[ Page 9825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Whistle Blowers Protection Act (Bill M208). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9825

Environmental Protection Act (Bill M209). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9825

Private Members' Statements

Environmental protection. Mr. Cashore –– 9826

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Disposable diapers. Mr. Loenen –– 9828

Mr. Clark

Preserving the urban environment. Ms. Cull –– 9830

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Role of private members. Mr. Serwa –– 9833

Mrs. Boone

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 9836

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9836

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Bruce

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like the House to welcome 30 students and their teachers from Port McNeill who are here this morning in the gallery. These students attend North Island Secondary School in Port McNeill. I've so far seen Rod Bain and Pat Parker with them, and I'd like the House to welcome both the students and the teachers.

MRS. McCARTHY: I have two introductions to make today. The first one I would like the House to welcome is Mr. Bill McEwen of West Vancouver. I want to tell you a little about Mr. McEwen. He's an outstanding British Columbian, a resident of West Vancouver, and therefore a constituent of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. He has been national secretary of the Liberal Party of Canada since 1985. He is president of the Council for Canadian Unity for British Columbia, a member of the British Columbia advisory council of the Federal Business Development Bank, a member of the Commonwealth Games Association of Canada, a past president of the Sports Federation of Canada, a governor of Hockey Canada, a member of the Canadian Olympic Association, honorary president of Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, director of Northwest Sports Enterprises Ltd. and honorary governor and past president of the B.C. Lions football club. These are among many other accomplishments and honours that Mr. McEwen has received over the years.

I'm pleased to tell you that he is accompanied by his wife Irene. Mr. and Mrs. McEwen have brought to the House today a Labour Party Member of Parliament for the mother parliament in Britain, the Rt. Hon. Denis Howell. Between '64 and '69 Denis Howell served as Undersecretary of State for Education and Science and Minister of State for Housing and Local Government. Between 1974 and 1979 he was Minister of State for the Environment. He has many distinguished awards, including the Olympic Order for 1981. In his career he was responsible for drought, floods and even earthquakes, and that earned him the title of Mr. Rainmaker. He is accompanied by his wife Brenda, and I would like to ask the House to give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's in my role as MLA for West Vancouver–Howe Sound that I would like to rise and welcome one of my famous constituents, Bill McEwen and his wife Irene. Bill is a very well-respected person not only in my constituency but throughout British Columbia. It's nice to see him here enjoying the day's sitting on a Friday morning.

MS. CULL: I'd like to ask the House to welcome two friends of mine in the gallery today: Daniel Mildenberger and Jocelyn Jenkins, who is also my constituency assistant.

Introduction of Bills

WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Whistle Blowers Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE: This bill provides protection for workers who report pollution violations by their employers. It also gives workers the right to refuse to work in situations involving pollution violations. A worker is protected from being dismissed, disciplined, penalized, coerced or intimidated for complying with or seeking enforcement of environmental legislation or giving information to the Ministry of Environment or other appropriate ministry. Where a worker refuses to carry out work due to pollution violations, a complaint and investigation procedure is set out. The burden of proof that an employer did not dismiss, discipline, penalize or intimidate an employee who reports a pollution violation or refuses to work is on the employer.

Bill M208 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Environmental Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this bill will replace present inadequate environmental guidelines with a single and effective environmental protection law. The major project review process is not mandated by law. It contains large loopholes and does not require independent panels to conduct reviews.

This bill requires that all major projects, both public and private, undergo independent public environmental review. These include fish-farms, dams, dredging projects, river-diversion wharves, major public and forest roads, railways, airports, oil and gas pipelines, power stations and major power lines, pulp mills, oil refineries, ferro-alloy plants, aluminium smelters, etc.

No major development shall be permitted to proceed until it has undergone a public environmental review process and has met environmental protection standards. This process will ensure that all methods of mitigating negative impacts on the environment are identified and addressed prior to development taking place. All public costs and infrastructure requirements necessary to protect the environment will be identified before a development is allowed to proceed. Intervener funding will be provided in order to provide fair and meaningful participation in the review process.

[ Page 9826 ]

Bill M209 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.

Private Members' Statements

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, for too long the British Columbia environment has been a victim of pollution. We all know that we have one of the most beautiful areas of the world to protect, and it is not being protected. I guess you'd call this the bad news and the good news. The good news is that there is a growing movement of girls and boys, men and women, who want to be a part of the solution. They want to see recycling work. They want to see auto emissions dealt with. They want to see a reduction in the toxic effluent that's being released into our environment.

Mr. Speaker, there's one industry that is not being effectively dealt with by this government, and that's the pulp and paper industry — a major polluter that causes extreme ramifications with regard to other aspects of the life in our province. We cannot simply continue to stand by and allow the degradation of our rivers and oceans, our air and land. Year after year continuous Social Credit governments have simply contributed to the problem by their benign neglect They've failed to enforce their own weak laws They've participated in deals that have allowed permit violations. They've cut back on enforcement staff.

This has caused a severe morale problem among some very fine people working in the Ministry of Environment, who've been put in an impossible situation in trying to fulfil their mandate. We've had the situation of Mr. Doug Sandberg, an expert on air emissions, leaving the ministry in disgust because the mandate he felt he had to fulfil simply was not enabled under the political interference of this government. Recently we've had Mr. Doug Adolph, a conservation officer of 20 years, who left the ministry just a few weeks ago in disgust because of the inability to fulfil his mandate.

There simply are not the people to be able to follow up on the multitudinous matters that need to be dealt with by our conservation officer staff. The fact is that this staff was decimated by cuts during the so-called restraint era and has never caught up These people, these excellent workers in the ministry, are having to take the flak for the political mistakes made by previous governments and this present Social Credit government.

The citizens of British Columbia are simply disgusted to see that people who make their livelihood in the industry of fishing crab and shrimp in the areas of Howe Sound and Prince Rupert are losing their livelihood. The pulp workers are disgusted that they have to participate in an industry that causes that kind of problem.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are disgusted that the native people, who rely on a traditional food fishery downstream of pulp mills in the interior, had to receive warnings from the federal government and from the Minister of Health that they should exercise caution because of the presence of dioxins in the fish in their waters.

The potential economic damage to tourism is incredible, as the word gets around that this government is failing to enforce environmental law.

Another economic factor in our province is the sport fishing industry. Again, that is impacted by the negative aspect of the benign neglect and the failure of this government to come to terms with the pollution problems.

To recognize that we will be accused of this being simply a political statement, I quote the words of an independent judge in this province, Justice Thomas Dohm. It was reported in the Vancouver Sun on May 18. The provincial government's failure to enforce pollution permits "just makes the whole system ridiculous." Justice Thomas Dohm said that in the B.C. Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, it's ridiculous; it certainly is. What we have here is ineffective monitoring and ineffective enforcement. We have pulp companies that are given a $200 ticket for a pollution offence; these companies are, in some instances, receiving profits of more than half a million dollars a day — a $200 ticket.

The average British Columbian knows that the effect of a traffic fine is a $60 ticket. It hurts them in the pocketbook. But this isn't hurting these companies.

It doesn't have to be this way, and we're going to change it. The bills that we have presented in this House during this past week indicate to the House and to the public that we're going to change it. That's going to be good for the environment because it will be a cleanup. It's going to be good for the public because it will be a healthier environment. It's going to be good for workers because workers are environmentalists in this province.

[10:15]

It's going to be good for industry because industry is capable of being good corporate citizens. This will set the guidelines. They will know the rules of the game, and they'll adhere to those rules because we're going to enforce them. We're going to improve the morale in the Ministry of Environment. We're going to enable those good people who work there to do the job and not have to suffer continued political interference.

These bills will empower courts to issue fines of up to $1 million a day. For wilful neglect and wilful damage the fine will be up to $5 million. There will be prison terms covered in this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. You are now dealing with a matter of legislation which you have introduced to the House but has not yet been called for second reading.

MR. REID: He doesn't know what he's talking about anyway.

[ Page 9827 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale please come to order.

Could you keep the matter to the statements. Regretfully, your time has expired for you to discuss these matters.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's not regretful that his time has expired, because I love to hear him get up there and keep on making statements. He can't even do his research.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Let them just moan a little bit. Moan a little more, because I can go to one point right off the top.

The member said that this government participated in deals. That's absolutely false. This government does not participate in deals. That's what the justice said in the court case. The member said: "Judge Tom Dohm said." I would just like to inform him that Justice Tom Dohm resigned from the Supreme Court months and months ago or years ago. It was his brother, Patrick Dohm, who handled the case That's just a minor detail for these NDPers. They get the wrong judge, the wrong quote. They seem to like to quote what the judges say when they think it's on their side. If it's not on their side, they don't like what the judges say.

I would like to tell you that when it comes to pulp mills, this government has done a better job than any other government in Canada or the world. We lead the world in our technology. This member — the critic on the other side — talks about going to Sweden and seeing all their great processes. Sweden doesn't have the regulations we're proposing to bring in in this session of the Legislature. That's a fact.

I would like to suggest to the critic on the other side that Justice Dohm found there was no agreement. The company is trying to get this case thrown out, using everything under their legal right to do so, but the judge found there were no agreements with this government, because this government does not make agreements behind the scenes with pulp mills in this province. The judge ruled against the company, and their case will be going to court.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, members. It's Friday, almost the weekend.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the financial critic for the NDP to apologize. I heard him yell across the floor: how much did the pulp mills give to my campaign? Is he suggesting that something is wrong with people donating to the Social Credit Party? I remember being in the offices downtown when Murray Pezim donated money to the NDP. You guys don't like to brag about that, do you — the big corporate companies' $5,000 and $10,000 donations that you're not supposed to take?

MR. LOVICK: Why are you so defensive?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm not defensive at all. I'm pleased with every penny I get from everybody in this province, and they're happy to give it to us.

I want to make sure it's on the record that they said that. And I want to make sure the province knows that they received donations well over their $1,000 limit from all across this province. They hide them through lawyers like Mr. Simpson downtown. So don't play innocent with me across here; I'll give you more than you can handle.

The critic for the NDP talked about pulp workers and how they're disgusted with this government. Let me tell him that I've been meeting with pulp workers around this province, and they are disgusted with the NDP for the false information they're putting out about the pulp mills where they work and that they're proud of.

I met with the pulp workers in Crofton, with all the unions there. They told the press: "We don't need whistle-blowing legislation in this province. Our unions will protect any member who wants to stand up and tell the truth about what's happening in our mills." They said that in front of the media, and the member from Cowichan was there. They also said their mill was working hard to improve and bring itself up to standards and was working successfully.

The pulp workers at Howe Sound said the same thing. They are sick and tired of listening to the diatribe from the NDP; listening to their candidates in Powell River who want to close down the pulp mill and put all the people out of work; listening to the critic for the NDP who has gone into the school in Howe Sound and said he'd close the mill and put them out of work; listening to the candidate who has defeated one of the best members sitting in this House on the other side, who wants to close the pulp mill down in his constituency. That's not the policy of this government. This government has a fair but tough policy.

Let me close by saying that last year our fines had a 46 percent increase. The number of charges was a 67 percent increase over the year before. So far this year there are 300 investigations going on.

Mr. Speaker, I will defend my staff. As much as the critic likes to stand up and knock the staff.... The member he talked about who resigned happened to run for the NDP in the last election. Whether that had anything to do with his resignation or not I don't know, but I'm sure it did.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to hearing from the member, I must ask the second member for Vancouver East to advise the House that he was not imputing any improper motive. If the member would stand and do so, we will have dispensed with that minor matter.

MR. CLARK: With respect to donations to the Social Credit Party by pulp mills in the province, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 9828 ]

MR. SPEAKER: All I asked is whether you imputed an improper motive to a member.

MR. CLARK: I said he who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't think that's an improper motive.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm just asking you if you did.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, one thing we agree on is that we're all glad it's on the record. The minister said he's glad it's on the record; we're glad what he said is on the record, and we're glad that what our member said is on the record.

The minister brags about a 400 percent increase and a 67 percent increase as though somehow that's going to change things. What is a percentage increase of boom-all? That's what we've got in this province. I mean, $35,000 was the average for fines in the entire province under the Waste Management Act for the last three years. You could increase that by any percentage the minister wants to come up with and it's still not a deterrent. You have to have a fine system that is a deterrent, such as we put in place on traffic violators.

The minister said that he has done a better job. The people of British Columbia don't fall for that. This government stands condemned on its environmental record alone. That's the simple fact of the case, and that's why the people of this province are going to defeat this government. This minister says that he has done a better job. You tell that to the crab and shrimp fishermen who have lost their livelihood. You tell that to them. You tell that to them and see if it brings any comfort to them for you to tell them these vacant words — that you have done a better job You have not done a better job.

You cannot manage the environment by public relations. If you're going to bring about effective environmental improvement, you don't do it by PR. I know this minister has a background in public relations, but you've got to get out there, Mr. Minister, and you have to change things. You have to enforce the laws. By talking about improving the laws.... If you haven't shown the political will that you know how to enforce your weak laws, how are the people going to believe you when you say you are going to enforce slightly stronger laws? It simply is not going to work. The public knows that. The public sees through it, and no amount of rhetoric and no amount of avoiding dealing with the issues by this ministry is going to change that.

The minister is fond of suggesting that I am critical of his staff. I have never criticized his staff. He has an excellent staff. His staff has been impacted by political interference, and that has rendered those people almost incapable of fulfilling their mandate because they're short-staffed, there's political interference and they know when they do their work there are things going on behind the scenes that don't enable that work to come to fruition. That's a horrible thing. That's detrimental to our environment. It's detrimental to the health of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. And now for something completely different.

DISPOSABLE DIAPERS

MR. LOENEN: I want to talk about something important. I want to talk about diapers. I want to talk not about pulp mills but about things we can all do in our own homes. The environment is of primary importance to all of us — to us, to our children. But in addition to the big questions, there are things we can do in our own homes, in our own kitchens, in our places of work and in our communities. I'd just like to call on the people of this province to think seriously about what we do when we buy disposable diapers.

I'm certainly not the first one to bring to the attention of the public the fact that there is a horrendous waste involved when we use disposable diapers. But I was not aware of the extent of the problem until our research staff prepared some facts and figures. When you start to look at it, the magnitude of the problem is shocking. It is staggering; it is outstanding; it is horrendous. There are problems associated with using disposable diapers that affect the environment, our health and our economy.

In the U.S. we've seen ample studies to detail the data, but so far, unfortunately, we've seen a lot of discussion but no action. It seems that even though we grow increasingly aware of what we're doing to our environment, it is convenience that overrides those environmental concerns, and we continue to use a product that is so very detrimental to our environment.

It's for that reason that I'd like to take a moment to suggest that we need some tough measures. Certainly the deletion of the social services tax exemption on this product was a step in the right direction, but it is only a very small step. What we need are very tough measures.

There are three things that I'd like to propose. First of all, I believe that there must be a very stiff levy on the purchase of disposable diapers, much like what we have now put in place for automobile batteries and tires. I believe it is essential, because it would in some way bring to our attention the true cost of using plastic products that take 500 years to dispose of and to break down.

[10:30]

Secondly, I believe we have to look at what we do in our own government institutions. I strongly believe that any government-funded institution — any hospital or day care centre that gets any money out of government — should not be allowed to use disposable diapers. We should put our own house in order right there to start with and give an example.

Finally, I believe we must provide financial incentives to establish diaper services throughout the province, particularly by using our regional seed capital program.

[ Page 9829 ]

As I said, I believe we must act decisively for the following reasons. There are primarily three problems with the use of disposable diapers.

First of all, the environmental burden. Environmentally, this product has two components. It fills up the landfill sites, because, as I said, plastic does not decompose, as we all know. We have a tremendous problem there.

Secondly, it also uses up natural resources in a most wasteful manner. Let's look at that a little more closely. To begin with, the term "disposable" really is a misnomer, because although you can throw them out, you cannot really throw them away. Each day two million soiled disposable diapers are tossed into Canadian garbage cans. That adds up to roughly 250,000 tonnes of unrecyclable garbage per year. If you break it down, it means every child will contribute as much as a tonne and a half during the first two and a half years of his or her life in the way of these plastic-covered packages. That is a tonne and a half of soggy waste to our overburdened landfill sites.

MR. PERRY: Come on, Nick, give us some humour.

MR. LOENEN: Give us some humour? It's not very funny. It is a very serious problem, and I just hope more people will become aware of it.

Currently we see the "environmentally friendly" labels multiplying. But what that means — and that, too, is misleading — is that those diapers are made of paper without chlorine bleach. Certainly that's a positive step, but it doesn't do anything to lessen the cost of disposing of these diapers.

Last year the Task Force on Municipal Solid Waste Management reported that 60 percent of our disposal sites will be filled within a decade. We have to reduce our consumption of throwaway products.

I think a lot of people are not aware or don't understand that these disposable diapers are an immense drain on our natural resources. According to the Canadian Green Consumers' Guide, the process of making the 1.7 billion diapers per year that our Canadian babies go through requires chopping down 2.4 million trees and converting 77,000 cubic metres of non-renewable natural gas into non-degradable plastic. So we are taking non-renewable resources and turning them into non-degradable plastic. It's a double whammy. It's an immense waste that we ought to be aware of.

In Canada the manufacturing of disposable diapers consumes approximately 65,000 tonnes of pulp, 8,800 tonnes of plastic and 9,800 tonnes of packing material. We should also note that disposables constitute the single largest non-recyclable component of household garbage.

In addition to all that, there are health concerns, because although parents are theoretically supposed to empty the contents, we know that fewer than 5 percent actually do. Most use the solid waste sites as a raw sewage dump, and that leads to all kinds of concerns about the health of sanitary workers, the quality of the water supply and how it affects wildlife.

Diapers can make dumps a breeding-ground for disease. We know there are at least 100 different viruses, including polio and hepatitis, contained in human excrement. We also ought to be aware of the fact that all of them leach out into our soil and underground water supplies.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are monetary concerns. Even though the cost of diapering using disposables seems not all that expensive and even though we don't include the true costs — the costs that should be calculated, mainly the costs of environmental damage — the cost of using disposables is roughly $1,500 more than using cloth diapers. Although the initial investment may be higher for cloth diapers, the long-run costs are much lower.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: I am tempted to say that only a man without children under two could make such a statement, but I won't say that.

Mr. Speaker, I've been asked to respond to this by my colleagues to speak on behalf of all new mothers and fathers in British Columbia. Let me begin by confessing that I am guilty; from time to time I use disposable diapers. But before I'm hung by my toes from the rafters of this building, I want to talk a bit about this. I must confess that although 95 percent of the time I use cloth diapers — and so do my colleagues from Point Grey, my colleague from Trail and others on this side of the House — my family does on occasion stoop to what appears to be the lowest of all low environmental hazards in British Columbia. I'm a polluter, Mr. Speaker; we do use disposable diapers from time to time.

It is a serious problem. The use of disposable diapers has caused serious environmental problems. But what is the Socred solution to this problem? A 6 percent tax on Pampers. That's the solution to this serious environmental problem; that's the Socred solution. How many people will stop using disposable diapers because this government has put a 6 percent tax on them? Well, maybe a few poor people or maybe a few yuppies who can get a diaper service — because of a 6 percent tax by this government on disposable diapers. But essentially no one will stop using disposable diapers because of this government's so-called solution to the problem.

I'm reminded and the member admitted that publicly funded hospitals use disposable diapers, with one exception in British Columbia — thousands and thousands of disposable diapers. Well, he is a member of this government. Maybe he has some influence or maybe he simply has to stand up in the House. I think his running mate has a little influence on the government. Perhaps they could use that influence to stop publicly funded facilities like hospitals from using disposable diapers. But no, it's not hospitals that are the problem; it's those new mothers and fathers with little kids under two who are the

[ Page 9830 ]

problem. We have to tax them, not stop public facilities from using them.

Mr. Speaker, the Socred solution is always to tax people. It's individuals who are the problem; they're the polluters. What about corporate polluters pumping thousands of tonnes of toxic waste into the environment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's Friday, private members' statements: within the realm of the discussion, bearing in mind in your case standing order 18 as well. Please proceed.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No taxes on corporate polluters. Always blame the individual. Well, my view is that the system is to blame. Does this government look at the corporations to produce environmentally friendly products? Does it say: "Well, what about the corporations that produce Pampers and disposable diapers? No, we don't look there; they're not the problem." Does the government look at the tens of millions of dollars in advertising disposable diapers? Millions and millions of dollars are spent in corporation advertising to promote the use of disposable diapers. Are they to blame? No, Mr. Speaker, it's those people who use them; they're the problem. It's not the company that produces them. No, we have to have a tax on disposable diapers. There's no tax on advertising, Mr. Member. There's no tax on advertising disposable diapers.

There was a study done by Hugh Curtis, the former Minister of Finance, that showed about $50 million by taxing advertising promoting these kinds of environmentally harmful products. But no, a 6 percent tax on disposable diapers for people with young children in British Columbia. That is the real enemy of the environment. They, the individuals, are the polluters.

It's too easy. Disposable diapers are an environmental problem. They should be dealt with. But it's not good enough to simply put a little tax which penalizes those who can least afford it, which penalizes individuals in British Columbia and doesn't really deal with the problem.

I agree with the member; it is a problem. I hope he can exercise some influence. I hope he has the influence on his colleague from Richmond, who might have a little influence on government policy so that we can deal with real polluters in British Columbia, not just families.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to inform the member that I cannot boast about having children under two, but we brought up four kids. We brought them up in cloth diapers, and they turned out well They did exceptionally well. It didn't hurt them. And I'm proud of my kids. I used to work with the old pins and stick the terrible things in my fingers and so on. I have a lot of experience.

But I'd like the member and the people of the province to know that there are a variety of companies, including Babykins in my constituency, who have developed new and modern methods by using Velcro and other ways. There's absolutely no need for people to feel that it's somehow more convenient to have disposables.

I washed them; I put them in the toilets; I took them out; and sometimes I had to clean out the toilets because of it. I know all of that. I'm proud of the experiences we went through; I recommend it. It's a very humbling experience.

But this is a very serious subject. We are proud of having established a sustainable environment fund which is to address those long-term issues and which is the vehicle by which we can do a lot more in combating this particular issue.

I'd also like the people to know that this government does not believe in adding taxes on taxes on taxes, as we've just heard from the member opposite. In fact, we believe in people. We believe that it's possible for people, through their habits, through their customs, through the way they live, through the way they operate in their homes and their own communities, to adopt lifestyles that will be considerate and more responsible when they think about environmental problems.

[10:45]

The disposable diapers do not really pamper the baby; in fact, when we really think about it, they rob baby of a future that is environmentally sound. We use disposable diapers not to pamper baby but to pamper the parents. It is short-term gain for long-term pain. I do believe that it is possible for us to address this. I know that through the mechanisms our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has put in place, we now are able to address those concerns. I want to assure the members opposite that we are as concerned as they are about what we do to our environment.

PRESERVING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about preserving our urban environment. Greater Vancouver and greater Victoria are among the most livable urban areas in North America. They have an incredibly attractive natural environment, an attractive built environment and fair climates.

Unlike many cities in North America, they still enjoy relatively clean drinking water and clean air. They have vibrant downtowns. They have easy access to rural areas and to the wilderness. Their traffic congestion, while increasing, is certainly not in the league of Seattle or Los Angeles.

In short, we enjoy a quality of life that's envied by many. But this urban environment is fragile. Its attractiveness can be the cause of its destruction. Last year 60,000 people moved to British Columbia, most of them to Vancouver and Victoria. This growth is expected to continue. By the turn of the century, greater Victoria will have another 50,000 people living in this area, and greater Vancouver's population will be pushing two million.

If we took at the entire Georgia basin, a region that includes the communities of the Puget Sound,

[ Page 9831 ]

greater Vancouver and the southeast coast of Vancouver Island, we're going to find that by the turn of the century, we'll have six million people living in this area, possibly ten million in another 25 years. This growth presents a challenge. Are we going to manage it, or is it going to manage us? Without determined action now, Vancouver and Victoria could go the way of other North American cities.

Let's consider the environmental experience of some of these cities that have experienced rapid growth in the last 20 years. Look at Phoenix, Houston or Los Angeles. They are now reaping a bitter harvest of unmanaged growth: air pollution, a desecrated physical environment, traffic congestion and unmanageable infrastructure costs.

Closer to home, in Seattle, a study there last year showed that Seattle could be just like Los Angeles if the people in the governments of the Puget Sound don't act now to prevent that from happening. Seattle has the same attractions as Vancouver and Victoria, and it faces the same threats. We can learn from what's going on there. It also shares the same geographic location: this fragile urban environment, the Georgia basin.

Air and water pollution don't know municipal or national boundaries, so what happens in the greater Seattle area is important to us. It's going to affect us. What happens in our area is going to affect them. We need to look at the urban environment.

Why don't we look at what's happening closer to home here? In greater Victoria, since 1974, almost 1,500 hectares of agricultural land have been removed from the ALR. We have a serious waste management problem in this community; we're still dumping raw sewage into the ocean, our landfills are filling up despite efforts to improve recycling, and chemical pollution in greater Victoria is suspected to be more serious than even the human sewage problem. That's in a community that isn't very heavily industrialized.

In greater Vancouver the larger population just magnifies these problems. We add to that growing air pollution problems. Vancouver residents are now coming to understand what the term gridlock means as their traffic congestion grows and grows.

What we're faced with here then is a deterioration of our urban environment unless we commit now to the actions needed to protect it. We have to manage growth with the preservation of our unique environment foremost in mind. We have to find ways to reduce urban sprawl and so protect our farmland and our forestland. To improve our air pollution situation, we have to find ways for people to live closer to where they work and reduce the amount of time they spend travelling, and we have to improve public transit. We have to stop dumping sewage and toxic chemicals directly into the marine environment. We have to reduce the amount of garbage we produce every year and increase recycling drastically.

We know what we have to do. But how are we going to go about doing it? To begin, we're going to need a strategy, something that is worked out on a regional scale. It's absolutely ludicrous to think we can solve these growth-related problems one at a time without a regional approach.

Just look at greater Victoria. Greater Victoria is the size of Surrey, but we have 11 separate municipalities. In greater Vancouver in the lower mainland there are 28 separate municipalities. We used to have regional planning in this province. It wasn't perfect. But instead of trying to improve it, the Social Credit government scrapped it in 1983. Now, seven years later, in a period of intense growth pressure, the people living in our urban areas are coming to realize what the Social Credit government carelessly threw away. Even the Urban Development Institute and the Real Estate Association are calling for a return to regional growth management.

It's not good enough to say — as the members on the other side do —  that if municipalities want to do this, if they want to get together, then let them. This is a case where we need some provincial leadership. If the environment is a priority with this government, as they say it is, then let that priority also include the urban environment. As long as the provincial government opposes regional planning and persists in dealing with urban environmental issues one at a time — compartmentalized in different branches of different ministries as if traffic congestion, preserving farmland, water quality and waste management had nothing to do with one another — we're not going to be able to tackle these difficult issues.

It's a choice between a politically easy course of letting things go on as they have been, and the politically difficult course that may cause some short-term conflict but in the long term will ensure our urban environment is protected and enhanced. Our neighbours to the south are facing up to it. I think it's time this government faced up to it. I think it's time they looked at what was happening and said: "We made a mistake in 1983. It's time to return to a regional approach to growth management."

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for another speech. Again, I didn't hear any real solutions. The member, since she's arrived in this House, talks about serious waste management problems, serious landfill problems and talks about Phoenix and Los Angeles. I can tell that member that the cooperation between this government and regional districts — and I can only speak for the time I've been Minister of Environment — is very good. We've been meeting on a regular basis with people from the Capital Regional District, discussing what we can do with the landfills in the Capital Regional District, what we can do with waste management in the Capital Regional District, what we can do with sewage treatment.

All we get from the NDP is the Leader of the Opposition going out to the beach and saying: "We'll throw $4 billion at the problem." But he isn't being honest with the people of British Columbia.

MR. PERRY: He didn't say that.

[ Page 9832 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: He did say that. They like to deny what they say, but they say different things everywhere they go anyway, so it doesn't really matter. It's one thing in Victoria and one thing in Vancouver.

But we have solutions, and we're working towards solutions. And the Capital Regional District.... In fact, I have a meeting again this morning with Murray Coell and Frank Leonard to discuss some more issues. I will be introducing in the House later a hazardous waste corporation bill which....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I guess it upsets you that these gentlemen might be Socreds who are elected officials in the local area, but they're the people we deal with. They certainly are working in a positive manner to work at the solution for the Capital Regional District. The little Miss Nimby over there, who doesn't want it in her back yard and who wants to make the statements about everywhere else but not in my back yard, doesn't want to come across and tell us what her solution would be.

We will have a hazardous waste corporation in this province in the very near future, and it will give a facility that will solve the problems. It's like when we announced the household hazardous waste cleanup day, plus an industrial cleanup day, in this province. The member across the hall said: "Oh, it's too late, too late." Only then did we see a press release come out from the Capital Regional District the next day saying she was wrong again. This is a program that is working right across this province, that's going to clean up hazardous waste. And it's going to work extremely well.

I get all the letters. I got one from the mayor of Victoria. They want us to clean up hazardous waste too, but they don't recommend we put it in their back yard. Nobody wants it in their back yard in this province. They want to create the problem. And then you get the airy-fairy speeches about how we'll put it all in the blue box. As everybody knows, the blue box at the best of times will give us maybe 20 percent The Capital Regional District probably has the best blue-box system in the world — 100 percent of the homes. It's getting around. But it's still not collecting all the products we would like to collect.

We're working with corporations to make sure that we've got a de-tinning plant in British Columbia, a de-inking plant in British Columbia, and of course the NDP don't like the de-inking plant now either They want it recycled, but they don't want the product here: "Build it somewhere else. Put it in somebody else's state."

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. CASHORE: If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's like everything else in this province, to the critic of the NDP. When we do it, we do it well. And that's why this province is doing so well. I hate to remind you there's a good reason why we've been in government for 37 out of 40 years — we do things extremely well. And we'll continue to do them well.

Right after the next election, I look forward to coming back here — some of you won't be here. That's why I like looking at little Miss Nimby across there, because she won't be here after the next election. She'll be gone, as will some others I can see across there. I remember the member for Victoria, whom I had the fortunate — or unfortunate — time to sit beside for a while. He'd make that same speech every day: "Wait till the next election. Wait till the next election." Seven years now — seven long years of listening to it: "Wait till next time. Wait till next time." I look forward to the next time more than anybody else. We're going to be across here, saying the same things to them again that we do a good job in this province, we plan well, we work with the municipalities, we work with the regional districts.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I wouldn't even insult the Toronto Maple Leafs that much — Toronto Maple Leafs or politics or the NDP. They do a lot of talking over there about the environment, but they do very little.

MS. CULL: I'm really surprised at the Minister of Environment's response to my statement. He seems to think that the whole thing is a joke. He's not taking any of the comments that I made seriously. In fact, that's the problem that we have with urban policy in this province. The members on the other side can't seem to see that it's anything that they should turn their attention to.

The minister mentioned solutions. I can tell him that local governments have been looking to the provincial government for solutions for many, many years. They're not getting the kinds of solutions that they want. We have asked local governments.... And members on this side have asked that the ministry's toxic waste depot be opened. But it's not. We've asked that a serious approach on solid-waste management be taken. And what do we get? We get solutions like a resource recovery plant, which many local governments are turning down for very sound environmental reasons. The minister boasts about the recycling here. I think he should do a little research about what's going on elsewhere in this country in communities like Peterborough, where 50 percent of their garbage is being diverted from the landfill through recycling.

But what he didn't mention was regional planning, which is what I was trying to talk about as a solution to many of these urban problems. The reason that he didn't mention it — didn't even come back to talk about any of that aspect — was that this government had an ideological blind spot that prevents it from recognizing that growth has costs. And those costs are being borne mostly by our environment.

[ Page 9833 ]

Those are the costs that we're passing on to our children. Those children are growing up, and they're going to look around at the mess that we've handed them and wonder how it was we came to foul up such a beautiful place.

Even the Premier, when he was still a local politician and chair of GVRD planning committee in 1975, recognized the desirability of growth control. He said the present non-control spelled trouble for the future of the GVRD. But unfortunately he's forgotten it, and now he and the rest of his colleagues on the government side of the House ignore the urban areas almost entirely. In spite of the fact that 50 percent of our population lives in urban areas, we don't have an urban policy in this province. We don't have any vision for our urban areas, and we show no leadership in ensuring that the metropolitan communities of this province continue to be attractive.

[11:00]

You talk about solutions. Let me give you a few solutions. First of all, we could be supporting greater Vancouver's livable region strategy more than is happening at the present time, and we could be encouraging and working with the greater Victoria communities to get such a strategy happening here in this community. We could look at the report from Seattle, which recommended, among other things, a regional strategy to control growth, to build a super transportation system based on the growth prosperity that we have in this region. We could channel some of that growth outside of the metropolitan area so that we would balance growth in this province, and we could put in place a directly elected regional structure that would look at these problems.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of my colleague and deskmate the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the first member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Savage), I take pleasure in welcoming to the House today 35 grade 10 students from Burnsville Junior Secondary School in Delta and their teacher, Mr. J. Westlake, and several parents as chaperones. I wish the House would make them especially welcome.

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

MR. SERWA: I rise to discuss an issue which crosses party lines and, I believe, rises above party rhetoric. I wish to discuss the issue of reform of our roles as private members in the British Columbia Legislature.

The role of the private member has three primary elements: that of a legislator, that of a critic and that of a facilitator. Private members have a three-way accountability: to constituents, to parties and to conscience. Why should we discuss this issue? Because our constituents demand it.

A public opinion poll conducted in 1986 for Canadian legislatures noted that 75 percent of Canadians are convinced that the Canadian parliamentary system is in need of major reform. Only 42 percent of Canadians believe their elected representatives are honest and sincere, and 60 percent of Canada's youth is cynical towards politicians. Moreover, the importance of the Legislature has declined with the growth in government in terms of personnel and responsibility, the growth of the welfare state and managed economy. In this context, the power of the executive to formulate and initiate policy has been increasingly centralized. This has occurred in all legislatures, not just in British Columbia. As a result, the private member is viewed as more and more irrelevant to governance and public policy.

Hon. members, the question we must address is: how can we make the institution of the Legislative Assembly more creditable to our constituents and decrease the cynicism of the general public toward legislators and the work that we do? In many legislatures throughout this country and the Commonwealth there is an intense debate about reform of the role of the private member. This debate centres not only around reform of the structure of the House available to the private member, for example the committee system, but also there is discussion with regard to how the private member perceives himself or herself and how the private member is perceived by his colleagues, the media and the public at large.

In Ottawa the demand for parliamentary reform led to the creation of the McGraw commission in 1984. The committee contained members from all three parties, and its mandate was to find ways to improve the role of the private member. Among other suggestions, the McGrath report recommendations included increasing the activity and independence of standing committees; the creation of a committee of selection of private members' business; that a government should be careful before it declares or designates a vote as one of confidence and that it should confine such declarations to measures central to its administration.

In a parliament with a government in command of the majority, the matter of confidence has really already been settled by the electorate. The government and other parties should therefore have the wisdom to permit members to decide many matters in their own deliberate judgment.

Today I wish to concentrate on two points, two closely related issues: "free votes," and the so-called breaking with party lines on issues of individual conscience.

First of all, free votes can be an important forum for institutionalizing private members' individual responsibility to their personal beliefs, public statements and constituent commitments. What we need, hon. members, is a change in attitude towards our individual political efficacy as private members.

Secondly, cynicism in the general public toward legislatures can be decreased if we promote more latitude for individual action in the House. Dissention by individual members in a caucus should not be

[ Page 9834 ]

capitalized by MLAs from another political party in an attempt to score political points against the dissenting member and his or her party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. SERWA: Well, listen on.

We all have strong convictions. Sometimes, for constituent or personal reasons, it is difficult for us to compromise those convictions in the interests of party solidarity. Individual actions by private members should be viewed as personal initiatives by MLAs and not as an indication of the breakup of party solidarity or a challenge to its leadership. I would suggest it is a sign of strength and maturity. Numerous votes at our mother parliament in London and in Ottawa have been lost by governments because of a substantial number of private members from all parties voting against the government. Despite these so-called maverick activities, the governments of the day did not fall. These were not confidence votes. What did happen, however, was that the Legislature was able to effect substantial changes in government policy without bringing down the government.

I am challenging the members of this House to break down the barriers of the partisan siege mentality. Do not always think of yourselves solely as members of the Social Credit or NDP caucus. Dare to be different. Dare to dissent. Dare to take the initiative to build bipartisan consensus.

We are Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and not merely representatives of political parties. General cynicism can only be eradicated if we demonstrate our own unwillingness to be cynical about our colleagues. It is our job as private members to respect and endorse individual initiatives taken by our colleagues on behalf of constituent demands or personal beliefs. It is our responsibility to promote political efficacy among all members of the House. It is my belief that these actions will go a long way toward improving our constituents' respect for us and the work we do in this House.

In addition to free votes and individual initiatives, I cannot overemphasize the importance of a strong and active committee system as a fundamental aspect of parliamentary reform. An excellent report on the committee system in this Legislature was produced by George MacMinn's commission under the auspices of the Legislative Procedure Review Act. MacMinn gave three particularly significant proposals for committee reform. First of all in his report, the Deputy Clerk argued for the creation of a smaller committee system which would be more active and would permit the examination of legislation and estimates in standing committees as opposed to a Committee of the Whole House sitting for supply and legislation. MacMinn suggested a committee day on Wednesday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. Your time has expired under standing orders.

MRS. BOONE: I can certainly understand the member from the Okanagan being concerned and a little cynical about the system in itself too. If I was a backbencher on that side, I certainly would be cynical about the process as well. There's no doubt at all that we've seen an inability of members over there to think for themselves. We seem to be taking a little bit of time out; each member has midnight sessions on desk-thumping and saying "Aye!" and clapping on cue to whatever the ministers say or anything like that. I see ministers are now taking up those things as well.

We've not seen any of those members ever take a stand and vote against any legislation or even an amendment to a bill even though that amendment makes very good sense. On this side of the House we have had members who have voted independently. On the Meech Lake accord members stood here and spoke against the accord. We proposed amendments to that accord, yet there were no members on that side who voted for those amendments — even the Senate reform amendments. And there were no members on that side who stood and spoke against it. We do have some latitude and some ability to express ourselves on this side of the House. The frustration that must come from the backbenchers over there from being constantly held down!

I find it interesting that the member mentions a centralization of power. This government claims to be regionalized and claims to be putting the power back into the hands of its people, and its own member states that there's a centralization of power. Certainly there's a centralization of power here, and it rests with the member who isn't here — the first member for Richmond, the Premier. He controls the pipe over there.

The member talks about free votes, about breaking party lines. I feel very strongly on this issue, because it's something that comes up not just among the Socreds. At different times people have suggested that perhaps we ought not to follow party lines. I can't accept that. As a New Democrat, I was elected on a platform, as you were elected on a platform for.... What was it? Change? It was thoughts, ideas or something like that, but no platform, no ideas. Obviously your constituents didn't have a clue as to what they were going to get, so they had no expectations. However, the people who elected me did so knowing we had a stand on abortion, medicare and social services; knowing that some of these things were prime areas for us that we wanted to see; knowing we were supporting a university for the north. These were things that came up in the platform and were expressed. For me to change around and change my opinion at some point would, I think, be deceitful and not representative of the people who elected me. It is my responsibility to uphold what I am elected on, to uphold what we stand for. It is not my right as an individual to say: "I'm elected on this basis; however, I'm going to vote differently when I get in the Legislature." That is not appropriate at all.

We have all kinds of opportunities for individuals to have things. We have private members' bills, but

[ Page 9835 ]

they're never brought up. This government never brings them up. We have motions. We never have an opportunity to debate any of those motions. That opportunity should be taken today after members' statements. We never debate those motions.

We never, or very rarely, have committees that actually function. We have the standing committee on forestry working right now, but the committee on health and human services.... I mentioned it to the minister. Every year when the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was Minister of Health, he used to say: "Well, perhaps it would be a good idea if we referred something to the committee." But nothing was ever referred.

There are opportunities within this Legislature, within the systems that exist in this Legislature, for individuals to have their say, but they are not being utilized by this government. This government is neglecting to give individual members any opportunity to have a say. And that is not a major reform. All you have to do is live up to the expectations of this Legislature, and give individuals an opportunity to speak.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that the remarks of the member for Prince George North did anything other than confirm that politicians are frequently regarded as spineless, self-serving, stupid or verbose.

MR. KEMPF: Or all of the above.

MR. SERWA: Or all of the above.

I take comfort in Winston Churchill's famous quip: "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Okanagan South knows full well that he is playing fast and loose with the rules, attempting to quote something into the record which was a direct attack on another member of this House and using unparliamentary language. I ask that he be asked to withdraw that statement. It's clearly out of order.

[11:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I ask the member for Okanagan South to moderate the statement that he previously made, and withdraw the previous comments.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, that statement was not directed at that hon. member. That statement is a perception that the public has. I said that that hon. member did nothing to mitigate that particular statement.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, the same point of order. For the most part, the member's statement was irrelevant, and we don't take issue with much of it. But the point is that he deliberately tied that statement to the member for Prince George North. He knows it; they know; you know it, Mr. Speaker. I ask him to withdraw it. Let's not play games in this chamber.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first member for Okanagan South clearly said that the remark was not intended to be directed at the member for Prince George North, which in itself is a withdrawal of any imputation of improper motive against another member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would accept the point of order made by the Minister of Advanced Education, and I ask the member for Okanagan South to continue.

MR. SERWA: May I request that my three minutes be reinstituted, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to ask that the clock be set back one and a half minutes.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I take comfort from Winston Churchill's famous quip: "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." I'd hoped that members of the opposition would keep this debate at a constructive, non-partisan level. I recognize that parliamentary reforms have been implemented under both Social Credit and New Democrat governments.

I'm going to continue on with my statement because I think it is relevant and important. MacMinn suggests a committee day on Wednesday whereby four different committees would sit simultaneously to discuss estimates. Estimates would then go back to the House for final approval.

Second, standing committees that can summon civil servants would expand the concept of responsible government to the bureaucracy, as well as to government ministers.

Third, if bills were sent to committee before second reading, which approves a bill in principle, then standing committees would have the ability to propose substantial amendments before a bill is voted on.

In Ottawa the McGrath committee reforms have led to the creation of a Standing Committee on Private Members' Business. This committee decides which private members' bills will enter the House for a vote after receiving extended debate and committee study. The process provides credibility to those private members' bills selected by the committee as worthy of consideration by the House. I believe this process would be useful in British Columbia and help to rejuvenate private members' interest in private members' bills.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, I am not naively asking for an end to the adversarial nature of the party system. What I am asking for, however, is that legislatures not feel constrained about taking individual initiatives and lobbying for parliamentary reform.

The MacMinn and McGrath reports provide us with excellent proposals. I have outlined only a few

[ Page 9836 ]

of their suggestions. We owe these reforms to our constituents and to the future voters in this province.

Introduction of Bills

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Reynolds presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am pleased today to introduce legislation to establish a Hazardous Waste Management Corporation for British Columbia. The new Crown corporation will implement a comprehensive hazardous waste management system throughout the province. The Ministry of Environment will continue as regulator and strict enforcer of the regulations.

This government is committed to the long-term reduction of hazardous wastes in British Columbia. Our priority is to encourage industry to reduce or eliminate hazardous ingredients at source or to reuse and recycle whenever possible. We also want to achieve a reduction in the hazardous wastes generated in households by encouraging the public to use non-toxic substances or to buy only those quantities of hazardous materials that they need for household chores.

The ministry and the new corporation will work with municipalities and regional districts throughout British Columbia to establish management systems for household and hazardous waste. The corporation will initiate a process to establish environmentally secure treatment facilities to deal with hazardous wastes, including those already in storage. There will be full public involvement and consultation in the location of any new hazardous waste treatment facilities in British Columbia.

Hazardous wastes are those which require special treatment and disposal techniques to keep them from affecting human health and the environment. Substances such as used oil, solvents, acids, pesticides and PCBs are examples of hazardous wastes. An important part of the management system will be public education, which informs people on safe handling of hazardous materials, particularly those in common use in the home.

British Columbia already has stringent hazardous waste regulations which allow few options for treatment and disposal. Until treatment facilities are established in British Columbia, generators must store their hazardous wastes or dispose of them outside the province. To protect the health and safety of the public, the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation will coordinate the efforts of all involved parties to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated in British Columbia and to ensure the safe treatment and disposal of what cannot be reused or recycled. Particular emphasis will be placed on assisting households, small businesses and municipalities in dealing with their hazardous wastes.

The management of hazardous wastes offers opportunities for British Columbians to take the lead in developing new technology for hazardous waste management, and the corporation will support the necessary research and development. This research will encourage industry to replace toxic ingredients and introduce reduction, reuse, recovery and recycling practices. The corporation will work with the private sector to ensure safe treatment and disposal of the stored backlog of hazardous waste.

Alan Carr, a management consultant and former Deputy Minister of Environment for Saskatchewan, will head the new corporation.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 38 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.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday we covered a number of issues. Principally we pointed out quite correctly that the government's track record in social housing and this last budget are nowhere near adequate to deal with the housing problems facing British Columbians. Indeed, I note for the Minister of Housing that this administration is spending just slightly in excess of $35 million to construct affordable housing, yet — this is just a comparison — has budgeted this year in excess of $30 million for government advertising. Only $5 million more has been budgeted for housing for construction — that's all — but $30 million for advertising. Those are their priorities: nearly as much for government propaganda as for housing British Columbians. I think it's really an interesting correlation, an interesting comparison, and British Columbians should know that. Indeed, that $30 million is $100,000 every day for six days every week for 52 weeks a year. A hundred grand a day is being spent by this administration on propaganda and misleading advertising. It's nearly as much as they're spending on constructing affordable housing in British Columbia.

That shows where this government is on the construction of affordable housing in the province. Why couldn't that $30 million, for instance, go towards affordable housing? Their priorities are clearly on advertising, as we have pointed out consistently in this session. It's misleading; it distorts reality. They're spending just about as much money on propaganda as they are on constructing affordable

[ Page 9837 ]

housing for our citizens in this province — and that's worth noting.

I'm sure the minister won't want to comment on that, but I think it points out once again that in two years the housing program introduced by this administration has come nowhere close to what they've claimed in their announcements, in their recycled news releases, in their TV and radio and newspaper ads and everything. Indeed, I think it's a very sad reflection. More and more, as we progress and make a close analysis of the government's housing program, we really see that it is in tatters. It has been an abject failure. The minister should go back to the drawing-board and bring back real housing programs in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just move on to something the minister consistently did yesterday and continues to do and which unfortunately creates much concern: his continuing attack on local government. This minister continues to bash local government, to attack councils right across this province — bash, bash, bash — trying to find a scapegoat for their lack of programs, as I've said today. Nearly as much for affordable housing as they're spending on advertising. I don't have to say any more about that, but as municipal affairs critic, I have to stand here today and say something about his unfair, consistent bashing of local government.

Local government in this province is trying to do something about an affordable housing program, but they are financially constrained. They would love to help to create affordable housing, but they just don't have the dollars. They don't have the mandate to do that. The level of government that has the mandate is the provincial government. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I know that local governments across this province are endorsing projects and getting them through as quickly as possible; they're elected to do that. But they also have a commitment to ensuring that those projects fit within their community.

However, this minister takes examples out of context, picks one here and there and by inference says that local government is not doing its job in housing. I have to stand here today and say that it's totally unfair and irresponsible of that minister. Of course, I think it's consistent with this minister's modus operandi: to find excuses and scapegoat anybody or any institution for this government's lack of housing programs.

[11:30]

Vis-à-vis this minister's attacking local government, let's come home and take a look at Crown provincial land that has been used for affordable housing. We were promised over a year ago a policy on Crown provincial and the use of Crown land for affordable housing — co-op, non-profit, affordable housing. We're still waiting. As I said yesterday, the minister said he was going to introduce our housing program, which clearly stated that we would use certain portions of Crown land provincial for the creation of affordable housing. We would ensure that in our policy. If the minister has read our policy — I'm sure he has, because he said he was going to introduce it, just about —  section 7, under rental housing, provides public land to increase housing as follows: "British Columbians don't want any more Expo land deals. New Democrats would ensure a fair deal for B.C. in any future Crown land sales, with a guarantee that a portion of our public land will be used to build affordable housing." I have not seen on this side of the House nor have the people of British Columbia seen what this government promised: an affordable housing program or policy on Crown land.

We have sold off major sections of Crown land totally to the private sector and to the private development industry. What has happened is that we have basically a condominiumization of our Crown land. I note that 570 hectares in the Westwood Plateau in Coquitlam sold in 1989 with no Crown land policy in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind the member that Crown land sales is not part of this ministry. I believe it would be only proper to be relevant to the vote that is before us.

MR. BLENCOE: I heed your words, Mr. Chairman, but I think I am extremely relevant, because the Crown provincial has at its disposal.... And this minister is talking about local government not freeing up land and being difficult. This government is totally hypocritical. This area has its own land available, but it won't have a Crown land policy to ensure affordable housing being constructed on it. It's hypocrisy of the worst sort.

As I say, Westwood Plateau: 570 hectares. We did not have a Crown land policy or an affordable housing policy in place to ensure that 25 percent or 30 percent of that land was used for affordable housing. You can't attack local government for not doing its job when this government has land at its own disposal that it hasn't got a policy for.

My own community of Songhees over here was promised a Crown land policy and that we'd see some affordable housing— such as co-op or non-profit —  being utilized on that land. We haven't seen it yet; we're still waiting.

How dare you, Mr. Minister, attack local government when you're not doing your job yourself? You're not ensuring that your colleague — whoever is in charge of Crown lands; I believe the former Minister of Forests.... You're not getting together and saying; "If we're going to attack local government, we'd better make sure we've got our own back yard in order, and that our land is available for affordable housing or a component of it."

Songhees is a prime example sitting right over here. We still haven't seen a policy. Where is the government? Twenty hectares for the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf site. We haven't got an announcement yet, but we would like to see some policy on that.

The Expo lands: we all know that fiasco. What has to happen there, of course, is that we're going to have to buy back at inflated prices. If we're going to use any social housing, we have to buy back land from

[ Page 9838 ]

the private owner. When we sold it off, we didn't ensure that we left some for the affordable housing component.

This minister and other ministers have the audacity to attack local government. One of the biggest landowners in the province of British Columbia is the Crown itself. I would say to the minister: "Check your own back yard and get off the backs of local government." They are doing a fine job in this province, and they're doing their best, I might add, with very limited tools in terms of housing: $35 million — 0.27 percent of the entire province budget for affordable housing in the province. You spend nearly as much on misleading advertising.

The point I'm making is that local government will do what it can. It does, and it will. There will be certain projects that local government wants to check on and may say no to — because of their elected position — which they believe is not quite correct, doesn't fit, doesn't have the zoning or whatever. That's going to happen. But go back and check with local government on how many they have passed in the last year and how many proposals have got through advisory planning commissions and councils. Go back and check.

The minister incorrectly attacked Victoria city council for a project on Shelbourne not going through, but it has gone through. The minister didn't check his facts. It has gone through; it has passed. It's going ahead. He was so desperate to attack my council and other councils in this province. Go back and do your own work on your own Crown land. You've got thousands of hectares of Crown land you're selling off at fire-sale prices — some of them — to the private sector, insiders and friends of the government, and you're not ensuring that Crown land is used for affordable housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I must again remind the member that Crown land is not the issue within this vote. I would ask the member again to be relevant to the vote that is before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think Crown land is an important issue to affordable housing in the province of British Columbia. The biggest landowner in the province of British Columbia is the Crown. We've had a history of sales and not a policy in place to ensure that a component of that land is used for affordable housing. The point I want to make is that this minister should stop attacking local governments and take care of his own back yard.

Let's have a policy. We were promised it a year ago. It's clearly stated in our policy what we would do; the private sector may play a major role on Crown land, but there would also be a role for the non-profit, the affordable and the co-op sector. I don't see that from the government. There's a way we could build thousands of units in the province of British Columbia for affordable housing. But of course the government won't do that, I suspect, because they're prepared to commit only $35 million — 0.27 percent of the provincial budget — for affordable housing in the province of British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister: is he aware or can he say...? The former Minister of Social Services and Housing announced a year ago that there would be a Crown land policy, and that it was coming forth for affordable housing. Can the minister tell us today if that promise is about to happen? Can we expect it soon? There is a way we could find the land for affordable housing in the province of British Columbia. Could the minister tell us that?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, talk about taking things out of context! That member is certainly taking things out of context when he speaks about the very issue we talked about yesterday, the housing dollars we have in place. That was talking about the anticipated growth in various areas. That was talking about the municipal governments' role and about the role of both sides of the House, of every individual that goes through a public hearing. It was not bashing. When we talk about Crown land having to go through zoning, it all goes through the same process. When I talk about the length of time it takes, that is not bashing; that is stating facts. It takes a lot of time to go through a process, and that's my concern.

Just yesterday, or in this morning's paper, on one project there was a lot of delay; some of it was highways. Now it's been delayed again; instead of a June public hearing it's July. There's nothing the municipality can do there. Their reason is so that all members will be present. But it takes time.

That member accuses this government again and again of not getting housing on the market, but neglects to take into consideration that it takes time. The process is such that it cannot come on the market any more quickly.

I want to reiterate for the record what I said yesterday. This will be the last time that I will. From now on I will just refer to the Blues. He can look at it and quote from it if he wishes. We have $1 billion in the housing strategy program this year. If you want me to go into detail again and eat up time, I can do that. I think it's all on the record, and I don't think I have to at this time.

We have social housing. Since 1986, in that new program where we participated with the federal government on a very good housing plan, we've built 1,886 units every year, our full allotment of social housing. We were cut back this year by 15 percent. I'm desperately trying to get that 15 percent back and, furthermore, get a better share for British Columbia.

We have an allocation of $80 million for the rental supply program. Again, it is not us that's holding it back. It could be that the developer can't get his zoning in place. It could be that they cannot get their finances in place. There are many reasons. But the point I'm trying to make is that it's not held up by this minister or by this ministry. We've got the full 8,000 units to go ahead as quickly and as soon as they can.

[ Page 9839 ]

There were roughly 40,000 housing unit starts last year. We had a net inmigration of 60,000 people into this province, most from Ontario. It's all in the record. But obviously the member wants to go through it again.

I did not bash the municipal governments. I was saying the process takes too long. Those are facts. He has served on municipal council, Mr. Chairman, and he should know that.

I'm not saying that some housing units were not turned down for good reason. That happens and will happen. What I'm saying is that when we have a crisis we have to look at it very carefully. We cannot take the attitude of the "not in my back yard" syndrome. That's being done all over the province.

There is another syndrome that's alive and well right now. It's "not in my term of office" — the NIMTOO syndrome. It's alive and well. I would like to have the syndrome "yes in my back yard, " because we're talking about people. We're talking about people who need a place to live.

That member knows very well that we have programs in place that say: "Go ahead, private sector. Go ahead, societies. We've got the money. Go to it as fast as you can." But there are delays. I can show you all kinds of delays.

When did I announce 8,000 units? So far, they're trickling in quite slowly. By the end of the year, I hope to have about 2,000 where people can move in, and it looks like we can meet that.

Crown lands. We have a policy. I mentioned it yesterday. Of course, again the member didn't listen, but that's not unusual. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to call that member a Blencoe blockhead, because that wouldn't be parliamentary, but that's just about as thick as that member is on that side. He doesn't listen.

We had a task force that looked at the total area of Crown lands and how we could approach it to make it available for affordable housing, for rental housing That task force was chaired by an assistant deputy, and a member on that side of the House was a member of that particular task force. Some of the ideas that were brought forward by the critic may well come from that member, and some of the ideas aren't bad at all, so I commend the member for passing that information on to the critic.

The review was to review the provincial lands that could be used for market and affordable multiple dwelling and for rental housing. The target area, of course, would be those areas most affected by the low vacancy rate, and that was the Vancouver and Victoria areas.

I have had a number of meetings with the federal Minister of Housing to review federal lands as well, and they have now indicated they will release some lands.

We have identified all the Crown land in the province that is suitable for housing. We have two properties: the Songhees and the Alder Lodge property will be used for.... A proposal call will be sent out to use those lands for housing. We've got other properties that we will ask people to make proposals on, to use them for social housing and rental housing.

As I mentioned, the review of federal lands will also be implemented, and that is, of course, with the cooperation of the federal government.

[11:45]

The key point of the land acquisition program is that a proposal call be issued, and that is to lease the land long-term rather than sell it, which I think is a very appropriate way to go about it. Projects will be market and affordable rental housing, with priority being given to family housing, which I think is where the pressure is at this time.

Municipalities will be encouraged to fast-zone. As a matter of fact, we have a program in place that gives incentive grants to municipalities to increase density and to fast-zone. The take-up on that has been very, very slow. It has not been too well received.

So we have a program on Crown lands which we are going to be using for that purpose. The Jericho lands....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years?

HON. MR. DUECK: It could be quite a few — if we can get the zoning through.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not blaming government. I'm talking about the time it takes to get it through. Mr. Chairman, that member was a municipal alderman, and he knows very well that it takes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm blaming no one except the system. It takes a long time. It always takes a long time. Where are our holdups on the rental supply program? Tell me: what would you do?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Thanks, member, for coaching him, because he obviously doesn't know.

But what would you do if the authority had been given to build 8,000 rental units but they were not happening because of delays? What would you say? Blame the ministry for it? Blame that member?

MS. CULL: Maybe you should find out why.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: I did.

Interjection.

[ Page 9840 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: I will. I will work with anyone willing to help. That's why I gave the invitation yesterday to both sides of the House: let's work together; let's get on with it; help us; don't criticize, but help us, because there's a need out there. But all that's happening is criticism. They haven't got any answers but criticism — negative, negative, negative. We want some action. That's where it's at. We have programs in place, and for the member to say that this government only has X number of dollars in the Housing portfolio is utter nonsense. I am not going to go through this charade again. I'm just going to let him read the Blues and then come back on Monday.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we continue to get the same old hack-and-slash at local government that this minister has become well known for. In terms of the policy we laid out, we have been quite clear what we would do in housing. The minister even said it was virtually identical to what he was going to put on the cabinet table, but of course it never happened.

I would refer the minister to our clear, comprehensive strategy, which has been well received. It's there; it's doable; it's efficient. Instead of bashing local government, this minister should decide to spend some time taking a look at what's happening in housing in other jurisdictions.

How long do you need? I've already pointed out that in my own community, Songhees has been on the go for a couple of years. The development plan written by your government....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, here we go. We have 170 acres on Songhees. This publication was put out in 1984 — five years ago. You keep bashing local government, but this has been a five-year program. How long does it take you to get some affordable housing? The development guidelines specifically say: "Songhees is intended to incorporate a range of income groups, age levels and household types. An objective will be to avoid some of the past extremes of urban housing which have inadequately mixed income levels."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what we've got over there on Songhees because of this government — and you've had five years to do it.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you weren't around to do it Okay, pass the buck, which you always do — all of you. This was your document, your provincial government, the government you're a member of. You've had five years to get on with some social housing, some affordable housing, on Songhees. Yet you bash local government because they may take an extra few days to look at something closely. You've had five years to do something in my community with this plan.

Mr. Chairman, this government is in violation of its own guidelines in terms of developing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me for interrupting you, but your colleague the member for Alberni has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Today visiting the galleries from the beautiful west coast community of Ucluelet — the whale-watching capital of Canada — is a group of 28 grade 5 students and their teacher, Miss St. Cyr. The are visiting us from Ucluelet Elementary School. I wish the House to make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister and his government have had five years to do something on Songhees. All I'm saying is that they cannot continue to bash local government. They get it through as fast as they can and as responsibly to their electorate as possible. You've had five years for Songhees, and you've had as much time on other Crown land proposals. So let's stop blaming everybody else. Again I say, take a look at your own back yard.

I want to move on to this great rental supply program that the minister keeps defending, saying that local government is being slow in introducing the units or won't allow the units to go ahead. This is an important issue that I want to cover.

First, I want to ask if the minister has set a target for what he considers to be a decent vacancy rate in British Columbia and whether his ministry has done studies to show what impact the rental supply program will have on the lower mainland vacancy rates. I want to know if they've done any studies to see what impact it will have on the very bad vacancy rates there.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I think I've exhausted all the avenues of reply. It's on the record over and over again. The rental supply program is applicable in areas where the vacancy rate is 2 percent or less.

I just want to reiterate that I was not bashing anyone. I'm talking about the slow process. I will repeat it again and again: $80 million is available in the rental supply program to proceed as quickly as the developer can and the zoning can take place. It is there. What more does that member want me to do? He blames me, yet I'm saying it's available; it's there; take advantage of it. Even the member for Vancouver East can take part in that program. He's in development. Why doesn't he go ahead and build some units as he's done in the past — evicting people, demolishing and then putting in condominiums?

The area of housing has been explored in all detail, and we have worked very closely with municipalities. We've had meetings with mayors, with consumer affairs, with municipal governments and with mayors of the regional district, discussing the whole housing program and the seriousness of it in some areas. They're cooperating as best they can, but the process is very slow. It is in many areas, but it is slow. We're trying to get it on track as fast as possible. The moneys and programs are there, and

[ Page 9841 ]

it's a matter of everybody getting to it and building these units.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister unfortunately continues to get into personalities. Maybe he will listen carefully and ask his staff to see if they have some answers. You're building all these units, predominantly in the lower mainland. I want to know, Mr. Minister, what studies you have done to measure the impact on the vacancy rate of these units after they're completed.

The reason I'm asking is that I think it's important. Our research staff have done some analysis, and I'm going to present that. But this minister has all the staff available to him. They keep talking about the rental supply program as the saviour for helping the vacancy rate. I want to know what studies they've done to show the impact on the vacancy rate. I hope they've done some studies, because this supposedly is their saving grace for improving the housing situation in the lower mainland. Has the minister got the studies? Can you show some evidence that it's going to have the impact you think it's going to have?

HON. MR. DUECK: The B.C. Housing Management Commission and CMHC have done a number of studies. I haven't got them with me, but I could get them to you when they're available.

MR. BLENCOE: Then I will go through our analysis of the impact of the rental supply program on the lower mainland in terms of what it's going to do for the vacancy rates. We conclude that the vacancy rate will not increase, but will decline even when the rental supply program is complete.

Let me just go through this. Staff will have to take some notes and comments, because it's fairly complicated. I think it's very important because this administration is basing its entire housing program on $1,000-a-month units. They are saying that is their way to create housing in the province of British Columbia.

Let me go through this, Mr. Chairman, and get the minister's response. As far as I know, the current status of the program in phase one is that 2,225 units have been approved. As of April 6, 1990, which is the last information I had — the minister can perhaps update this — just 62 were complete and 111 were under construction. I'm sure we've probably got a more updated note. I'm probably being fair to the minister, but I'm saying that perhaps half of those 2,225 units will be under construction by June. That's phase one.

Phase two: 2,879 units were approved. My understanding is that most builders have not yet signed financing agreements with their banks for phase two. If I stand to be corrected, then I can be corrected obviously.

Phase three: the proposal call was for 3,000 units, which I understand are in progress. Maybe a report on that will be useful.

Let me go through that. Phase one: 2,225 units; phase two: 2,879 units; and phase three: proposal call for 3,000 units in progress.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me take a look at estimating the impact of the rental supply program on the greater Vancouver vacancy rate. This is our estimation.

In phase one, 1,682 units were assigned to greater Vancouver; that's 75.6 percent from a possible 2,225 units. I think I'm correct there. Let's look at some of what I think are reasonable assumptions. First, the same proportion of units will be built in Vancouver for phases two and three as happened in phase one. I think that would be a reasonable assumption. It's having the greatest problem, and you've assigned 75 percent of the units in phase one to Vancouver. It may be higher; I don't know. But I'm assuming it's going to be the same pro-rated percentage — 75 percent.

Let's assume, Mr. Chairman — this is faster than you say local governments are doing it — that all units are available for occupancy by October 1992. That's for phases two and three: October 1992.

[2:00]

In the next part of this formula, by the forecast of the Ministry of Finance, the population in the lower mainland will increase at the same rate as the province as a whole and will rent or buy homes in the same proportion as they do now. So the Ministry of Finance has forecast that the population as a whole will increase the same as it is now, and the population will rent or buy homes in the same proportion as they do now. The minister hopefully is following me.

Also the rental housing stock is lost to demolition at the same rate in 1992 as it was in 1987-89, and we have no indication that the rate is going to go down. Indeed, it looks like it's going up, but with the same demolition rate.

We are giving the benefit of the doubt that no rental stock is lost to condominiums; that's a major assumption. That's benefiting the rental supply program by assuming that no rental stock will be lost to condominiums. It's highly optimistic, Mr. Chairman, because the average loss in 1981-1988 was 231 units per year.

Another part of the formula is that privately owned rental housing stock will continue to be added at the same rate as in July to September of 1989.

Under these parameters, giving a lot to the rental supply program and allowing for things to move faster than they probably have now, 6,126 units will be delivered in greater Vancouver by the program by October 1992. That's based on what you're doing now, using the same allocation and the various things that I've suggested — which I think are being very fair to you actually, Mr. Minister — and using the Ministry of Finance's forecasts. Using the ministry's forecasts, 18,500 more families will be looking for housing, of which 6,780 will want to rent. Based on the forecast by the ministry, 3,839 units of privately owned rental stock will come onto the market. I think that's probably being fairly generous.

The current rate of demolition will continue as it did in '87-89. Actually, the demolition rate is increas-

[ Page 9842 ]

ing over '87-89. But we say that if that rate continues, we will lose in excess of 3,000 units to demolition in the province and in Vancouver. Putting all that together and being very conservative — I think being overly fair to the ministry in terms of its delivery time — there were 675 vacancies in greater Vancouver in October 1989. Adding all this together, by 1992 there will be a net gain of 6,255 units but 6,780 families wanting to rent them.

The forecast vacancy rate in October 1992 will be 0.3 percent, compared to the October 1989 rate of 0.4 percent. I know that there are some assumptions in here, but a lot of the figures being used are forecast by the ministry. We don't have the minister.... He says he may have some studies. By this working-out and careful analysis, the minister's program will not have the impact he says it will on the vacancy rate in greater Vancouver.

We're being very fair in terms of the allocations, the population and the rental housing being lost to demolition. By 1992, by our analysis, there will be a net gain of 6,255 units but 6,780 families looking to rent.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: So what?

MR. BLENCOE: "So what, " says the brilliant member from Yale-Lillooet. Well, so what, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Not Yale-Lillooet, but wherever he's from. The minister responsible....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: South Peace — thank you. I'm so used to the member for Yale-Lillooet. It's a different heckler today.

It is an important point, and the member from South Peace River says it doesn't make any difference. Maybe it doesn't in his area, but I can say that in the lower mainland, where they're going through the worst housing crisis in this country, it's very important. This government is basing its entire housing program on the rental supply program.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We know that this government doesn't like to do studies.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We believe in analysis, and this analysis is fairer to the government than could be, I can assure you. By our analysis, by October 1992 in the lower mainland, in Vancouver, you'll have a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent. Your rental supply program may very well not do the thing you say it will do. You're claiming all these wonderful things it will do and at the same time, of course, bashing local government. I wonder if the minister wants to comment on these figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we turn to the minister, the member for Burnaby North asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: Joining us today is a very large group of young people, who I am sure are very interested in the housing problems that we face in British Columbia right now. They will probably be among first-time homebuyers in ten to 15 years. These are a group of some 80 grade 6 or 7 students from a very time-honoured school in Burnaby, a school that's been serving the young people of Burnaby for something like 70 years. This is a group from Rosser Elementary School, and they are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Bennest. I'd ask both sides of the House to give the students and teachers from Rosser Elementary School a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: The member very conveniently neglects to say that there's also a private sector at work that builds a lot of houses. He also neglects to say that a lot of people will buy rather than rent. He also neglects to quote the social housing we produce: 1,886 a year. Furthermore, you can make figures do anything you want. So if that's his analysis, that's fine.

I've made our point very clear — what we're doing in the housing market. I have to reiterate that we have done more than any government in the past in the area of housing.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is wrong; we have factored it in. Privately owned housing starts are in the formula. Actually, it's based on the rate of July through September 1989, a high building period. I suspect again that I'm being fairer to the minister in terms of what's happening today in construction.... I think you'll find, Mr. Minister, that our study is actually fairly conservative. We have probably given you a lot more leeway than is actually happening in private sector starts.

I'm quite prepared to make this available to the minister, because I think it's important. We on this side think it's important to do analysis wherever possible, using figures created by the government itself wherever possible, to give an indication of what the government is claiming will happen with its programs.

I would like to see the government's analysis of its own programs. I'm told that the minister says they are available. We'd be glad to get it. I'm interested in working this thing out. If we have been unfair in our analysis, we'd like to hear about it; but I think we've been overly fair to the government program. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, on private housing starts, which are factored in, I think you'll find that we're not going to get them. You know what's happening in the development industry today.

[ Page 9843 ]

Again we are predicting — unless the minister can make it otherwise — that with this wonderful program they're talking about on TV just about every night, telling everybody it's going to solve the problem, there will be a net gain of 6,255 units. But the vacancy rate in October 1992 will be 0.3 percent.

Maybe the minister has some studies now — perhaps a variation on our analysis. On our side of the House, our budget is limited in terms of being able to.... The government has far more tools at its disposal, and research and analysis. It can pay for those things to be done; we can't do that. So if the minister has something at his fingertips — and I hope he does — that can show that their program is going to have a dramatic effect on the vacancy rates in the lower mainland, I'd be very glad to read it and hear about it now, because the assumption or presumption by his announcements is that it will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, hon. members, the Minister of Environment asks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to introduce — and I know the member for Victoria will be pleased too — the great chairman of the Capital Regional District, Murray Coell, who's in the House today.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I won't get political and answer those questions, but it's so nice to know that the people of Victoria have the smarts to elect a good Socred to some of these important positions. Also in the House is Frank Leonard, the environmental chairman of the Capital Regional District and a Saanich alderman. Both are good Socreds; both are good environmentalists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister wish to respond?

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't wish to, but I will. I have part of a summary of the Canada Mortgage and Housing study, and I'll quote what they say about the rental and housing market in British Columbia. It says: "Rental construction was doubled in 1990 over 1989's level." Listen to this: "Private rental starts" — that's what you omitted or skipped over very loosely — "including index-linked mortgages and co-ops, are forecast to rise to 5,050 units from 2,559 units in 1989 This increase is mainly because of the province's rental supply plan" — which lowers mortgage interest rates to a certain percentage.

"Another factor is the creation of the Vancouver Land Corp. of the city of Vancouver" — which is the private sector in cooperation with the city. "Assisted rental construction is expected to increase, and more provincial funding for non-profit units . . . ."

"The housing market was very active during 1989, with starts, sales and prices exhibiting large increases. The total housing starts in 1989 reached the second-highest level of the decade. Starts rose to 38,000 from 30,000 in '88, a 28 percent increase." And again for 1990 a very large increase is expected.

[2:15]

Crown lands. I've got some more information here for that member's information. Songhees. Three parcels were purchased by the B.C. Housing Management Commission, one parcel in West Vancouver and another one in Prince George. These are Crown land parcels we're purchasing for this purpose.

The rental supply program. We believe we can increase the 8,000 if everything goes well and according to plan. According to our analysis, by 1992, when the last ones will come on stream, we will probably have 9,900 units for the same dollar. That means in Victoria there will be 1,897 units for this area. These are forecasts, of course. The rest of the Island, 750; the lower mainland, 6,389; the rest of the province, 866; making a total of 9,902.

These are some of the positive things that are happening in the province. It's not all doom and gloom. But of course, when you're sitting in the opposition and you don't have to perform, all you thrive on is gloom and doom, and you keep repeating yourself.

The programs we have in place — including the rental supply program, the social housing program, the $1 billion in the housing strategy — are excellent. They are performing. They are doing what they set out to do. We're quite happy with that, and we'll do everything we can to expedite the units being produced.

MR. BLENCOE: If that's the best the minister can do with the Ministry of Housing, to cite a CMHC flyer and some general forecasts from CMHC, which they do regularly, but nothing from his own ministry in terms of analysis or study.... Our staff, who work very hard.... If the minister disagrees, that's fine. But we don't even have any studies from the government to back up their claims. Even their own studies, analysis and forecasts of their own program.... All he can do is cite a CMHC summary report. I don't even know what the date is on that summary report. I suspect it may be a little old.

I gather there is no detailed analysis, solid report or studies of your own program's impact on the vacancy rate and what it's going to do for the province. You're spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money— $30 million on the television to tell people it's going to solve all their problems, and you don't have the evidence to show how it's going to do that.

Again, we've driven a truck right through this government's housing program. They're spending $30 million, nearly as much as they're spending on social housing, and they don't have anything to back up their claims. They've got all the staff in the world. They've got all the ability to do that. They're going out there and saying that we're doing all these units,

[ Page 9844 ]

we're doing all these wonderful things for the lower mainland, and not one of their own studies. He digs up a CMHC flyer.

Well, well, well! That's where we are in housing in the province of British Columbia. We took the time, with our limited resources, to make a very fair analysis, giving the benefit of the doubt to the government and its program in many areas. All the minister can come up with is a flyer from CMHC. No study. Their own study for their own staff, their own ministry.... This government is consistently spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to tell them they're doing something about housing, but they haven't got the studies or the analysis to back up that it's going to deal with the problem satisfactorily.

I have today taken the opportunity, and our staff have taken the time, to go through it and do the analysis with our limited resources on the opposition side. This minister has a ministry behind him —  a full ministry and the B.C. Housing Management Commission and all those people — and he cites a CMHC report. No wonder your program is in tatters. No wonder you can't deliver housing. No wonder tenants are on the street. No wonder gouging is happening in the province of British Columbia. No wonder people don't believe you and your advertising. No wonder when you say it's $1 billion for housing we find out through the books it's $35 million — 0.27 percent of the budget.

Their program is in tatters, and they don't have the studies to back up their own analysis and their own announcements. That's where housing is in the province of British Columbia.

MR. BRUCE: I've been sitting here listening to this debate, and I find it somewhat repetitious. However, it is something that the NDP and the opposition critic here....

MR. JONES: Tell us about the road to Bratislava.

MR. BRUCE: I'll come back to the road to Bratislava, if you'd like to hear that one again.

The critic for housing goes on about the fact of a study. The opposition has been known for years and years for having to do a study before doing anything, and then when you get that study, you have another study. What do you need a study for?

Let's just put it together. You've had a net increase, if I'm correct — Mr. Minister, you might be able to help me out if I'm not — in in-migration to this province of 60,000 people. Now to me that means that more people have moved here, and some of us are having children — I heard a great debate here earlier about diapers and so on. There's an increase in the population in this province, 60,000 in-migration, which would mean — in my mind, anyway — that you need more housing.

The next thing I would do — very practically; I don't think I need a study — is drive through my community. Without even going to the municipal hall or the regional district or the city hall, I would drive through my community and see whether there is actually any development. Are there any houses being built on the lots that have been graded over time? And do you know what you would find in my community? You would find a fair number of new houses and new developments taking place.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: It's not that there's no problem; I'm glad the member from Burnaby mentioned that. There is a problem; there is a concern. You know why there's a concern? Because people like to live in British Columbia. I don't want to go on and on about it, but the reason they like to live in British Columbia is that it's a good place to live, and it's a good place to live because there's good government here. When the time comes that we get to an election again, sometime in the near future, I think the people of British Columbia will understand that there has been good government, and they will return good government to power in this province — the Social Credit Party.

I think it's wonderful that the opposition has had another study. I think it's wonderful that the housing critic can stand up and ask the minister: "What studies have you done?"

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Well, I'll tell you, the analysis is quite simple. There are more housing starts today in the province of British Columbia than we've seen in years and years and years.

MR. BLENCOE: What happened to the vacancy rate?

MR. BRUCE: The vacancy rate? You have an in-migration of 60,000 people plus.

MR. BLENCOE: Blame somebody else.

MR. BRUCE: The only thing I can blame is the fact that the province of British Columbia is a wonderful and great place to live in. The only thing I can deduce is that people want to move here. They like to live here, and when people like to live in an area and they start to come together in a community, there will be problems for people to find housing. What will happen is that more and more of those lots that have been created will be developed upon.

Housing starts around the province are on a phenomenal increase, but they don't seem to count. It seems to me the only thing I can deduce from your comments, Mr. Critic, is that unless the government is out there actually with a hammer and saw.... And, Mr. Minister, have you been out with your hammer and saw lately? Have you been out there actually building? Why are you sitting here in the House? Perhaps this member will let these particular estimates go through, and you can get your carpenter's apron on and get out there and start building some housing.

[ Page 9845 ]

MR. BLENCOE: It would be an improvement.

MR. BRUCE: That's all I hear him saying. He wants us to go back to the road to Bratislava. He wants us to go back to eastern bloc countries. He wants to go back to the socialistic philosophy, and he wants to build rows and rows and rows of blencoeblocks — all of those housing units identical; all the same; no type of individual spirit to them; nothing there that people can grow in and feel proud of.

Well, Mr. Member, I've got news for you. There's been a change in eastern Europe. You know what? They don't like the socialistic philosophies. They want the enterprise, they want the individuality, and they understand that there are going to be some significant problems faced in moving into a free market system. But they are sick and tired of the so-called planned market economy that you in the socialist field talk about. Nothing exemplifies that more than your comments dealing with housing. Blencoeblocks, blencoeblocks, blencoeblocks, all over the province of British Columbia — nothing individual, nothing creative, nothing where people can feel they actually own a part of the province.

We have a boom, with people moving into the province and people having families. Yes, there's a problem in trying to find accommodation. The minister has acknowledged that. The minister is telling you what the ministry is doing. But with what the ministry and the government as a whole are doing, there have also been phenomenal increases in the private sector in the development of homes.

I am glad to hear that the opposition, the NDP, the socialists of this province, have undertaken another study. I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you must feel very confident, knowing that the opposition has undertaken one more study. What do we need a study for? We know what the problem is. We have people who have moved to this province to live, and they need housing. You're trying to satisfy that demand with the private sector, and they're trying to satisfy that demand.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: The vacancy rate? It is very tight. We know it, you know it, the minister knows it and everybody knows it. What are we going to do — run out there and have all these blencoeblocks constructed, and it will all be owned by the government, and you'll be able to rent from the government? You can have one block after the other, all the same, and they can be owned by the government. Oh, wonderful! That's just absolutely wonderful!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your enthusiasm but notes a word that has come forward in your dissertation a number of times Is "blencoeblocks" one word or is it two?

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just explain, it's one word, and it's a form of construction that's found in Czechoslovakia, in a little community called Bratislava.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

[2:30]

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Minister, I'm very concerned, because we hear, I think, very tedious, repetitious comment from the opposition. I don't want the people of British Columbia to have to rent their homes from the government; I want people to be able to own their own homes. All I hear from the opposition is about this development of blocks and blocks of apartments, blencoeblocks, similar to what's found in Bratislava, and you can rent from the government. That's not what the people of this province are all about. This is an enterprising, individual type of province where people want to own a piece of the rock, so to speak. You should understand that.

Certainly, Mr. Minister, there are things for this House to get on with, to deal with. We're out in front. It's a beautiful place. The lights are burning. I remember that old line of a while back when the opposition were in government: would the last person out of the province turn out the lights. Well, we know the lights are burning brightly here in the province of British Columbia and they'll continue to burn brightly.

HON. MR. DUECK: I really must commend the member for Cowichan for his enthusiasm. It gave me a bit of a breather. Every word he said is true. Even the opposition agreed and nodded their heads and said: "Just sit down; we believe every word of it."

I have to put something on the record that I think needs to be said. My housing critic keeps saying certain things that appear on the record as though I had said them. He said that we had no planning in place, and he said that I said I was quoting from a flyer. You can twist words and make it sound like something else, something I've said which in fact is not so. I said we do planning and I said we have got all kinds of data.

I wouldn't be surprised if the figures that that member got were in fact from the B.C. Housing Management Commission, because they have all that data. I'm sure that's where he got the information, and that's how he made up his analysis. I want him to know that we do....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Oh, we haven't got.... I said very clearly for the record that I did not have the documentation here. We have a department and the B.C. Housing....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, can I please have the floor?

[ Page 9846 ]

I would also like to state that we have a planning department in the B.C. Housing Management Commission completely separate from the rest of it. It does nothing but analyze the situation in the province as to vacancies and housing units built. We also work very closely with CMHC, through which we are in partnership with the federal government. Why reinvent the wheel? A lot of that information comes from them. We don't go and do the whole thing over again, because it is provided in partnership with them on the social housing portfolio. We also have HIFE as another organization that provides an awful lot of data. The B.C. Housing Management....

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the study? Where's the analysis?

HON. MR. DUECK: It's coming. The B.C. Housing Management Commission participates with the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C. and the Urban Development Institute in research and development planning. That is just an example of what we do for planning and research. Of course, we couldn't operate in the housing business if we didn't have a lot of research and a lot of data. It would be literally impossible. When the member says that we have no analysis and no study, he's absolutely out to lunch. He keeps saying this, hoping that the record will show that we haven't done any studies, that we have no data, no analysis. Of course we do. I just want it for the record that it's very clear that we have done studies and that it's an ongoing thing. We have a department that does nothing but that. Mr. Chairman, I want him to know that just putting words in my mouth is not good enough for the record. I have to straighten that out.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here patiently waiting for about ten or 15 minutes now to join in this debate. I had a number of questions I wanted to pursue with the minister. I was deflected from my course, as we all know, by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who belongs to the Chicken Little style of politics — the ones who always stand up and shriek that the sky is falling for one reason or another.

It's interesting, too, to note that the speech was clearly a manifestation of a breakdown in communication between the minister and the backbencher, because obviously what was supposed to happen with that 15-minute ritualistic rant from the member for Cowichan-Malahat was that the minister was to take the opportunity to go to the washroom. That's what's supposed to happen. Unfortunately, the minister had to sit in the House the whole time waiting to see if there was some substance. Clearly there wasn't any substance, and all of us have now waited for an extra 15 minutes for no good purpose. How sad that is. How sad that is because he, of course, belongs to the ready-shoot-aim school of analysis. These are the folks who believe that you really don't need to do any homework before you devise public policy. Instead you play it as ready, shoot and then aim. That's what we heard from the member for Cowichan-Malahat. What a shame that he didn't stay around to take his lumps as he ought.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have a predicament. We have by prearrangement agreed to adjourn this House relatively shortly, therefore I can't pursue all of the matters I want to. Instead I can merely open the door. Do we have some ten minutes before we adjourn?

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll simply open the door to the issue. I see that the Minister of Social Services and Housing has stepped out for a moment, quite understandably. But I see his officials are here, therefore he will certainly be able to deal with the question.

I know the minister and his officials will be familiar with the activities of an organization in my community called the Nanaimo Affordable Housing Committee. They have had some correspondence with the minister. This was an organization — a group of citizens, landlords, tenants and other interested persons — put together in January of 1989 to deal with the basic problem of substandard rental accommodation. That's how the committee began its deliberations.

What developed very quickly thereafter, though, was that as they began exploring the problem of substandard rental accommodation, they quickly came to the obvious and necessary conclusion that it is a shortage of supply of accommodation that produces substandard accommodation.

I am pleased to see the minister has returned, and having dealt with him now for a number of years in another portfolio, I know he has always been most cooperative and has attempted to answer my questions. So I know he will be listening to this.

The problem of substandard rental accommodation, it seems to me, is also a legitimate responsibility of the Minister of Housing. I know that various overtures and representations have been made to the minister, whereby municipal authorities are being requested to be vested with the authority to do something about substandard rental accommodation, as the city of Vancouver has by its charter.

I am wondering if the minister could give me an update on what his ministry is doing, if anything, about that problem of substandard rental accommodation. Could we start with that simple question?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think I have made myself very clear. In the last six or seven hours, it's been mostly on housing, and I have told the House exactly what we're doing in the area of housing. It comes down to supply, supply, supply. As you provide new housing, people move up to better housing. Generally there is then a redevelopment program, and the substandards go by the wayside or they get redeveloped. That is generally the system in the private sector. Where we come in as government is to supply social housing.

I should mention that social housing today, versus five or ten years ago, is much different. We're building better houses — or rather, better housing; they're generally not single houses. They are rentals

[ Page 9847 ]

and in smaller complexes, whereas at one time we used to build 100 or 200 in one development. They are now generally built in smaller complexes to fit in better with the comununity, and they're well built. The same with the rental supply program; that will be good housing. I'm sure that as older housing deteriorates, it gets to a point where it's redeveloped. That happens in every town, every city, every community; and that's the normal scheme of things. We develop new housing. Hopefully the supply will increase, and the older ones will be redeveloped to upgrade them.

MR. LOVICK: I certainly don't disagree with the conclusion that the root of the problem is a shortage of supply — no question. That's basic economic theory, and that's orthodox thinking — no problem. The difficulty I am having, however, is with leaving this housing crisis to sort itself out, so that those on the absolute bottom end — i.e., those living in ghettoized accommodation — are provided with no protection against substandard housing. When we have a buoyant market, those people are at the mercy of the most unscrupulous. It would seem to me a legitimate responsibility for the Minister of Housing to take some action and to give some assurances about perhaps even investigating matters, setting some basic regulations; or if the ministry is reluctant to do so, then to provide municipal authorities with that right. That's the question I'm asking.

I recognize that our time is flying very quickly, Mr. Minister. My colleague, our housing critic, has some new information he wants to get on the record before we adjourn. Therefore I'm going to yield to him now. But I want to come back to this issue, if I can, when we pick up the estimates again next week.

HON. MR. DUECK: It's not up to the member to say who he's going to yield to. He asked what we are doing about substandard housing. Every municipality has the authority to condemn, if it is not in a condition that is worthy of housing.

We are doing something about substandard housing; that is, supply. I come back to that again and again. People will move up, and the very derelict buildings will no longer be occupied, because people will not use that kind of housing if there is a sufficient supply. But somehow you don't understand that.

I say that when this program is completed and takes full effect, we will have 9,900 units. The private sector is supplying 40,000 housing starts a year. There's an influx of people, and that influx certainly puts the pressure on. We build 1,886 social housing units a year. I don't know what else you want us to do. Do you want me to go and inspect houses, and then close them down and make the situation even worse?

I am saying that supply is the answer. I can't do it fast enough. We're doing everything we can to get that supply out there so that people have proper accommodation.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'll only take one minute. The minister talks about supply and his great program. I have spent some time this morning doing our analysis. The minister says he has studies. Our staff confirmed with the B.C. Housing Management Commission just a few moments ago that neither the commission nor anyone in the ministry has done a study of the impact of the rental supply on vacancy rates or anything else. There is no study, no analysis, by this government of their program — the one they say will solve the housing problem in the province.

Today I did a fair analysis. I think it's a sad reflection on this government that it has no analysis of its own programs in terms of what it's saying on television and in advertising: that it's going to resolve our housing problem.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report great 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. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, to you, sir, and to all hon. members and staff of the buildings, I wish you all a very happy weekend. I hope to see you all on Monday. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:44 p.m.