowance — that you have an interest and indeed a responsibility to have some impact on that policy.

Why is it that subsidized housing in the GVRD can get away with having two policies: one policy for people who are not on GAIN — for the working poor — that says they only have to pay 30 percent, yet people on GAIN have to pay more? How can you justify supporting that?

If you understand the point I'm making, the very best I'm looking for here is a commitment to look into it and at least enter into some discussions with the GVRD around that policy. I would hope that the province would not stand for this kind of discrepancy and would speak very strongly on behalf of those recipients.

HON. MR. DUECK: Prior to '86 — in '85 and before that — the provincial government had no financial interest in the GVRD; it is the federal government and the GVRD. When the Regina accord was signed — which I mentioned earlier to the other member — we got into a program with the federal government, which we're continuing now with 1,886 units a year. In those units no one pays more than 30 percent of their total income. There is an exit clause, and it keeps going up as they earn more money.

However, for anyone living in the GVRD housing units who comes under the GAIN and shelter allowance, that is made up of rent and utilities. If the rent goes up, we have a maximum. True, there may be some who pay more than what the shelter allowance will pay. It's unfortunate, but that's a fact. It would also happen if they sought residence or shelter in a privately owned building. They would get the shelter allowance, and if they chose something where the rent was higher than that, it would come out of other moneys that they had. I can't take responsibility for the GVRD. That is the policy they have. I could perhaps inquire and make sure that this is so, and I am willing to do that.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Before my good colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) addresses some very important questions, I was asking the minister — and I think it's a very important issue.... I think the minister is quite clear in what he's saying in terms of subsidizing substantial, unfair and unjustified rent increases.

The minister is saying today that his government is prepared to see a deep pocket for the taxpayer, because they have this ideological stance that any amount of rent increase is allowable in British Columbia, even though it can be shown that it's grossly unfair, unjustified and clearly a gouge. The minister has admitted that he knows it's happening. But this government is unprepared to have.... I'm not talking rent control; I'm talking a fair system of rent review, where these things can be reviewed.

MR. LOENEN: What's the difference?

MR. BLENCOE: There's a big difference.

MR. LOENEN: Tell us the difference.

MR. BLENCOE: You should listen to this, Mr. Member, because I'm sure this concerns you — about taxpayers' dollars. The minister is saying today that they're so ideologically against any process of fair, democratic dialogue between landlord and tenant, in terms of a review of these massive rent increases that are clearly unfair and that we know are happening, that he's prepared to see the taxpayer, through subsidy, meet those unfair rent increases and be exposed to major increases in taxes and exposure to the budget.

That's what the minister is saying. They won't move; they're stuck in the past. They won't even take a look at having a way of reviewing these things and telling senior citizens, for instance, that: "We'll have someone take a look at that, and if you can show that it's unfair, we'll roll it back." And therefore the taxpayer wouldn't have to pay that massive rent increase through a subsidy. But this minister is saying that the government of British Columbia is prepared to expose the taxpayer to probably millions of dollars because they're so stuck in the past that

[ Page 9815 ]

they ideologically cannot move to see a fair process of rent review for tenants.

That is what the minister is saying. He's exposing the taxpayer to huge increases. We can't support that. Sure, we support a SAFER program when you have landlords — as most landlords are — who are very reasonable and understanding in their requests. Indeed, many of them are very compassionate and understanding of the situation. But what the minister is saying today is that any rent increase, even though it can be shown....

We used to have a rentalsman in British Columbia who would look at these situations and all the facts objectively, and what clearly was unfair was rolled back. This minister is saying today that the taxpayer is going to have to pay for those gouges, those unfair rent increases. I think it should be known to the people of British Columbia that with this government there is a deep pocket, an unending pocket, in terms of money being spent by the taxpayer to subsidize unfair, unjustified and gouging rent increases.

That's what the minister is saying. What he's doing is using taxpayers' money to benefit those owners and landlords financially. They are a minority but are there, and they are using the market unfairly and unjustifiably to increase their rents and therefore their profits.

That is really an incredible indictment of the way this government approaches this issue and taxpayers' money. They're saying: "The taxpayer is going to have a deep pocket. We're blind. We won't see past that old fifties rhetoric that you keep throwing out — rent review and all these awful things." Yet we have another minister who was prepared to do it quietly behind the scenes with a Social Credit landlord.

But this Minister of Housing is saying to us today — because they're so ideologically stuck that they cannot accept a review mechanism — that the taxpayer is going to pay, in this case, for the senior citizens who are facing these unfair hikes, which are clearly unjustified in some circumstances. If we had review, they'd be rolled back. But this minister is saying he will ignore that, and the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab.

Mr. Chairman, that should be known to the citizens of the province. This government won't introduce.... In many other areas such as hydro rates, telephone rates and those kinds of important public utilities, there is a mechanism to have rate increases reviewed. In a civilized, progressive society we accept that kind of review. But when it comes to a million people and their families and their homes, their shelter, their roof, we can't accept that kind of process.

MR. LOENEN: Big Brother.

MR. BLENCOE: Not Big Brother, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about fairness. I'm talking about decency and a dialogue and the democratic process. If they call that Big Brother, so be it; that's what they want to call it. But I can tell you, a million people — 40 percent of the people in the province — know what I'm talking about. And the others know now that this minister is saying he is prepared to subsidize those gouges, and the taxpayers will pay for it in subsidy. They know, because this government cannot see its way clear to having a process of review for that senior citizen, as I gave the example. That's really an indictment.

This government won't change; it's cast in the past. All it does is deal with insiders and its friends. It has no way to change, no way to look forward. It's time for change in the province of British Columbia, because we won't expose the taxpayers like that. No, but this minister is prepared to do it.

I want to ask the minister again: is he prepared to see such a procedure? Clearly that's what is happening now. It's a deep pocket. Then when you've got every evidence that some landlords are taking advantage, you're prepared to close your eyes to that and say: "Okay, we'll cover you by a subsidy, and we'll pay the landlord his gouge." Is that what you're saying to this House and to this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I actually lower my level to his when I even speak the same language. I shouldn't even respond to it, because it is such nonsense. He makes such ridiculous comments.

MR. BLENCOE: That's what he said.

HON. MR. DUECK: I did not say that, Mr. Chairman. I did not make that statement. I said very clearly that I do not support gouges. I do not support anyone who takes advantage of another individual. I said that very clearly, and I repeated it again and again. You will have your opportunity to speak to the minister in charge of rent controls when that time comes.

We have programs in place. We have $1 billion of programs in place to help people who have a difficult time in high-rental situations. Not only that, but we know we have a crisis when we have 60,000 people come into this province in one year alone. This is why I have repeatedly said that in my opinion we must get a supply out there with the private sector and also wherever we can help, so that the marketplace will even out.

That will happen; it has happened in the past. It happened in '81; it will happen again now. As a matter of fact, there are signs. I just read an article today about Vancouver — I haven't got it here right now — where there is a little bit of easing taking place in the rental market. It says: "Apartment vacancy rates increased in most major cities between October 1989 and April, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation states." It says Victoria is down slightly; Vancouver from 0.4 to 0.9; and some of the other cities. It is a very small amount, I grant you, but it is going in the right direction.

I don't in any way wish that we go into a recession; not at all. Very often that is connected with the easing of the market. However, I think there is one way to cure this, and that is to get supply, supply,

[ Page 9816 ]

supply. That is the answer, in my opinion, and that will cure the housing problems.

As a matter of fact, when we had the private sector last year increase housing starts to just under 40,000, and the prediction this year is slightly over 40,000 plus the social housing that we're putting in place.... Again and again the member is quoting and asking: what are they doing for people who can't afford those rents? I have said it repeatedly: since 1986 we have produced 1,886 social housing units per year. We're trying to increase that. I have been to Ottawa; I have spoken to the federal Minister of State for Housing on the telephone. I've written numerous letters. I've met him in person in Vancouver and in Ottawa and we talk about the same issue again and again. It is to my great surprise that they even cut back another 15 percent of the unfair allotment that we had in the past.

I have not given up. As a matter of fact, at the conference that was called for last weekend — which was cancelled at the last minute; I understand now we will be meeting again in July — my main subject of discussion will be more social housing allotment. I will press this very hard. We want more money for social housing.

The rental supply program will work well, inasmuch as people moving up into that area will relieve some pressure, perhaps, on the lower-priced rental accommodation.

So with the other programs. I don't want to repeat myself again and again. The member has criticized our programs: $1 billion in housing, program for independence, shelter allowance.... Shelter for the elderly — SAFER — was doubled last year. It's not smoke and mirrors when you double the amount to seniors. It's going to be reviewed. The GAIN, shelter allowance and SAFER programs are going to be reviewed, and there will be an increase, I can tell you that now. I can't tell you how much and I can't tell you when that announcement will be made.

There is a renters' tax reduction for those who rent, and that was increased last year. We have all kinds here. I'm not going to repeat it, because it just doesn't seem to sink in when the individual does not listen. So what can I do? Sit down and listen to some more of the claptrap that we've heard.

MR. BLENCOE: It's unfortunate the minister uses such language. He and his government may think they're doing great things for housing, but the people of British Columbia don't believe it and haven't seen it. I just use one example, again. Close to $340 million you're going to take in from property purchase tax this year, right out of the pockets of many young British Columbians trying to own their own home for the first time. He tells me he's doing a lot for affordable housing. Take a look at the budget: $35 million. Just a fraction of that one item — the property purchase tax — is going back into social housing.

You can go on and list all the various things that are in other ministries that you are adding to your housing program, but the reality is that 0.27 percent of the provincial budget is going into affordable housing. That's the reality. And close to $340 million, it is estimated this year — that one tax alone, out of people trying to buy their first home, the property purchase tax.... And they return $35.7 million to affordable housing programs.

[4:45]

Today the minister has blamed just about everybody for their lack of programs. The people of the province can get the facts, get the budget estimates. It's all here; it's documented.

He blames, among other people, the awful federal government. Mr. Chairman, they're closer to you politically than they are to us.

But you know what they see? They must wonder. You go to their table and they say: 'What's your government prepared to put into social housing?" They take a look at what else you're collecting out of the housing program and the taxes you collect and the money you take from young British Columbians trying to get into the market. Then they take a look at the figures and they say: "Boy, only $35 million for social housing? That's a real commitment from the provincial government!" They say: "Why should we help you out when you're not even prepared to give 1 percent of your provincial budget? You only give 0.27 percent of your provincial budget to housing."

What's the incentive for a Conservative government in Ottawa to improve the provincial seed, when they see a provincial government that has.... I can go back over the last five years and take a look at the money you've spent on social housing. For a while there, if I recall, Nova Scotia was ahead of us. Newfoundland was ahead of us. For the last ten years we've had an atrocious record in this area. And of course what the government does is spend millions of dollars on television, trying to convince us otherwise. Well, the facts speak for themselves.

The minister can blame municipalities. He can blame the federal government. He can blame the New Democrats for citing the figures — right out of the budget — for housing. He can say, as others say: "Well, if they can't find housing they can move elsewhere." But the evidence is there.

Let me go back a little bit, because the minister was talking about this issue. I recall, when I was in this House back in '83-84, that this same party eliminated rent review and the rentalsman and virtually gutted all social housing programs. The housing portfolio has been tagged on to so many ministries over the years. It has never been treated seriously. I listened in this House to the government of the day saying: "The problem with housing, why we're not getting rental accommodation, is that we had all of those awful things like the rentalsman, rent review and a decent Residential Tenancy Act" — all those security items for tenants. "That's the reason we're not getting housing." I remember the minister of the day and all of the Social Credit members sitting over there saying: "Yes, let's get rid of all of those things for tenants, and the private sector will build everything you want. They won't need incentives."

I recall that vividly: "We won't need incentives; we won't need subsidies for the private sector. Just

[ Page 9817 ]

get rid of them." Michael Walker, the guru of the Social Credit Party, was telling us all: "Get rid of those awful things that slow the market down." We all read about it and listened to it. I know that Michael Walker and some of the others from the Fraser Institute were advising the government of the day and, I assume, still advise them today: "Get rid of them, and the private sector will build all of the rental accommodation. They won't need any incentives. They won't need any subsidies."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Heavens, we had a Premier who came into office saying that we didn't need any subsidies for the private sector and that all of that taxpayers' money was going to create incentives for the private sector. Do you remember the Premier saying that, Mr. Chairman? I do vividly; so do the taxpayers. But Michael Walker and Social Credit said: "Get rid of the rentalsman. Get rid of rent review. Get rid of rent control. Get rid of the decent Residential Tenancy Act, and everything will be rosy in the province in rental accommodation."

What happened? I assume that when those tenants were told that all of those things would go — a million tenants, 40 percent of the population — they assumed that the government and the private sector would respond. They got rid of all of the security items. They told them that they would build all of the housing; that they wouldn't need them; that there'd be high vacancy rates, lots of housing.

What happened in the city of Vancouver? In '82-83, the last years of all of those awful things Social Credit wanted to get rid of — rent review, the rentalsman, a decent Residential Tenancy Act — there were 1,800 private sector rental starts. That was the last year of those awful things they said they had to get rid of because the private sector wasn't building anything. What happened in subsequent years, after all of those things disappeared? Remember what Michael Walker and this government said about the security-of-tenure legislation and protection: "Get rid of them."

In 1984, the last year of any vestige of the rentalsman, there were 846 private sector units. Then we had no protection, no rent review, no rent control, no rentalsman and a weak Residential Tenancy Act.

In 1985 there were 275 private sector starts. What happened to the theory? "Get rid of all those things," said Michael Walker and the government of the day. "If we get rid of those things, everything will be rosy. We don't need subsidies."

I thought 1985 might have been a blip. There was such a drop. Remember, in '82-83, the last years of the security of the rentalsman and rent review, there were 1,800 units. In 1986 we had had at least two years of those awful things — according to this government — being gone. How many private sector units were built? Where is Michael Walker now? Where are all of those Socred ministers now? There were 88 private sector units built. What happened to the theory? What happened to the great rhetoric from the Social Credit government of the day: "Get rid of those things and everything will be rosy. The private sector will build all of the units you want"? In 1986 after over two years of the so-called formula from Michael Walker, the guru of the Social Credit Party in housing, we had 88 units built.

What happened in 1988, after just about five years of having none of those awful things the government wanted to get rid of — protection for tenants, dialogue between tenants and landlords, a decent Residential Tenancy Act, security of tenure and rent review? You'd have thought they would have had lots of time.... The minister said today that it takes time to build. All right, I've given them five years from the time those things were eliminated. In 1988 only 315 private sector rental units were started in the city of Vancouver.

I go back once again to the heyday of rent review, the rentalsman and all of those things in '82-83. In those awful times, 1,800 units were started. But four or five years later, after you took the advice of Michael Walker and all of those other people who kept saying we couldn't have those decent protection items for tenants, we had 1,400 fewer units than under rent review, rent control and the rentalsman.

Michael Walker, who advises this administration, has his answer to today's question. He says he can't give any answers to why the private sector didn't respond, but he says: "The mere anticipation that somehow rent review and the rentalsman might come back is enough to place a chilling effect on such investment." What an excuse! This is the man who advised this government that all would be well if it got rid of all those things. What happened to the market? It disappeared. Tenants today don't have the housing they were promised. They don't have the vacancy rate they were promised. They don't have the housing sector doing it without subsidy, as they were promised.

They don't have rent review. They don't have a decent Residential Tenancy Act. Any rent increase is legal — 60 or 70 percent. And we were promised by this administration great things for the private sector. I'm not blaming the private sector. I'm just asking the government what happened.

HON. MR. DUECK: Did it help Ontario?

MR. BLENCOE: Don't give me Ontario. I'm home here, in British Columbia. This is downtown British Columbia; we're not talking Ontario. Stop giving us all those red herrings, all those other provinces or other countries. This is British Columbia. I know this government doesn't want to talk about the record of British Columbia. Of course they don't, because it's abysmal, it's atrocious, and their policies have been an abject failure.

What happened to the theory? What happened to the private sector? The government told me and my colleagues back in '83-84 not to worry. They said the private sector would respond and build all we needed and we wouldn't need all those security items: rent review and a rentalsman.

[ Page 9818 ]

What does the minister have to say today? What does his government have to say today? What happened to the promises. If you can't meet your promises, in our view there should be a decent Residential Tenancy Act, a rentalsman and rent review in the province to protect tenants and give them a dialogue between the landlord and tenant. That's what should happen. What happened, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I think I will ask the member to read the Blues, and he'll get all the answers. I've repeated them about four times now.

MR. BLENCOE: I understand the minister has no answers to the promises of five or six years ago. Is there no answer to the Premier's statement that the private sector didn't need any subsidy to build or to get anything going?

HON. MR. DUECK: Oh, yes. Just read the Blues tomorrow. You'll know the answer.

MR. BLENCOE: No answer. They clearly have no answer. Their formula was a failure. We don't have mechanisms to protect tenants. We don't have fair rent review.

Following the extreme views of the Walter Blocks and the Michael Walkers of this world, who say that the way to resolve the housing problems in the province is to grant economic freedom to landlords, what do we have? Their theory is to grant total economic freedom to landlords.

I think we've had that for the last five or six years We're now in a massive rental housing problem and a housing crisis. We see a government that is only prepared to spend a fraction of what it says it's spending in the television ads. This minister is not prepared to deal with the very issues that British Columbians want dealt with.

I would like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, why he is so opposed to a rent review process?

[5:00]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, the member will have the opportunity to speak to the minister in charge of rent control, and he can go at him as long as he wishes. I've repeated the answers to all the other questions he's asked at least four times, if not more They are all there, and he can read them tomorrow — or I can read them to him.

We have programs in place to help renters. We always try and do more. We will review them again There will be an increase in GAIN. There will be an increase in shelter allowance. There will be an increase in SAFER.

As I mentioned, as far as rentals are concerned, if we talk about other than social housing, I have an allotment of $80 million, and as fast as the private sector can construct those units, there's no stopping. They can go ahead and build them in the next six months if they wish, or four months or three months

A lot of them are coming on stream now and more for the end of the year.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is there. I've got the authority to spend that kind of money that will produce roughly 8,000 units for the rental market. Most of these are for long term. The first 2,000 that we sought proposals for were for an average 24 years of rental commitment, and the last batch of 2,000 was for 15 years. They're long-term commitments for the rental housing market.

What more can I say? I've said it over and over again. If the member does wish to make political gain by repeating and repeating.... I know it eats up the clock, and I suppose that's what it's all about. I don't think we're accomplishing much. I'm telling my story and he's trying to tell his story, and I know I'm right and he's wrong, so let it be at that.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister's comments prior to his comments a minute ago were trying to defend the vacancy rate in British Columbia. Let's first put it on the record: we do indeed have the worst vacancy rate in the country. Yet we supposedly had all these wonderful programs at work.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we're going to blame everybody else again, and the minister is consoled by a growth in the vacancy rate of 0.1 percent in Victoria over a year ago. I guess that's his claim to success — a 0.1 percent increase in Victoria and a 0.4 percent increase in Vancouver. That's the result of all the programs they've been telling the people about on television.

What he fails to tell this House today, and everybody else, is that the average rate in all other urban centres declined. The 17 urban centres in British Columbia had lower vacancy rates in April 1990 than one year ago. You should take a look at some of the areas that are having incredible problems with housing. And you are consoled.

I'm not going to restate this again, but this government is trying to convince the people that they are taking action. I have already shown — and I won't go through it again — what the budget says and where they're putting their money, but yet, in terms of creating affordable housing, it's minimal. Their emphasis is on the supply program. The jury's out on that, Mr. Minister. I'm going to get to that later, with some figures that we have done in terms of what that will do to the vacancy rate a year from now. If we get to it today, we'll get to it, but I want to know where you're coming from on that issue too.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen supposedly major housing programs announced, but the proof is in the pudding. It's in the figures. Figures don't lie. We have a worse housing crisis than we had two years ago. This government was warned some years ago that things were getting bad and that they should take some action and start to do some things. But they ignored it, and basically their plan of action has been to hope and pray that somehow it would all go away.

[ Page 9819 ]

They could sweep it under the carpet, and somehow miraculously it would improve.

I think the minister should take a look at what's happening in other jurisdictions. Maybe he should take a look at the Ontario housing programs. Maybe he should take a look at their commitment to housing. Maybe they should take a look at what's happening. They really should tell the people of British Columbia that this government is not serious about constructing affordable housing at all.

Some months ago, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our party and our caucus, I released a strategy for housing in British Columbia. It was the result of a number of months of consultation by a committee of private and public sector people in housing, people in the financial world, people who know the housing field. We released it, and it has received support. We continue to meet with private sector people who are interested in the starter-home program and the various other components of this.

I'm going to go through it in a minute, Mr. Chairman, but I want to ask the minister.... When this was released, this comprehensive program for home ownership and rental housing and additional initiatives by the municipalities, this same minister over there said about the strategy that I released — obviously his staff must have studied it and taken a look at it: "It's interesting to note that the NDP strategy is practically identical to the one I'm going to present to cabinet next week."

HON. MR. DUECK: In certain areas.

MR. BLENCOE: That's what you said: "...practically identical to the one I'm going to present to cabinet next week." I want to know from the minister what happened on the road to the cabinet. He said it's identical; obviously he had something drawn up The minister just said: "In certain areas." Well, first of all, maybe the minister could tell me which area is identical to what you've drawn up. Start with that question.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I haven't got that report in front of me. I would have to look at it, or you can remind me what your report says. But there were certain parts of that report that were quite in line with what we were thinking: for example, more rental units and assisting the private sector, which we've done; more social housing; to get in touch with the federal government and ask for more housing. These are all motherhood issues, saying that I would go to the federal government and ask for an increase of a thousand units. Fine. Gladly. We'd do that too. That doesn't build houses. It's the other areas of that particular report, where they're going to build X number of thousands of units, and they're not going to spend more than a certain amount of money — it's absolute hogwash. It can't be done. Even that member isn't that ignorant.

I always have to bring up the Ontario model at this point, Mr. Chairman. We have a problem here, because our economy has been good, and people are moving to this province in droves — 60,000 people net in-migration. And where from? Most of them are from Ontario. Ontario has rent controls, and they still have a rental problem. So answer that one.

What I'm saying is that we have to provide supply. That's what my program is doing. It doesn't matter how often that member repeats that we're doing nothing and we're not spending money. I've got the authority to build 8,000 units for the rental market, and as quickly as they can be put on stream, they will be there.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to carry on with this, because I read this statement in the newspaper, the Squamish Times.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You don't like Squamish?

Okay. January 30, 1990, the minister.... One minute he was attacking what I was saying, but then he says — I'll repeat it: "It's interesting to note that the NDP strategy is practically identical to the one I'm going to present to cabinet next week."

Mr. Chairman, our program is comprehensive. It has been welcomed by the public and private sectors. We will work with industry and local communities. We believe in a partnership between public and private sectors. We do talk about starter homes, tax breaks for first-time and modest home buyers. We talk about increasing second mortgages. We talk about cooling land speculation. We talk about home renovations to encourage energy efficiency. We want rent stabilization. We want to bring back the rentalsman. We want to protect renters from unfair evictions. We want to end discrimination against tenants. We want security for seniors who rent. We want to provide public land to increase housing — a Crown land policy. We want greater assistance for rental conversions. We want protection in law for owners of manufactured homes. We want to ensure public benefit from new developments. We want to research new housing projects and look at innovations around the world. We want a stable land supply and landbanking for housing.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other things. This was welcomed. It was developed in a comprehensive strategy for home-ownership, for rental and for municipalities. The minister said on looking at it that it was identical to the program he was going to take to cabinet. Yet I've had the Premier, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) and I don't know how many other Social Credit members attack it: that's a no-good housing policy; it didn't make any sense. Yet our side of the House continues to meet with the private sector on the starter-home program. We're putting it together. We are going to build starter homes for young British Columbians. But I want to know what happened on that crooked, surreptitious road to the cabinet table. The minister said it was identical. Unless I'm missing something in the budget, and unless there's something not here in the second provincial housing action plan.... We had

[ Page 9820 ]

the first one: great, massive, recycled news releases announced last year. We have another one now. I don't know, Mr. Chairman; the minister said it was identical. I wonder what happened on the road to the cabinet.

He's quite right: this program is comprehensive. It has been welcomed by the public and private sectors. We continue to work on it with public and private sector housing organizations. We continue to call for a starter-home program. We continue to call for tax breaks for first-time and modest home buyers— the $340-odd million that you're going to take out of the pockets of people buying homes in British Columbia. We call for an exemption for the first-time homebuyer and for plugging of the loophole for corporations that avoid paying the tax.

[5:15]

Mr. Chairman, we want second mortgages for our young people — up to $20,000 for first-time homebuyers. We want programs to help the first-time homebuyer who sees that older house that perhaps is a little rundown and may need $10,000 to renovate it to get it back up to scratch. But they can't afford that renovation cost if they buy it. We want to help that young person get into that starter home.

The minister says our program is identical. He was on the road to cabinet. He said: "Next week I'm going." Well, we've called for that, and it has been welcomed by the private sector, by the Canadian Home Builders' Association, by developers and by various real estate people. This is a way to help out not necessarily by masses of government money, but by stimulation, innovation, public and private initiative and a partnership program.

We wanted to cool land speculation. I don't see that on the road to the cabinet table. As the minister says, "His program" — that's referring to me — "is identical to the one I'm going to present to cabinet next week." I don't see that. But maybe we're not looking at the right page. Maybe the minister can direct me to the identical program to ours over here.

Could he direct me to the home renovation program to encourage energy efficiency? Could he direct me to the identical program he was going to introduce after we released ours?

I wonder if he could direct me to the section on protection from loss of home and property, under the foreclosure section and better protection for homeowners. Could he point me to that?

MR. PERRY: What about speculation control?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, that's cooling land speculation. I'm looking for the section that cools off land speculation. I'm looking for it, and I can't find it. Perhaps the minister can direct me to that. I'm wondering if he can direct me to the rent stabilization program and the rentalsman and the residential tenancy act that treats landlords and tenants equally under law. He said: "It's identical to the one I'm going to present to cabinet next week."

Could he direct me to the section that protects renters from unfair evictions? I tabled a private member's bill last year — and will be doing it again — to protect tenants from unfair evictions, demolition, conversion or the long-term-lease problem that really is still not rectified. I'm wondering if the minister can direct me to that.

We said in our policy — and the minister said he was going to table an identical program — that we would stop discrimination against tenants based on race, age and sex. In British Columbia today we have children who are virtually second-class citizens when their families come to rent accommodation. You can discriminate in this province based on family composition. I don't see anything of that in this program, Mr. Chairman.

I don't see the announcement by us that the portion of rent supplement units and co-op housing would also be increased from 30 percent to 50 percent. I don't see the announcement that we would give municipalities the right to restrict demolition of rental accommodation if they saw fit. I don't see that in the book, In the program or in the announcement. I don't see the announcement of increasing non-profit and co-op housing in the province of British Columbia that I announced on behalf of our party.

We are committed to doubling the number of non-profit housing units to 3,600 a year for a negotiated agreement. We don't see that. Yet the minister says that he was on the road to cabinet. I don't see it, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us if that's for the next budget; maybe that's coming up. I think the people of the province would like real housing programs; they'd like real action.

I would like the minister to once again tell us where the things are in here that I have referred to, which are in our strategy and are comprehensive. On January 30, he said he was on the road to cabinet to table a virtually identical program. Was it killed by his cabinet colleagues — our program which has been recognized as comprehensive? Was it killed because it's a New Democratic strategy? Is that why it was killed, Mr. Chairman? Has partisan politics become so strong on that side of the House that they would scuttle a program the minister said was virtually identical to the one I announced?

MR. BRUCE: Did you make an announcement?

MR. BLENCOE: The member for Cowichan-Malahat — I think; isn't it? — Is in the House. I'm pleased to see him.

MR. REID: Where's your leader?

MR. BLENCOE: They want to know where the leader is. I'll tell you where the Leader of the Opposition is: he's on business.

MR. BRUCE: I want to get back to this announcement.

MR. BLENCOE: The announcement is clear. I want to know from the minister what happened. I suspect it was virtually identical. I suspect they know that

[ Page 9821 ]

our work for a year with the private and public sectors was correct, and our announcement was correct. Our comprehensive strategy on home-ownership, rental and those various other things — many of them self-financing, with very little exposure to the taxpayer — was correct.

But what happened was that this administration couldn't bring itself to admit that the New Democrats were right in housing. This minister, going virtually with our housing programs to cabinet, said: "Boy, they're on the right track. We'd better get on board. We'd better get it done, because I'm on record as saying that I'm going to introduce a program that's virtually identical." He got in there with those hawks in cabinet, the old guard that turns this House back again to the old ways of "anything New Democrat is no good, anything that is creative or innovative from the other side is no good." And they said: "Bury that innovative program. It's New Democrat."

Now what has the minister got to say today? January 30: "My program is virtually identical to the New Democrat strategy, and I'm on the way to cabinet."

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're on the way to cabinet.

MR. BLENCOE: If we are on the way to cabinet, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you: here is the housing program. The minister said he wanted to introduce it, but it got killed by the Socred hawks, the negative Nellies on the government side who can't do anything innovative unless it comes from Michael Walker or all those gurus from the Fraser Institute.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Or Walter Block.

Can the minister tell us? I've given him our strategy, and I'll go over it again if the minister so desires. But you know, I can only conclude that the negative Nellies in cabinet — those hawks, those members of the government who would never want to admit that New Democrats were on the right track for housing....

MR. BARLEE: Or anything.

MR. BLENCOE: Or anything — thank you.

They don't want to admit that. They don't want to admit the year's work consulting with people in the public and private sectors, financial institutions, real estate agents and developers and public housing authorities, and that we came up with a novel, innovative, unique program that this minister said he was on his way to cabinet to introduce. They don't want to admit that.

Is that what happened, Mr. Minister? Did you have a tough time in cabinet from those hawks? Did the old Socred ways win again, so you couldn't do what is right? It had to be who was right, and you think you're always right on that side. What is right in the province of British Columbia? The minister admitted this was the program for the future. But no, the old Socred ways won out again. It was who was right. Who is right? "Us Socreds are always right." But what is right didn't win. What was right was that this program should have been introduced. This is the way of the future. I want to know from the minister what happened on the way to cabinet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has certainly taken us down a long road to cabinet.

HON. MR. DUECK: The long road to Damascus.

The statement he's quoting isn't quite correct. I said that some of what he identified in this policy paper was in fact part of our strategy and very close to what we were doing — for example, starter homes for young families. Of course, these are motherhood issues. We've got pilot projects that are going to be announced soon for starter homes for young families. There are many things here that are good. Because they don't have to attach a dollar to it — they don't spend the dollar — they just say that this is what we should do.

For example, on providing a second mortgage of up to $20,000, we increased that, up from $150,000 to a home worth $200,000. We made changes there. Prohibit discrimination: that's in legislation for another ministry. Good stuff. Build 5,000 units of non-profit and cooperative housing. Exactly. Again, with federal government funding, that's what I've been speaking about all afternoon. I would like to get 5,000 units of social housing. This is identical to what I want to do. I want 5,000 units of social housing, but you've got to have partners to go with it. He says: "All of them are going to be self-financing." You're going to build 5,000 units of social housing, and you don't need money. What a bunch of hogwash! It's so ridiculous that someone who knew only a little about real estate wouldn't say that.

Increase the number of rent supplement housing units. I talked to the federal Minister of Housing a number of times. We've talked about the 30 percent versus 50 percent. He says: "Fine, we'll go along with it, but you take it out of your 1,886 units." The people of this province would lose, not gain. To put it in print and say: "This is what we should do...." If you don't have to spend any money, the answers are so easy. They're easy on that side, because they've got all the right words to say, but they don't have to perform.

MR. BLENCOE: You said it.

HON. MR. DUECK: I said.... Mr. Chairman, can I repeat? There are some things here.... When he was turning around and talking to other people, he wasn't listening. I said that some of these things are identical to what we are trying to do and are doing. That's what I said at that time. Sure, you can change the wording and put the emphasis on whatever you want.

It says that shelter aid for the elderly and the shelter component should be adjusted and increased.

[ Page 9822 ]

That's exactly what we're doing, so it's identical. What's wrong with that? We're going to increase the shelter. We're going to increase SAFER, and we're going to review and adjust it. That's exactly what we're doing.

Sure, some of the items are correct. Manufactured homes. I am in contact now with someone who builds manufactured homes. We're trying to find a municipality that will allow us to put up manufactured homes in their area, because I think it is a good, viable substitute for a starter home.

Interjection.

HON. MR- DUECK: Exactly. All the Crown lands are now identified, and they are available for exactly what you are talking about today, Mr. Member.

[5:30]

MR. CASHORE: You squandered the land.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, we've identified them. They're available, and we're going to use them. Mr. Chairman, would the member please wait until he has a turn to talk about it.

MR. CASHORE: What about Mill Creek Village?

HON. MR. DUECK: Don't get upset; just be nice.

MR. CASHORE: You blew Mill Creek.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. DUECK: Pilot projects. We've talked to a number of developers who are going to look into pilot projects in that particular area. First, starter homes.

A lot of this stuff is identical and exactly what we're doing. I would venture to say — and turn the tables around — that a lot of the ideas actually came from our program, and they put them in there and added a few things to them. That's what they've done, and that's why they had some ideas that were viable. But they added a few stingers to it that can't be done.

They don't have to perform, so they can say anything under the sun they please. They just say: "When we come into power, what we would do is build 10,000 units of cheap housing and everybody could have affordable housing." But they don't have to perform, so it's easy to say. Do anything you want; say anything you want. You don't have to perform. It's a bunch of hogwash, and that's why we are playing games in this House. We're just making that clock go around and around, and we're not getting anywhere, because they're not coming to the issues and listening to what I have to say. We're producing 1,886 units of social housing a year. I'm desperately trying to increase that; I'd like to double that. I have the authority to go ahead with 8,000 rental supply program units — that green light is there — as fast as the developers can put those up. The private sector produced start-up of 40,000 units last year alone, and it's supposed to be increased this year.

The other thing is that 60,000 people came in because we have a good economy. And most of those people came from Ontario. Ontario has rent controls, and it still has a problem.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. BRUCE: I just want to speak a little bit about housing in this province and housing in our area. When I hear the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) speak, it sounds to me like there hasn't been a house, an apartment or a unit constructed in British Columbia at all. But, Mr. Member, I can tell you that in my area housing starts are way up. The new development that has taken place in my area has come back to the peak of the first part of the eighties. When these new houses are built — it's funny — people moving into the province move into those houses. And people living in the area build new houses. So do you know what happens? The houses that they're living in come onto the market, and they usually come onto the market at a lower price than the new houses they are moving into. People who are trying to get started — and my area is not a high-priced area, granted — can move into those houses. So there are starts there. They don't understand that.

The other thing is that in my area there have been a number of low-cost housing initiatives through the ministry. There have been a number of senior housing complexes developed in my area, through the ministry; and first citizens' housing complexes, through the cooperative program, through the ministry and through CMHC.

Do you know what has been interesting about those complexes? I'd like to tell you this, because I'd like to talk a little bit about "on the road to Bratislava." I heard about "on the road to cabinet"; then I heard about "on the road to Damascus." I'd like to talk about "on the road to Bratislava." For those of you who don't know, Bratislava is a city in Czechoslovakia.

First, let me tell you about these housing complexes that we have in our area. They're unique; they're different. They're low-cost housing. They're not all standard, block wall, all identical. You know, if you go home late at night and maybe you were with the boys and you had a pop or something on the way, or maybe you're just really tired, you can walk into the wrong house because they're all identical. That has been somewhat like the socialist philosophy: lowest common denominator, everything identical, nothing entrepreneurial and nothing of that individual spirit reflected in the type of developments that take place.

Mr. Member, I would be happy to show you, if you'd like to come up to my area, these different housing complexes, because you....

MR. BLENCOE: I'm often in your area.

[ Page 9823 ]

MR. BRUCE: You're often in my area because your folks live in it. They know a good place to live. Cowichan-Malahat is a beautiful place to live. There are some nice housing developments — good residential areas.

What's really interesting is that each one of the units in these housing complexes is unique and different. They're done in attached dwellings, but they have character. They have kind of an individual spirit to them. So when you move in, you feel that you're really moving into your own home and that you're part of this province.

We've got to try and get a step further, Mr. Minister. We've got to try to somehow turn those housing complexes into actual home-ownership. It's a step more, but we've got to try and get there so that those people can own those homes. They're nice. I know, in speaking with the people living there, that they feel good.

Now let me tell you about "on the road to Bratislava, " into Czechoslovakia. It was great — on the road, and we were just entering Bratislava. I want to tell you about social housing complexes in Bratislava.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: You listen up there, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I know you don't like this.

There were rows and rows of these apartments — five and six storeys high, all the same, all white, all social housing to the nth degree; no individual spirit, no creative development. They were all done by the state, all done by government, all done by just what this group — the opposition — would like to see in British Columbia: row after row after row.... It's funny, Mr. Member, driving by and seeing all of the blocks and blocks of housing. It came to me — I thought: "blencoeblocks."

Mr. Minister, I think we've got some good things happening here in the province. We've got growth; we've got people moving in. We've got developments that have some individual creativity, and I think you should carry on on that road. I caution you: when the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) speaks, please.... Mr. Minister, I know you have to listen out of courtesy to what's being said. But for the people of British Columbia, don't employ blencoeblocks throughout this great province. Leave the blencoeblocks; leave the former socialists and what's happened over there in the east there. We don't want blencoeblocks in British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, there's the member who led a mini-revolt, who put on his little running shoes and said that the Premier was a terrible person, that he was going to lead another party, that Social Credit was finished and that they were awful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you that the debate should be relevant to the vote before us at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that if that member gets up again and does the same thing, you'll bring him back. I just want to remind you that that member, who is the third minister of defence for the Minister of Housing today.... Where were you a few months ago? Oh, how they change! How they flip-flop! His constituents in Cowichan-Malahat know the classic flip-flop. They know what you're all about. You got scared, didn't you? You thought you could lead, a mini-revolt. Mr. Chairman, he failed, and he came back. He joined the sinking ship again. His constituents have his number. He wants to get into cabinet. That's what it's all about. This is the member for Cowichan-Malahat: "Now you see me; now you don't. Now I've got my running shoes; now I haven't."

The point is, Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Socred? Is he a half-Socred?

MR. BLENCOE: Very much a Socred. He is a lieutenant in the Zalmoid army now. He has rejoined. He's got his stirrups and his saddle, and he has now rejoined the Zalmoids. Good man.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is that the minister was on the road to cabinet. He was going to introduce an identical program. He's now saying that he did various parts of it. He knows that this administration is following our programs. He knows we're leading the way in housing programs and in innovation. When he announced on January 30 that he was going to cabinet with the identical program, he knew we had set the stage. But when he got there....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You weren't in cabinet, and you never will be.

When he got there, the cabinet would have nothing to do with it at all. It's very sad that because of partisan positions and old-line Socred ways of doing things, the people of British Columbia are not going to be allowed a housing program that the minister himself said on January 30 was identical to the one he was going to present to cabinet.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.