[ Page 9849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Ban the Use of CFCs (Bill M210). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9849

An Act to Phase Out Apartment and Commercial Incinerators (Bill M211).

Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9849

British Columbia Recycling Act (Bill M212). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9850

Oral Questions

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 9850

Motor vehicle inspection. Mr. Miller –– 9850

Chilcotin forest industry. Mr. Vant –– 9851

Snug Cove destination resort. Ms. Pullinger –– 9851

Abortion services. Ms. Marzari –– 9852

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9853

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to the House His Excellency Count Jean-François de Liedekerke, Ambassador of Belgium to Canada, who is visiting us from Ottawa. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Today visiting in the gallery we have 38 grade 10 students from Pacific Academy in Coquitlam, along with their teacher, Mr. Drisner, and some other adults. They're here to learn about democracy. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. DE JONG: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House our youngest daughter Valerie and her husband, Gerald Veltkamp. They're from Lynden, Washington, and I ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today are 26 students from a grade 4 and 5 class at Richard McBride School in New Westminster with their teacher, Miss Diane Holmen, and a number of adults who are accompanying the children. They are very welcome in the House, and I know all of you will join me in that welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Two constituents of mine and of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) paid a small fortune at a Rotarian fund-raiser recently to visit the Legislature and to have one of our fine lunches in the legislative dining room with the second member for Richmond. This fine couple represents Continental Explosives, an excellent Richmond-based company that supplies our logging and mining industry throughout the province. We're very pleased to have them here today, and I'll be visiting with them briefly after this. I would ask the House to welcome Jeff and Reggie Balabanov.

HON. MR. FRASER: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I introduce a group of students from King George Secondary School together with their teacher, Patricia McGeer — a very familiar name around here: Pat, but not Patricia. Would they all please be made welcome by all members.

MR. CHALMERS: Today I have four special guests visiting from Kelowna in the great riding of Okanagan South. I would like everybody to welcome Mr. Jim Mills, who is a chartered accountant, one of B.C.'s leading tax specialists with Rutherford Bazett and Co. in Kelowna; his wife Dorothy; Mr. Dave Borden of Borden Insulation Services and his wife Elaine. Would you help me make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: In our Legislature today are two individuals who are the winners of a provincewide competition for grade 12 high school students sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association in honour of Law Day 1990. They did a speech and wrote an essay on the topic of law and the environment.

Would the House join me in welcoming these winners to our assembly today. They are Marcy Allan from Mission, British Columbia, who is the winner of the Law Day essay competition; and Alison Carvallo from Richmond, British Columbia, winner of the Barry Sullivan Law Cup for public speaking.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO BAN THE USE OF CFCs

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Ban the Use of CFCs.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this bill bans the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances over a five-year period. The basis for this ban is that the production of certain chemicals, including CFCs and halons, is known to harm the ozone layer. Currently, about 20,000 tonnes of CFCs are produced in Canada annually, ending up in aerosol sprays, rigid-foam food packaging, flexible foam used in seat cushions, etc. The ozone layer is essential for protection of the earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays and is an essential part of a balanced and healthy ecosystem.

Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT APARTMENT
AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled an Act to Phase Out Apartment and Commercial Incinerators.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to phase out the use of apartment and commercial incinerators over the next two years. These incinerators are commonly used for trash disposal, but often burn at very low efficiency, are outdated in design and lack emission-control equipment. They typically produce high levels of smoke emissions, odours and fly ash, and they contribute significantly to air pollution.

In addition, the elimination of these types of incinerators will reduce emissions of dangerous air pollutants such as CFCs, heavy metals, dioxins and other cancer-causing toxins.

Bill M211 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.

[ Page 9850 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA RECYCLING ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill Intituled British Columbia Recycling Act.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this bill takes new steps to reduce garbage incineration and waste landfills threatening our environment by establishing a provincewide recycling program. A B.C. recycling agency will be established to provide financial and technical support for curbside recycling in all B.C. communities. The agency will also take action to minimize garbage from non-biodegradable materials including styrofoam, plastic packaging and problematic wastes such as tires, construction materials, motor oils and batteries. It will encourage new B.C. markets for recyclable materials and encourage the research and development of environmentally sound packaging, products and recycling technologies.

Bill M212 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister received a comptroller-general's report last week. Will the minister confirm that Mr. Stan Dubas was fired in part because of expense irregularities concerning a 1988 trip to Amsterdam, Stockholm, Erlangen, Munich and London?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's inappropriate at this particular time to discuss the details contained In the report.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister confirm that Mr. Dubas was accompanied on this trip by his wife and the then Minister of Health and his wife? Will the minister confirm that the Minister of Health's expenses associated with this trip were also the subject of a Ministry of Finance audit?

Another question to the Minister of Finance. Does the government have a policy with respect to private companies that supply equipment to the government paying for expenses of cabinet ministers and deputies op official government travel?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the government takes very seriously its responsibilities in protecting the interests of its citizens and the proprieties that accompany the longstanding rule of common law that there be sensitivities to the issues being addressed. For that reason, as I've said earlier, it is inappropriate at this particular time to discuss the details of any such confidential report.

MR. CLARK: It's rather interesting that the minister chose to answer that way when I asked about policy with respect to suppliers paying for travel costs.

A new question. Will the minister confirm that Siemens Electric, a supplier of equipment to the Ministry of Health, paid the hotel bills for Mr. Dubas, his wife, the former Minister of Health and his wife while they were in Stockholm, Erlangen and Munich?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister make public the financial audits of the former Minister of Health and Mr. Dubas so that the public can see exactly how taxpayers' dollars are spent on these trips around the world?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the House and the second member for Vancouver East are well aware of the process by which examination of public accounts is conducted. It has been a longstanding principle of this Legislature that an all-party committee of the House examine the public accounts. Indeed, members in the opposition traditionally look forward to that exercise with great relish. I suspect that this longstanding tradition is still held sacrosanct and respected by all members of the House.

As I have said earlier, it is not appropriate at this time to discuss the specifics of any particular confidential document presently received by government.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER: To the Solicitor-General, Mr. Speaker. Your director of inspections and carrier safety testified under oath in the coroner's court that almost half the trucks inspected at roadside failed and that about 15 percent were pulled off the road. Has the minister reviewed the privatization of vehicle inspections that was introduced by this government, to determine whether it is adequately protecting the public?

[2:15]

HON. MR. FRASER: The government of British Columbia takes safety on the roads very seriously, whether on highways or streets or gravel roads, and accordingly it has addressed a very significant effort to the safety of vehicles, whether commercial trucks, tandems, taxicabs or automobiles.

This jurisdiction, incidentally, is the toughest in the Pacific Northwest. We have agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Washington, Oregon and others to ensure that the standards of vehicle safety on highways are met.

You might be interested to know that we have had representations made to our motor vehicle branch by people from the United States complaining about the stiffness and harshness of our standards. That makes us feel quite proud, because we know we are doing everything we can to ensure safety on the roads — day or night, winter or summer.

We also apply those standards to vehicles that come from out of the province, whether they be from

[ Page 9851 ]

Washington, Oregon or California, or Alberta in particular. We are endeavouring to ensure that the public safety is met, whether the trucks are on level ground, on a hill, in the towns, in the cities or anywhere in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: A new question to the minister. He obviously didn't hear the preamble to my first question. Half the trucks inspected failed. Has the minister accepted the recommendations of the coroner's jury with respect to the Kamloops accident that fines up to $500 be imposed on operators with maladjusted brakes, that weigh scales be open 24 hours a day and that the ministry hire more inspectors to ensure that commercial vehicles traveling on our highways are safe?

HON. MR. FRASER: Firstly, I would advise the House that my understanding is that the member's numbers are incorrect.

But I can assure the House that my officials and I will be reviewing the coroner's report and studying its implications very carefully. That will include all the recommendations, whether or not that includes fines which may be too low or too high, weigh scales being open 24 hours a day or whether that would have an impact on the safety of vehicle traffic in the province. As I said earlier, we take safety on the road very seriously, and that is why we go to such great lengths to provide it.

That also means that everybody on the road has to take precautions with respect to their own vehicles, including private vehicle owners, operators of commercial transports and people who own trucks of any description. We will certainly be working with them and every agency that we can to ensure that the safety we want is delivered.

CHILCOTIN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. VANT: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. This past weekend over 1,000 truckers, loggers and millworkers attended a rally in Williams Lake in my constituency because they are worried about their jobs and the potential for violence if a blockade is imposed as promised by native groups against future logging in the Chilcotin. Native land claims disputes must not be allowed....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member to ask a question.

MR. VANT: What assurance can the minister give my constituents in the Cariboo that this government will protect the jobs and personal security of people working in the forest industry, using the full force of the law if necessary?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We are very concerned about the potential loss of jobs in the Williams Lake area because a very few militant native Indians have chosen to draw an area on a map the size of many European countries and proclaim it as theirs. For the time being, we have struck a committee that is working with them to try to get them involved economically in the forest industry.

I personally flew out to their reserve at Alexis Creek two weeks ago and had a meeting with them — as far as the meeting went. But it was very obvious after the first five minutes that the only thing on the mind of Chief Francis Laceese was the claim that he lays to a large area of the Chilcotin.

It is unfortunate, because we are endeavouring to do everything to involve the native Indians in the economic side of the forest industry. A senior ADM in the ministry is working with the local people and the industry. I have done everything possible, so we can only hope that they will come to the table, and maybe we can get them involved in the forest industry. However, if they choose to blockade roads that do not go through their reserves, then we can only ask that the RCMP make every effort to uphold the law and to protect jobs in the Williams Lake area.

SNUG COVE DESTINATION RESORT

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. Just before midnight on Friday, the minister announced a $330,000 loan for an international destination resort at Snug Cove on Bowen Island. Can the minister tell the House why the local Islands Trust government was not informed that an international destination resort project loan was being considered for Snug Cove?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: First of all, the member is incorrect that the Islands Trust was not consulted. Indeed, there is a very long process in which several bodies are consulted and asked for submissions on projects such as this. In this case all of the preliminary approvals were indeed done. There was consultation with all bodies involved in any way, shape or form.

The member also states that the release was issued just before midnight. She must have got that from Vancouver Province reporter Tom Watt, and I want to say that that is inaccurate, as is the part of the statement by Tom Watt, staff reporter, which reads as follows:

"A press release issued just before midnight Friday quoted B.C. Tourism Minister Cliff Michael as saying: 'What we are doing with the Snug Cove marina on Bowen island is providing funding for its infrastructure, which will spur on other private sector development and again make Bowen Island a popular destination resort. This is the approach we took with Whistler, and it has obviously been successful.'"

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record that I made no such statement, and that reporter is misquoting me in that respect.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd just like to point out that this loan follows a $1 million loan given to the Bedwell Harbour resort on Pender Island, also for an international destination development and also over the objections of local government and local resi-

[ Page 9852 ]

dents. Has the minister decided to ignore his government's commitment to help the Islands Trust protect the quality of life in the Gulf Islands and push the Snug Cove development through despite the wishes of the island's residents?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The only correct part of that statement has to do with the fact that there was some low-interest money provided for the developments on both Pender and Bowen Islands. The rest of the information that the member has is incorrect. I would ask that the member do her homework, perhaps do a bit more research, contact her research staff in caucus and get hold of the evidence of public hearings — there are transcripts available. If she would do that, I'm sure she would be assured that indeed there was proper consultation and communication with all parties involved.

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Health. Has the minister decided to use the powers given to him in section 32 of the Hospital Act to ensure universal access to abortion services throughout the province?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia conforms to the Canada Health Act with respect to abortion services.

MS. MARZARI: Tomorrow the federal Parliament is going to vote on a bill which in effect removes choice from women but which permits abortion under limited circumstances; yet there are dozens of hospitals here in B.C. which will not permit abortions under any circumstances. Richmond, Delta, Langley, Chilliwack, Vernon, Tofino, Kitimat and Burns Lake are just a few of them. Has this government decided to continue to permit hospital boards to deny access to legal abortions based on the moral judgment of board members?

HON. J. JANSEN: This government believes in the autonomy of hospital boards.

MR. ROSE: I rise on a point of order or a point of information, whichever you prefer, Mr. Speaker. Our Premier has just returned from a visit to central Canada and the Prime Minister, and there has been much ballyhoo about the Premier's appearance on television tonight. I'd like to ask the Premier whether, on this important matter....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair cannot rule on a decision or a request from a member, whether it be on a point of order or a point of privilege, unless the Chair has the opportunity to hear the member's request. So if I'm given that opportunity, I'll make a decision.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, since this House has already passed the Meech resolution, I'd like to ask the Premier whether he intends to inform this duly constituted body — which I think is his first priority — before he goes to the public on a matter of such grave importance to all Canadians. I hope that he would offer a ministerial statement to this House immediately, if he's able to do so, because we'd all be fascinated by it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has now heard enough of what the member wishes to bring up. Will the member please take his seat.

If the Premier or any minister wishes to stand and make a ministerial statement at any time when the House is meeting as the House — or even, for that matter, when the House is meeting in committee — he's free to do so. A member of the executive council may merely rise and get the attention of the Chair.

The Chair has no idea and has not been advised of the progress of business, nor has the Chair been advised of any advance statements. The member asked a question which could have been put in question period, but there's nothing in our standing orders which requires the Chair to hear any more of what the member brings forward. If the member wishes to continue....

MR. ROSE: I don't want to argue the case too vociferously, Mr. Speaker, but it has to do with House business. As the opposition House Leader, I think I'm entitled to request of the Premier, since it's already in the can.... The program has been prerecorded, therefore it can't affect the outcome. So I would ask the Premier if he can address the House on this subject, and we'd all be grateful.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the Chair, I point out that it is not a point of order. I should also point out, so that the members in this House and the people in British Columbia know, that the opposition leader was offered equal time to talk to them tonight, and he refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Neither of the first two statements has been an actual point of order, but now we'll try a third one.

MR. HARCOURT: On a point of order, the government House Leader is inaccurate. I was not offered equal time. He should tell the truth in this House when he makes statements like that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Having seen the Leader of the Opposition on television, I'm sure we would offer to pay for it if he hasn't been offered.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Chair would like to proceed to the next order of business, having heard several points of order that were not points of order.

[ Page 9853 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MR. BLENCOE: On Friday, Mr. Chairman, I presented to the minister and his staff some analysis of the rental supply program. I made it quite clear that it was our analysis, although we were using CMHC, Urban Development Institute, StatsCan and the B.C. Ministry of Finance figures — but there were some assumptions in that analysis, obviously. We don't have available to us all the information of the government's program.

After this announcement of the supply program, we concluded — unless the minister can show otherwise — that by 1992 we would have a reduction in the vacancy rate in the lower mainland, despite the claims being made by the government in their program.

Also, at the end of the session on Friday, I indicated to the minister — and I wasn't quite sure.... Earlier in the debate he said he thought there were some studies. We were told that the B.C. Housing Management Commission has not done any studies or analysis of the rental supply program to back up their claims that this will heal our housing problems.

So I am wondering if the minister or his staff, over the weekend, has come up with some analysis by the government to deal with what I presented. I indicated to the minister that it was an open-ended request; if the minister had information that would be useful to both sides of the Legislature, it would be very useful.

I am wondering if the minister today has anything new to report on the rental supply program in terms of analysis of the impact on the vacancy rate.

HON. MR. DUECK: I alluded to some of the planning processes that we do. Some are in joint partnership with the CMHC and HIFE, and we also have a small department in the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I also mentioned that we don't necessarily invent the wheel again, because there is certain information available. We use that, plus our own planning department of four that provides policy analysis and evaluation, housing predictions, and research in an effective and efficient manner. The federal government, of course, is the senior partner on the issue of housing, and so B.C. Housing works jointly with CMHC. As you can understand, they have a very large bureaucracy for getting this information to us.

In partnership with the CMHC, B.C. Housing annually produces a plan for new social housing activity around the province. This plan takes into account many factors: the current housing market; economic conditions; expected migration to the province, which was a bit skewed because we didn't expect that many people coming in; the distribution and demand of social housing; the costs of social housing; production, relative needs and priority in client groups, like seniors and older people versus families and disabled.

The plan also tells us the allocation that should be provided for these various groups in the various areas of the province. This is done annually with a three-year projection. My staff has a variety of information in the development of this plan, including material provided by CMHC, Statistics Canada and the Ministry of Finance. For example, the information we have includes household income, facilities and equipment survey — the HIFE program with the federal government — special CMHC and B.C. Housing computer run on core housing needs and database, which is taken from HIFE; information from the labour force survey; and information from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing regarding client needs. B.C. Housing is engaged in a joint study with CMHC on the rental housing market across Canada, with emphasis on Vancouver and Montreal, where the greatest pressure has been, at least in the last couple of years; a joint study with the Ministry of Health for support of Housing; a major audit of the rent supplement program is currently underway; a major audit of the non-profit program was completed, and the B.C. program was noted as being very positive; and a conference on seniors' housing for the 1990s is being planned by CMHC and B.C. Housing, which will be held later on in June, I believe.

These are just a few examples of the information we use to develop and evaluate our housing programs. The important thing is not where the information comes from, as you can well understand, but whether it is used and we get it. It would be very ineffective for B.C. Housing to receive this information already being produced by other agencies and then not use it at all. Surely you would have to agree with that. We wouldn't want to squander money if we could use information from other sources such as those I've mentioned.

With CMHC, B.C. Housing participates in an annual review of social housing activities to determine if the planning goals are being met and to account for discrepancies. They also monitor the costs of new social housing production against the availability of our current budget to enable as many clients as possible to be serviced in the areas where the need is the greatest.

B.C. Housing participates extensively in negotiations between the federal government and the provinces to ensure that we get our fair share. I think I covered that subject in detail in the last couple of days.

The planning and policy group instituted a method of financing social housing through mort-

[ Page 9854 ]

gage-backed securities, in order to reduce the interest costs for projects committed under the social housing program. The five-year saving for the 1987 program was estimated at $1.5 million, and then $6.2 million for the following year. Ten million dollars will be saved over the next five years. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to use this method, but others are now adopting it.

Furthermore, as part of the process of developing the B.C. rental supply program, rental market conditions in various areas were carefully analyzed by B.C. Housing. The result of that analysis is a very successful program which received great reports from developers, advocates for housing in various areas and governments across the nation. As a matter of fact, they've come here and asked about our program — how they can institute it in their province. It deals with the problem of limited rental supply in a very effective manner.

In summary, it is B.C. Housing's responsibility to plan social housing activity and to monitor housing markets constantly, so that housing programs will respond to real need in a cost-effective fashion — where the need is and for those people most in need.

I trust that answers some of your questions.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the minister's response and his going through the various levels of government and offices available to him and his staff for analysis of programs that are primarily driven by federal dollars. But this is my concern. I was surprised that there was not a substantial provincial analysis — a cost-benefit analysis and a value-for-money approach — of the millions of dollars you anticipate to spend.

The RSP is a provincial initiative. I can obviously accept CMHC, which is a body that looks at housing issues right across the country. Of course, they're going to analyze anything that's happening in terms of what's happening in the housing field. I'm somewhat surprised — the RSP is the major initiative of your housing program, and with millions of dollars to subsidize the private sector — that you didn't have the background information and rationale or the sound logic to resolve the problem: the benefit to the taxpayer of spending that amount of money, and at least some of your own provincial analysis of the possible impact on the vacancy rate. I may very well have given you a very rudimentary analysis which was at my disposal at the time; I admit that. But at least it was an attempt by our side, which clearly would appear not to have been made by the staff in your ministry. I don't blame the staff, because they're directed by their political masters. It just surprises me. I have to say that if I was responsible for that ministry....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Heaven help us.

MR. BLENCOE: I knew if I said that, Mr. Chairman, I would get the same kind of response. But if we were responsible for that ministry, and we came to spend a lot of taxpayers' money — $80 million to $100 million, maybe more; I don't know — we'd want some sound accounting, sound analysis, sound cost benefit, value for money, the perceived impact on the vacancy rate, with the best information available to government, and the impact on the shortness of supply and affordability. On the affordability issue, I think the minister himself has stated that this is not affordable housing. We accept that. I've always said that, and I'm glad it's on the record. But it's very important when a government ministry launches what it says is its major initiative — not to go over old ground, but I have to restate that it's certainly advertising in the public forum-on television, on radio and in newspapers, wherever it can: B.C.'s program to resolve the housing supply.... You would think — and it would appear — that all we've got so far towards this program is basically public relations. I agree that money has been allocated, but the only commentary about this program is basically the PR that's been developed around it in terms of television advertising and what in my opinion is somewhat misleading in terms of what it does.

[2:45]

So again, Mr. Chairman, the minister says he has all those other levels of government — particularly CMHC — to provide the background information, but I think it's somewhat surprising and disturbing that there isn't more substance to the provincial analysis, particularly when the people of this province are being led to believe that this will really resolve the housing crunch. It may very well, but so far we haven't seen the results of that, and it's not just a New Democrat saying this, which is the normal thing, since obviously the opposition and the government will trade off for what we view as reality; but I would have expected from the government side some analysis of the PR reality that they're putting out there. That's all. Perhaps it can be done; perhaps we'll see something. I certainly would be very pleased to see if there's any....

So far the only analysis appears to have been what we have done on this side, and I have to say that in many respects it is rudimentary, because we don't have the full information. We're not running the program; we don't have the staff. I think British Columbians would probably be surprised to hear that the only real analysis and attempt to see what this program would do in the long term for housing in the province are being made by the opposition.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, they certainly would.

MR. BLENCOE: You may laugh, but we've had nothing from the government in terms of....

HON. MR. VEITCH: How many houses have you built lately?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister from Burnaby asks, how many houses have we built?

MR. RABBITT: Not we; you.

[ Page 9855 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I was one of the people instrumental in setting up the Capital Region Housing Corporation, which has had an incredible track record of building affordable social housing in this community. It has hundreds of units in this region. Indeed, there are many people on this side of the Legislature — especially the Leader of the Opposition, who has been active for years — who have a lot of experience in private and public initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, the government — I'd like to call it the opposition, because that's where they'll be soon — likes to throw barbs across the floor, but in my estimation there is great experience on this side of the Legislature in dealing with this issue. Quite frankly, in terms of the analysis, so far it is our analysis — unless the minister can refute it — that is showing that the rental supply program is not all it's made out to be. It won't deal with many of the problems on the lower mainland. We would like to be proved wrong, if the minister is able to do that, but it would appear that he can't do that. Does the minister want to respond? Otherwise, I have some more questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in what I heard from the member opposite about the Leader of the Opposition's experience in building housing. One of the things I remember about the Leader of the Opposition's experience in building housing is that, while on a contract with CMHC, he voted on something in city hall that involved CMHC. It seems that he went to great lengths to explain that it wasn't a conflict of interest. I thought it was interesting, and perhaps the member would give us more on that.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat...

AN HON. MEMBER: Alarming.

HON. MR. DUECK: That's a good one.

...disturbing that the member keeps saying that we haven't done an analysis, and that we're working out of a vacuum, when there is a shortage of supply, and we've announced that we have the authority to build 8,000 units under the rental supply program plus roughly 2,000 units of social housing, which we've done since 1986....

This rental supply program — talk about cost effectiveness — by spending $80 million will produce roughly $720 million worth of housing and will create roughly 11,000 jobs. He says that we have done nothing, and that it's not cost effective. And he goes on and on.

The statement I made is that our analysis was done with information we received from various sources. That's how any analysis is done, whether you have your own staff do it or you collect the information and figures from someone else — as long as they are accurate.

Statistics Canada, CMHC, HIFE, as well as our staff at B.C. Housing Management Commission, are all in the business of producing this information for our particular area. We are very much aware of what is happening in the community. The only thing I cannot do much about is increasing the social housing allotment, because they've cut us back some more. I had a call from Mr. Redway today, and there should be some good news in the next couple of days.

But talking about housing, I would also like to make a little announcement today, since this news release is going out today. Jointly with the city of Vancouver and DERA — the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association — we have gone into a program of registry in that particular area for people who are looking for housing. We've come to an agreement, and as is known by most members of this House, DERA has done a fantastic job for us. They are managing many units for us in the east side, and we are now operating a relocation and registry service jointly with the city of Vancouver and DERA. The city of Vancouver already has a registry, but this is specifically for that area.

I have to say that, by and large, the housing situation — although we haven't got enough units — is working quite well, if we could just get the applications through the financial side of it and the zoning. That's where the holdup is. As long as that can be solved.... It is being solved, but it is fairly slow. That should be improving from today on. When it was started, it was slow, because as you know, zoning and financial arrangements are not made overnight. As a matter of fact, zoning sometimes takes months and months, and it still takes that period of time. Also, some people have problems arranging their financing, so that and locating property take time as well.

The program is there; it's working well. I think it's a very cost-effective program, and I'm extremely happy that I was able to double that from 4,000 to 8,000 units. It will provide $720 million worth of construction. I would defy anyone to argue that the program is not successful. I don't know how you can argue that. Obviously you are going to, and you will continue to do so. So I will listen to your next argument.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister made some comment about Mr. Redway. I was just wondering — with all this bureaucracy the minister's talking about — if the minister could advise the House today what the social housing allocation will be for 1990. Do we have any idea? Last year it was announced early. But we have had no indication. As you know, there are many groups waiting to hear what's going to happen. Do we have any affordable housing— social housing — allocation announcements in the near future?

HON. MR. DUECK: As I mentioned before in my estimates, it has been 1,886 — sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, depending on how....

Interjection.

[ Page 9856 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: No, in the past — since 1986. This year, the negotiations have not yet been completed. We are still hopeful that we can get close to that figure, but I'm fighting for that 15 percent. I cannot give you an answer whether we will be successful or not. I think I mentioned in the House Friday or Thursday that there was a conference called for a week ago; I have forgotten exactly what day it was. It was cancelled at the last minute. That was to discuss the allocation and our fair share.

I spoke to Mr. Redway today. I am not at liberty to tell you what the announcement will be. I also didn't say it was specifically about allocation; I just said there will be an announcement which you will be happy about. I had better be very careful that the record doesn't show that I was specific on anything. It will be announced, I believe, on Wednesday afternoon sometime.

I think I also mentioned in the House that Mr. Redway is certainly sincere in his effort to give us that increase in allocation. I think he sees that British Columbia is not getting its fair share. He's got a problem arriving at a consensus with the other provinces and also with his Finance minister.

I got a note back from B.C. Housing. They faxed over some of the analysis that you were speaking about and some of the work that they do. Their analysis shows that everything being equal.... Of course, in housing and many things nothing is equal. But if it carries on the way it is now, with the introduction of the rental supply program, the vacancy rate by 1992 will be between 1 and 2 percent. With this type of in-migration, we feel that we'll get to that figure.

What I'm trying to say is that of course we do all this work. I am sure that some of your figures come from B.C. Housing or Stats Canada or HIFE, or these places where we get our information from. It's no secret. It's open information. Anybody can receive that information. We digest it with B.C. Housing and their department and come up with these analyses.

MR. BLENCOE: I am going to move to let my colleague from Coquitlam speak in a minute.

The minister has said that B.C. Housing has come up with a figure of 1 to 2 percent vacancy rate under the rental supply program. I wonder if the minister would make the information behind that figure available to me — the analysis that B.C. Housing or your staff have done that created the 1 to 2 percent vacancy rate out of RSP. I would be very pleased to see that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am pleased to take my place in this discussion. What I have for the minister really is a question. On Friday I was privileged to participate in a sod-turning for a..... No longer, in my view, can I refer to these units as affordable housing. It was the sod-turning of a housing development in which the province and the federal government are to participate. The housing development is to be of 45 units, and the annual subsidy from the two levels of government is in excess of $500,000 a year. According to my calculations, the subsidy would work out to something in the neighbourhood of $1,000 a month per unit.

Somewhere along the line I would hope that we would be doing some research in an attempt to determine a better way of providing much-needed family housing, and certainly at a lower cost than that. When I look at a subsidy of close to $1,000 a unit per month, it seems to me that we should be able to find a way of better spending our money and providing more in the way of accommodation for that kind of money. Could I ask the minister if the province and the federal government are looking at other programs that would better utilize the money available?

[3:00]

HON. MR. DUECK: True, social housing is very expensive. The information you have received perhaps is not quite accurate, but I would like to look at it and see exactly what information you have. It's shared roughly 70-30 with the federal government — we pay 30, they pay 70.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes. Of course, what the federal government spends is our money too, so I understand that.

We also subsidize other than our own units. In other words, we subsidize in co-op housing, although we haven't got a financial interest. We will subsidize clients in other than our own units that are produced under the program since 1986. We are always looking at better ways and less expensive ways of housing for people in need, for any type of housing.

The rental supply program, of course, is not for social housing, but it is market rent and average and below, so it will provide housing for those people who have an income but can afford a little more and leaves a vacancy for those who can afford less. So it all helps in the total process of finding accommodation for people in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I guess what I'm really wondering, Mr. Minister, is: are we looking at ways of redirecting the money that is presently being spent? Would it not be better to give financial assistance to the people who require the housing, rather than to the housing developments?

HON. MR. DUECK: This has been debated at length many times. The problem with that is that the minute you subsidize people and give them cash, the rents go up to that level immediately. That has been the problem.

For example: if you gave $1,000, the lowest rent would be $1,000; if you gave $1,500, the lowest rent would be $1,500. They keep moving up. So we're saying we're providing the housing, and we control it.

We have got programs — for example, shelter allowance — that are giving people moneys. People who are on GAIN get a portion for their living

[ Page 9857 ]

expenses and a portion for shelter. It goes to an upper limit.

Also, the SAFER program — where we provide for those 60 years and over — provides an allowance for those people with low income so that their rent is no more than 30 percent.

On Friday we had a news release — and I should at this time just quote that or put it in the record, if I can find It quickly — about an increase in the SAFER program. Here we are. I can do it faster than my staff.

On Friday, we released this announcement, and it says: "For SAFER enhancements" — and this is for the people who spend more than 30 percent of their income, to a maximum of $450 — "on July 1 the rent ceiling will be raised to $520 from $450." That's the increase for the seniors in that particular category. For couples it will be raised from $475 to $575. This should be a great help to those people who are 60 years and over and who qualify.

MR. CASHORE: Leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman?

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that the people I introduced earlier from Pacific Academy in Coquitlam, along with Mr. Drisner, are now in the gallery. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

A few moments ago my colleague, the second member for Victoria, asked the minister if he would release the information behind the analysis that was referred to earlier. I'm just wondering if the minister would respond to that now.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'll even do one better; I'll make an appointment so you can meet with the general manager of the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the length of time that you require. You probably have other questions.

I think housing is not something that just this side or that side of the House is interested in. I would like to give you all the information that you require so that you can also assist us in better ways of providing housing for people who need it.

So I have no qualms or reluctance at all. A time that's suitable to you.... I'll even get him to Victoria or Vancouver — whichever suits you best — and you can have a meeting with the general manager of the commission.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate that, and I know the general manager is always available for a meeting.

I think my colleague was asking, as I was, that the general background information to the 1 to 2 percent vacancy claim be made available prior to any meeting. I'd like to get that confirmed if I could.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will talk with the general manager and see how quickly we can get any information for you, or whether he can do it at the same time as the meeting. I think it's information that you probably are entitled to; not only entitled to, but that you should have, as the critic. Having given me a very bad time, I think you are entitled to some information so that you can sit back and say: "I didn't know how good that operation really was."

MR. CASHORE: We hear this figure of 1,886 referred to so many times with regard to the number of social housing units allocated. That goes back to the first of the agreements under the three-year agreements between federal and provincial governments after the province got back into the development of social housing.

The question that we've asked every year is.... Apparently the situation's getting more difficult. The problems with the vacancy rate are becoming more difficult. We see increasing numbers of homeless people out on the streets. The minister talks about the work they've done with the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, yet the incidence of the homeless on the streets is increasing in that part of town.

Obviously the minister and the Housing Management Commission have to turn to very good organizations like DERA to try to help them deal with this. Every time the problem of the housing crisis is brought up, we hear you go through a litany of excuses; we hear you cite all of these different reasons. You blame the municipalities for not deciding quickly enough with regard to projects in their communities, and you blame the federal government for not coming up with an additional amount to cost-share — as though they're at fault. Surely we have to look at ways of improving the approval process for social housing and putting a lot more pressure on the federal government.

Did you know, Mr. Minister, that three years ago Ontario decided that they would put up 30,000 units of social housing over a three-year period, and that they handled the majority of the units on their own, without any federal involvement whatsoever? That was the Ontario government's approach to dealing with the housing crisis that became so intense at the height of the housing boom they experienced years before we did.

When it comes to talking about putting in the units that are going to enable human beings — men, women, and children who live in British Columbia — to exercise their right to shelter, surely we can't keep falling back on the same old excuses. When you talk about programs that increase the number of houses being built, no matter what statistics you come up with, you have not been able to demonstrate that they haven't exacerbated the problem for people who are in deep difficulty over the lack of adequate housing. I have listened very carefully, Mr. Minister, to the responses you gave to my colleague last Thursday and Friday, and I haven't seen you come up with real answers that are going to enable these issues to be addressed.

I think that the minister is probably well aware that I, too, have a background in working in social housing projects. I was instrumental in the process that led towards Jennie Pentland Place and Bill Hennessy Place, two buildings which are across from

[ Page 9858 ]

each other in the downtown east side. Yes, it is true that that was at the time that the Leader of the Opposition was the mayor of Vancouver. He helped with the process of writing down the cost of the land so that those people could live in that accommodation — which, for the first time, was safe and appropriate for people who have had so much to do with the development of our country and our province. It was done in such a way that they weren't forced to have to experience the domino effect, whereby housing pressures in Vancouver end up forcing the most disadvantaged people in our society to have to move again and again.

When we talk about housing statistics, we don't get into the grief, hardship and actual cost in dollars they place upon our health care system or our Solicitor-General ministry — those various ways in which people's lives are impacted so negatively. We find, especially in the circumstances of single parents seeking to care appropriately for their families, that often the results of this dislocation, this necessity of having to move because they cannot find affordable accommodation.... Or when they find affordable accommodation and can at least pay the rent, it's just a matter of time until the rent goes up and they are no longer able to remain in that location, and they're out looking again.

We are in danger of making much more serious a problem that already exists: the problem of really having no place to lay one's head on a long-term basis; having no security of tenure; having no sense that children who are at risk are going to be able to establish strong relationships in peer groups so that they don't have to be impacted by this very distressing and difficult experience of never having the opportunity to know what it is to live in a stable and secure community, always being at the tail-end of the domino and always being at the end of a process that means that they are in some way deemed to be expendable.

Nowhere has the situation come more clearly to my attention than in circumstances in my constituency. In my constituency, Mr. Minister, we have a situation where the residents of two housing projects side by side which are owned by one landowner — a consortium of individuals owns this property on Howie Avenue — have received a rent increase that is absolutely incredible. We found that almost all of these people at the low end of the income scale — some of them are working poor; some of them are on pensions and social assistance — received on March 6 an announcement from the landlord of increases from between 25 and 30 percent. The lowest unit received an increase of $85 a month, and the highest — a two-bedroom unit — had an increase of $160 a month.

These rents have forced these people into the situation where they weren't paying around a third of their income for rent; they were approaching 55 and 60 percent of their income. This type of thing cannot continue without serious social costs to the psyche of our people.

I would like the minister to comment on this particular example from my constituency, where I have gone and met with the people and have heard them tell their stories. What they have told me is that they have been impacted by a moving freight train that started in the Vancouver area and is moving right through our community and pushing these people aside. Rents are going up, and there are no vacancies anywhere at an affordable rate. That means that they have nothing ahead but grief.

[3:15]

I would ask the minister to comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Central Fraser Valley asks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Together with the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck), it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today some 30 students of Valley Christian School. They are here together with several of their parents and their teachers, Mr. Mark Ediger and Mrs. Lianne Takeda. I ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: I am not making excuses. I want to make that very clear in this House. Most of the questions that were asked have been answered ad nauseam — not just once, but again and again and again. But I'll go over them briefly once more.

Perhaps the member should also ask Jim Green of DERA what he thinks of the housing projects that he is involved in and how we're trying to solve that situation in Vancouver East. He would probably find that Jim Green over the last couple of years has been very supportive of what this ministry is doing in housing.

As an example, since 1986 we have built or renovated nearly 1,000 units of social housing in the east side alone. It's probably not enough, and we can argue that point. As a matter of fact, we won't argue that point. I think I would have to agree that we haven't got enough housing. There's no question about it. It doesn't take a magician to figure that out.

That's why we are also looking at the GAIN. And there will be an announcement on the GAIN and shelter allowance very shortly. The SAFER program has already been announced, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago. It will certainly help the seniors a lot. I get a lot of letters from seniors saying that they're quite happy and that they are managing quite well with the SAFER program, especially now that we're upgrading the total amount and also the dollar amount.

You have to remember, too, that in the fiscal year 1989-90 the cheques paid out to SAFER nearly doubled from the year before. Now it's probably not enough, but what I'm trying to get on the record is that this government knows there's a problem and is addressing the problem and is doing something about

[ Page 9859 ]

it. If you want to argue "Is it enough?" and "Should we do more?" that's another subject.

For example, to say that this ministry does nothing.... I can point to the Cool Aid project here in Victoria that is under construction now and will be ready in a very short time. It is a model of what we're trying to do for people who are down and out. It will have 81 beds — perhaps the member would like to go and look at it — and the cost will be roughly $4.26 million. It is a beautiful project that will have a health component, an alcohol and counselling component and a housing component for those people in need.

The member also mentioned those who can't find accommodation on the downtown east side of Vancouver and the single individuals who might sleep on the street. I have made this comment before — and I want to be very specific — that no one who is down and out has to sleep on the street. We will provide accommodation. We will rent a motel unit or hotel room for that individual for the night if we can't find a place in a hostel or if they happen to be full.

In the last while, most hostels have filled up, although there have been some vacancies. But just to give you an idea again: in that particular area of emergency shelters, we have increased the units from 561 to 588 for 1991. That's not talking about emergency shelters. First of all, in hostel shelters we've increased the budget by 16.6 percent. In the emergency shelter area we've increased the budget by 40.1 percent. So we are moving in the right direction.

It has not been a static situation, but there has been a great increase in the number of units and also in the budgeting for people who are in need. I have to tell the member that we could go on to argue that we haven't enough units or that we haven't enough housing for people in need, and that is true. That's why we have some of these programs in place. That's why I'm putting pressure on the federal government.

I don't like what I'm hearing from that side, who are twisting the words and saying that we're bashing the federal government, municipalities and financial institutions.

I'm saying that these are some of the problems we're facing. For goodness' sake, anyone can understand that if you haven't got the money and it takes a long time to get the zoning through and the financial arrangements made, it is a problem. That causes a delay.

When projects are delayed for 23 months, when it's a tie vote and the mayor votes against it, we start all over again. For two years it has been going on. That length of time is a very bad example — or an isolated example — but it is happening.

I'm not bashing; I'm just saying in plain English that these are some of the problems. And for gosh sakes, you on that side of the House have to be just as aware of it as we are, and you have to assist us. You can assist us, rather than bringing it up in estimates and using it for knocking and for being negative. You have to assist us; we have to do it together. It's not just my problem; it's not just the government's problem. It's everyone's problem, and everyone should be involved.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, with regard to Jim Green, I have no question that he is supportive of the units that have been made available to DERA and to other organizations in the downtown east side. There's no question that he would be supportive of that.

There's also no question that he would deplore the fact that it's far too little. It's not enough to be dealing with the extreme pressures that people are experiencing out there in the province and in my constituency.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that I get a little annoyed when I hear him say: "I've answered these questions again and again." I'm talking about flesh-and-blood human beings who live in Coquitlam. They're my constituents.

I'm doing a very appropriate thing by telling the minister about a matter of concern to citizens of my constituency who I represent in this Legislature, and who deserve better treatment than they're getting. I don't think it's appropriate to say: "I've dealt with that before and before and before." Each one of these cases is unique; each one is a story.

I could spend an lot more time than I planned to spend outlining the situations of hardship and difficulty that people in my riding are experiencing. In one place on Howie Avenue that I was referring to, there's one person who is absolutely at her wits' end.

She has a young child, and she has had to move so many times — because of not being able to pay rent increases that were brought upon her — that this has caused severe emotional problems for her child. There has been a need to seek other forms of help to deal with this situation, which would be unnecessary if there were security of tenure, rent review and the kind of process to make it possible for her not to have to pick up roots and leave every little while.

This woman was reduced to writing a letter and pleading to the landlord:

"My rent is increasing by $160 a month on July 1, which is a 41 percent increase. This is well beyond what I'm able to afford. As my rent is to increase in July, I will have four months during which it will be well beyond what I'm able to afford. I have a small child to support, and I am concerned that I will be unable to provide food, clothing, etc. for myself and my son during the July to November period. Half of my income would be going to rent. I am asking you if, on humanitarian grounds, my rent increase can be waived until November....'

This is a letter of desperation from this very good mother, whom I have met, to the landlord. She is almost on her knees begging this landlord to bring some kind of relief for a situation that she finds absolutely and utterly impossible. I do not think, Mr. Minister, by any stretch of imagination that this is an isolated case in this province.

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

MR. CASHORE: That is true, but you did say that you've heard what I've had to say over and over again, and I'm just reminding you that what I'm saying is quite unique. It's quite special, as each one of these cases is special.

[ Page 9860 ]

I have another letter from this same woman, Mr. Minister, where she has arranged for accommodation at 43 Housing Society. They have managed to make this place available, but she says in her letter that it won't be available until November. The people who run 43 Housing Society have written a letter to the landlord — not the government, not to the housing commission, not to Social Services but to the landlord — saying: "I write this in the hope you are able to consider delaying the increase in rent on this individual's suite." This is a person who is absolutely at her wits' end and without anywhere to turn. She's appealing to the landlord. She's getting the people in the place where she's planning to move to appeal to the landlord.

I have a copy of another letter from her son's therapist. This letter goes into a great deal of detail with regard to this child's circumstances. This letter was written on April 28, 1989, by the way — prior to what I think was her second-last forced move as a result of a rent increase. This letter says such things as: "The primary focus of the counselling has been to assist in helping him overcome the effects of sexual assault by an adolescent neighbour at the age of two. I am putting in writing several recommendations. Given his background of abuse and the need for him to be in day care, I recommend he be in day care which has experienced staff who are knowledgeable regarding abuse. Then it goes on to say that he should not be moved, having established his presence in such a community.

Those considerations don't make it into housing statistics. Somehow those human effects don't make it into the cold hard facts of data. Yet this is the reality that people are experiencing. He says at the end of his letter: "These recommendations are largely common sense, but over time they will help him learn that he lives in a safe, secure and trusting environment." This is what this child needs.

We get really hostile sometimes in our society about adults who are bad, who are afoul of the law, who do things we find disgusting, but statistics show that so often when we fail to provide the support at this tender age, this is often germane to the kinds of problems we experience from individuals as adults. Security of tenure in housing is a very key component of that.

[3:30]

I'm aware that there is an interministerial committee in cabinet that deals with matters of child abuse. I really would like to be a fly on the wall sometime and hear what goes on at those meetings and how they deal with the dilemma of this type of situation. I would like to see some indication that these issues are being seen not as a compartment over here called housing, or a compartment over here called counselling or a compartment over here called education, which is another ministry, but that there is an interlinking web.

Somehow we have to have advocacy coming from somebody in your ministry on behalf of children that is advocacy out of your ministry to the housing component, to the component that needs to be providing the services that aren't being provided if those services are not provided within that ministry. Housing is a part of it. It's an interconnected part in a series of circumstances that result in severe damage being visited upon innocent people, who become victims who are later seen as the victimizers in too many instances.

What is this mother trying to do? This mother is trying to do everything she possibly can to avoid that being the case. She has the kind of drive and the talent and skill that I think can manage it. She is an extremely capable person, and she's tough.

I also want to mention that realizing that housing needs are interconnected with so many other needs, in the letter that went to the people in these two housing units on Howie Avenue, the landlord said: "In addition, the owners will be paying the 7 percent CST commencing January 1, 1991, on every expense of the building which cannot be added to your rent. Since your rent can only be increased once per year, it must be added on now."

And you wonder about the need for rent review. My goodness, here are the lowest-income people in our community, the people who are most disadvantaged, being the first ones to get the privilege of paying the GST — getting to pay it halfway through the previous year, six months before anybody else gets to pay it. That hardly seems fair. It seems to me to be the type of situation, Mr. Minister, that requires some kind of righteous indignation on the part of your ministry and others in government, that you would want to address that on behalf of those people. It is patently unfair. It's a scurrilous reason. It should be rolled back, but there's apparently no instrument whereby that can be rolled back in this province. That's unconscionable, Mr. Minister. That has to change. Those people deserve an advocate because the resources they need to live appropriately, whereby they can afford their children the hope of a decent future, aren't being made available to them. Somebody has to advocate for them, Mr. Minister. Who's going to do it?

Mr. Minister, I come to another situation here, and this deals with a lot of people who are senior citizens — not all of them, but.... Again, just as I raised the issue a few moments ago about the interministerial committee dealing with children, recognizing that housing is a component of that, here's another issue on which your ministry is in partnership with the Ministry of Labour. It has to do with the people at Mill Creek Village. We're dealing here with a situation of security of tenure — a housing problem. It's not good enough to say, "No, you've got to deal with that under Labour because that's who looks after that," because we all know that with the domino effect that takes place when there isn't enough housing for people, one situation affects another. When a housing resource is taken away, it creates more problems for your ministry.

In this case we have the situation that in 1984, because some people had to lose their security of tenure at a mobile-home park in the area of Coquitlam Centre, an arrangement was made through the

[ Page 9861 ]

government, which had purchased some land. So it was Crown land. Then they went into an arrangement with a private company whereby this private company would put in place a 176-pad mobile-home park so that the people so affected would have security of tenure. These are good, solid citizens-people who have helped to build the province, The price at the time that land was purchased by that company was $1.8 million. But the people didn't know at that time that there was an agreement for sale written into the contract — this Is Crown land, the people's land — and that agreement for sale was exercised at $1.8 million in 1989.

Now those people believed, prior to that, that they were living on leased land that would be available in perpetuity. They did not know that the landlord was going to be purchasing that land on an option that they were not aware of. That land went on sale early this year for $8.7 million. It has not been sold yet. There have been assurances given by the local council that the land would not be rezoned, and there are negotiations going on to see what might be done to enable those people to somehow hold on to that land.

I submit to you that, in terms of your carrying housing issues into cabinet, it is absolutely essential that you advocate on behalf of maintaining Crown land as a resource for dealing with this type of thing. The sad thing is that chances have been squandered by just this type of deal. These people thought they were going to have security of tenure, but the land that was to provide that security —  taxpayers' land, Crown land — was going to lose that kind of security by becoming private land. That's highly inappropriate, Mr. Minister, in a province that is experiencing this type of problem.

The beauty of Crown land, leased land.... It's good business practice, a time-honoured business practice. You can't accuse the socialist hordes of somehow advocating something that's inappropriate. It's just that when you write in that type of deal, it means that the friends and insiders of this Social Credit government are again the ones that have a higher priority, Mr. Minister.

I know that being in the benches over here is an indication that they don't want to hear this. They don't like this, but the fact of the matter is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. BLENCOE: I think this is a terrific line of questioning about the insider track of this government, and I wish the member would continue.

MR. CASHORE: Surely, Mr. Minister, you realize that your role as a housing advocate is to be advocating the best possible means of maintaining security of tenure. That's your job, Mr. Minister — to be looking after the interests of these people. Now I know that you weren't the Minister of Housing when this deal was made, but you're part of the process that has led up to this.

I have to ask you: when is this government going to learn by its mistakes? When is it going to recognize that that was a very serious mistake? We have 176 pads there; Crown land was made available; and now those people are left wondering what's going to be there tomorrow. That's not appropriate in this province, Mr. Minister. It's unnecessary. Crown land, the people's land, was squandered. It was unnecessary. It's not a criticism of those people who accepted this opportunity on a platter from this government. It would have been much more appropriate, though, Mr. Minister, if the press release back in 1984 — or was it '85? — had pointed out that there was an agreement for sale written into the deal. I submit to you that that was not made known at the time. Those people had no way of knowing that it was going to happen, and therefore they are being put into this vulnerable situation. People who have helped to build this province, good citizens, people who have worked hard and put a lot of their own money, I might say.... Each person had to put about $5,000 into developing the site. They pay the taxes on the site. They pay high pad rentals. They have every right to expect that.... They weren't complaining about that, Mr. Minister.

I have to ask you: what do you see as your role In terms of advocating among your colleagues in cabinet when it comes to this type of situation? Or do you see this as an appropriate way to go about handling the housing affairs of the province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member will realize that I'm not going to say that my role is not to look after housing for the people of the province. It is certainly expected that I will defend my case by saying that I'm very responsible and I'm very concerned.

First of all I should say I'm not the Minister of Crown Lands. But having said that, I'm in no way shoving off my responsibility on someone else. We're all in this together, as I've mentioned many times. But I am not the Minister of Crown Lands, and there is only so much I can do in another individual's ministry, except lobby and push and beg. If the member could have been a fly on the wall, he would very well realize the machinations I've gone through to expand from 4, 000 to 8, 000 units and to expand on all these programs that we have got in place. Then he would not speak in that way. He would realize that I'm very concerned, and I always have been in any ministry that I have been involved with.

I am very well aware of the situation. You quote these letters from people that have hard times. I'm well aware of that, and I'm very concerned. Of course I arm I'm not taking this glibly or saying: "So what?" I never have. That's why I'm so concerned about delays; it's not because I want to bash somebody. The reason I'm so concerned and the reason I'm talking about the delays is that I want to get the houses on stream. On one hand, you say I should not be tough on the federal government or the provincial government or the developer or anyone at all; just be easy on them. But somehow these houses will grow like

[ Page 9862 ]

mushrooms, without any pressure being put on. Mr. Chairman, that just won't happen, and that's why we're taking the attitude we are.

A question about individual cases is very difficult for me to defend. You bring up a letter. I cannot say this is what we can do or cannot do, because I don't know. But I will tell you this much.... Perhaps a question to the member, Mr. Chairman: has this individual applied to B.C. Housing Management Commission? Have they been in contact with them? Has there been any offer made as to units available in that area? I would really like to know that. If they have, and haven't succeeded, have they updated the situation recently? It makes a difference. We go by a point system. If that individual cannot manage and is going to be without housing, we will make exceptions, and perhaps they will get in line before someone else who can wait a little longer. We'll make exceptions. We'll try and get everyone provided with shelter. That is certainly our goal.

[3:45]

The GST — what can I say? I have to agree with you, that it is going to hit some people pretty hard, and I'm very disappointed in it. As far as an integrated process is concerned, we have the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, where we deal with all these issues. It's not just with one ministry, Social Services and Housing, but with Education, Attorney-General, Advanced Education, Health — some of the other ministries. There are a number of ministries on it. We also have the interministry child abuse handbook-the protocol that we are using for abused children. So yes, we are. We are working in more integrated committees than ever before, and I think the member is aware of that.

The Mill Creek Trailer Park was another situation mentioned. I believe the municipal council has gone on record that they are not going to allow rezoning of that park. I hope they stick to their guns and say that it was zoned as a trailer park and will remain as such, so that these people do not get displaced. Understand that It is their commitment.

Crown lands for future use. I want to tell you emphatically again that I fought hard and long at cabinet for Crown lands suitable for housing would not be sold in future years but leased on long-term leases. I've got the support, and I hope that will never change, so that Crown land suitable for housing — we have identified it; a number of parcels have been purchased already — will be leased and not sold. You asked, will we learn from our mistakes? Perhaps to that I can say yes, in the housing area we certainly want to lease rather than sell it.

I found it very objectionable when the individual said that lands and housing projects were let to friends of the Socreds. I have to tell you, Mr. Member, that most of the social housing units have gone to either party. When I look at social housing I do not look at what the society's leanings are — not at all. I don't even want to know. I want to know if there is need in that community.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I don't appreciate that individual grinning when I am speaking of this issue, because I am very sincere about it. When we talk about social housing, we do not look at the area or the type of society it is; we look at the need and the area and whether the vacancy rate is higher. On one hand they always appear to somehow have the monopoly on care for people, and then when I mention that I am very sincere about this, they laugh. I find that objectionable, and it is not sincere on the part of that side of the House, because when we are talking about people's needs, we're talking about no politics at all. It should be apolitical, and that's the stand I take on housing — period. You point one finger at any situation in housing when I've done other than that, and I will explain it to you.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to continue in the vein of speaking that I started a bit earlier. I now have the documentation that tells us that the 45 units to be built in Surrey are going to cost a total of $5,457,188. According to my calculations that's in excess of $120,000 per unit. The total subsidy for 45 units will be approximately $47,000 a month, which is just over $1,000 per unit. In addition to the $1,000 per-unit monthly subsidy that we're looking at, the people who will be residing in the complex will be paying as their income allows them to pay.

Somewhere along the line, something isn't adding up. We're subsidizing to the tune of $1,000 per unit per month, and the people occupying the units are going to pay.... I'm not sure what their rate will be, but assume that since there are two-, three- and four-bedroom units, they'll probably be paying anywhere from $300 to $600 a month at a minimum. So we're looking at $1,300 to $1, 600 per month per unit. Then we look at a problem that we're presently facing in Surrey where the rentals have gone up at Imperial Parkside and Imperial Pine. We have a two-bedroom apartment going up to $620 a month instead of $393 a month.

My question to the minister is: would it not be better to be looking at this type of residential accommodation, which we could provide for half the cost of the new accommodation being built, rather than displacing people who are obviously comfortable now in their accommodation but who, as a result of the increase in rental fees, are going to have to look for other accommodation, because they can't afford to stay there?

What is affordable — $620 a month for two bedrooms or something in the neighbourhood of $1,500 a month with a thousand-dollar-a-month subsidy from the taxpayers at large?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I will review that very closely; I asked some time ago that all social housing costs be reviewed. That is why we introduced the rental supply program, because it's a much more cost-effective way of supplying rental units. I will review that project and see whether there is something unusual about it.

[ Page 9863 ]

We have found In the past that some of these buildings, of course, were put up many years ago when capital construction was less, so they can probably get by with rents of $650 a month; whereas today.... It depends on whether it's a one-bedroom, two-bedroom or three-bedroom unit; some of them are three bedrooms. Really, we're catering to families more than to individuals, so they are generally larger units. It is very costly. I would like to review this particular case and see whether there is anything unusual about it. I can tell you without question that when we look at rental supply — at spending $80 million and providing $720 million worth of housing for the people of the province — there is certainly a better route to go.

We have many dollars available for the shelter allowance for those people who don't live in social housing; the same with seniors aged 60 and up under the SAFER program. That is by way of dollars, but we have a cap on it so they can't go beyond that.

The other thing that really concerns me in the housing area — I'm not sure whether I mentioned this Thursday or Friday — is the people who reside in social housing units who are now perhaps earning in excess of $50,000 a year, and the rent is perhaps still capped at $300 a month. We have no control over those units. In any units that we have control over, there's an exit policy where they pay 30 percent of income. As their income Increases, there's an automatic exit policy, because they can find less costly accommodation in the private sector. Those units that were provided in the marketplace by the federal government, in co-operation with the city.... There are some of them, and they can't evict them. I have written to Mr. Redway and asked if he couldn't do something about it, because it certainly affects our ability to provide housing. If people who earn $50,000 or $60,000 a year are living in that kind of accommodation, it is deplorable, and I am certainly opposed to it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted, for the record, to make something very clear. I am not finding fault with the society. In the case of the development I've mentioned, it is the Red Door Housing Society. They are doing exceptional work in the lower mainland. I believe that the sod-turning on Friday was the seventh housing development they have put together: a lot of volunteer hours, a lot of effort and the provision of very much needed housing. There's no question about that.

I am arguing whether or not this is the way to provide the greatest number of housing units at the lowest cost. I suspect that for the money being spent on those 45 units, we should in other ways be providing at least twice as many units for that sum of money. I spoke to the Red Door Housing Society when I participated in the sod-turning and asked them if they would look to see if there was not a better way of providing the required housing. Once again, I commend them for their efforts, but somewhere along the line it seems to me that we are spending an awful lot of money for very few housing units.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I should perhaps have also mentioned that it isn't entirely within our authority to build the kind of social housing we want; it's also within the federal government's. They have the largest share in it, and most of the money. They also have criteria as to the type of units built; they either approve them or not. We're not the only player in that program. It is a partnership with the federal government — 30 and 70 percent. Maybe there are other ways of providing housing for less. But at the same time, it is a very costly undertaking, especially since the cost of money and land have increased dramatically -and the units are probably a little larger than some that were mentioned.

MR. SERWA: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), who was patient and kind enough to give me the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this very important subject. As you are all aware, Okanagan South is no different than any other rapidly growing area. The private sector has done a great deal for the provision of affordable housing. As a matter of fact, in the past year an amount about equal to 150 percent of the entire amount of residential housing built in the province of Saskatchewan was built in Okanagan South.

I have a few questions, Mr. Minister. But I'll go right through it, and I would like answers to them at the end. What has happened with the floor area in the social housing projects over the past three or four years? It seems to me that the units are getting larger and larger. I suppose when we talk about affordable housing, we're going to have to look at the housing that is being made available on a current basis to see if we are being as wise as we ought to be in the construction of these.

Certainly in most of my earlier years, I was brought up in a home which had about 650 square feet, no inside bathroom, and we didn't have running water in the house. Most of us have probably been brought up in homes that were somewhere between 650 and 900 square feet in total size, and these were for families with four children or more.

Recently — as a matter of fact, just the past Friday — a very impressive social housing project was opened in Kelowna. It was sponsored by the Columbian Housing Society and the Kelowna and District Society for People in Motion. It had six units — and we're very grateful for that — specifically designed for physically challenged individuals. That was certainly a very positive move.

[4:00]

We have a lot of problems in our community — certainly no different than any of the other communities — with single-parent families, seniors, low-income families and young couples just starting out. I may be plowing the same ground twice, and the debate on this subject has gone on for some time, but there's no question that housing affordability is a big

[ Page 9864 ]

question. One of the real options that we do have is looking towards nontraditional housing, which is probably more in manufactured and mobile housing. I know we have many things to overcome. Certainly resistance to zoning by regional districts and municipalities is one of those major hurdles we have to overcome.

There's no question in my mind that mobile homes provide the affordable type of housing we're looking for. It is a practical solution, and the ability is there on the part of the manufacturers to satisfy the demand. We all recognize the tremendous demand from the population that we have growing within British Columbia and also from the population that is migrating to the province.

The real challenge in mobile-home sites or parks is to make these sites available, make them suitable and have adequate facilities available on a continuing basis. One of the things I've tried to bring forward over the past two years is the recognition that there should be some sort of ability on the part of government to make funds available for the establishment of mobile-home sites, as they are for social housing.

There are a variety of compelling and persuasive arguments that I think could be directed to reinforce that and the validity of that specific concern. It is clear that what the tenant has to have is an assurance of security of tenure. The present situation with a lot of mobile-home parks is that they are in a landholding pattern and in a use that provides an income to the park owner. But as soon as the intensity of development increases around them, they are utilized, because they are large blocks of property for shopping centre sites or other high-density development. What we find is that we break up a community of people.

Again there's no question in my mind that the communities that could be developed with well thought-out parks would be integrated types of communities where you would have the normal mix — as you do throughout all of our communities — of young couples just starting out, families and seniors. It seems to me that if we could go on this policy so we can ensure security of tenure, as well as reasonable rate increases that would be more in line with cost-of-living increases, we would go a long way to satisfying the tremendous demand in our province for this type of housing.

There are other benefits as well. Certainly one is that there would be a buildup of equity on the part of the young couple or family, which they could utilize towards the purchase of a traditional detached home. At the present time, that opportunity is tending to get further and further away from individuals. It has always been a very strong point of Social Credit policy to ensure that affordable housing for the people of British Columbia has been a number one priority.

What I would like you to do, Mr. Minister, is approach this to see if we can design something so we can actually utilize some of these funds so that societies, non-profit organizations or cooperatives could have access to capital funds to acquire a site — and the government does provide that for social housing at the present time — so that we can proceed with mobile home parks that are designed to reflect the need for a balanced community. This integrated community could live in a well-designed, well-landscaped and secure area and have ample room for children at play. I would like you to seriously consider that as a viable option. It would be far more cost-effective in providing the volume of housing that we really require for the people of British Columbia.

There are other alternatives too, and you are most familiar with the potential of utilizing basement suites. I recognize the reluctance to rezone, but for the immediate response to the demand, this has the greatest promise of all, if we can encourage municipalities and regional districts to go ahead with the appropriate zoning.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I believe a number of subjects were touched on during the discussion.

The size of units has not altered dramatically. They are about the same, except that we are no longer building bachelor suite units; they are all one-bedroom. We found that they weren't appreciated. You very often had a unit available, but it wasn't suitable for someone who was not alone. So we have discontinued that. I am told the size of the unit is pretty well standard, as it has been for some time.

You mentioned the manufactured housing component. That is now being looked at. We have gone to the factories and looked at some of the housing — I have only looked at a video and read the material — and these homes are very acceptable and good-looking. I think it's a tremendous way to go. There is some reluctance by some municipalities, but three of them have now agreed to a demonstration project. So we are now identifying the properties, and we want to put up some demonstration projects to show the rest of the municipalities what can be done and at what cost. So that it is an alternative. I am very pleased you brought that up.

The other interesting aspect of your comments was the zero lot lines. This has been under discussion for a long time — even when I was on city council. Some municipalities are agreeing to it — saying yes, that might be okay — while others are absolutely opposed and will not accept zero lot lines.

There are different ways of putting up housing, especially for the first-time buyer. I totally agree that we cannot continue to build 2,000-, 2,500- or 3,000-square foot homes for the first-time buyer at the cost of land and construction today. We have to set our sights just a little lower, especially for the first-time buyer. I think they would accept moving up later on when they can afford to. So we are looking at that.

There has been much discussion on the lease to buy. We're trying to arrive at some method of leasing with the option to purchase after a few years. With interest rates going up, it's going to be more and more difficult. It is becoming quite a problem for

[ Page 9865 ]

many people — not just low-income people. With a 14 percent-and-up interest rate and the cost of land, people will no longer be able to build, and they're going to come down in price. It just has to happen, like it did in 1981-82 — perhaps not a crash similar to that. Already in my area — although the vacancy rate is just about nil — the building lots are way down and houses are down in total price, but the interest rate is up. So it's still not a total saving, but I think it will be in time to come.

We also have word — from the officials, at least — from the federal government.... I haven't got word from the minister, but they're going to allow us to use the business and immigration investment fund for housing. We're asking for roughly $50 million. That would help a great deal to provide housing for people.

We also provide a grant to seniors. Let's say there's a senior citizens' group that wants to start a housing project, but they're not capable of doing it on their own. We provide them with a grant of up to $20,000 to hire an architect or a business manager to get this project underway. I think that's very important, because some of these people have all the energy and ideas, but they don't know how to put it together. So we say: "Fine. We will give you a matching grant of up to $20,000 to get it off the ground." Some have taken advantage of it and have been very successful.

We also meet with the mayors, the regional district and beyond. We've had a couple of meetings with mayors to talk about the housing problems, how they see this whole area of the housing need, and how it will fit in with their particular municipality. They've come up with some pretty good ideas, and most of them, of course, are certainly supported by us. After all that, I have to say that I am curtailed by the budgeting process. I get so many dollars, and those dollars have to be allocated the best way possible. The Municipal Affairs minister mentioned: "Couldn't we provide housing at a lesser cost?" That is a concern of mine. I know how much it costs. But when you start figuring out, Mr. Chairman, the cost of land, the interest rate, the cost of building, and you analyze all that and then say: "What can I lease these for?" — and 30 percent is paid by the individual and above that is subsidized — they can't build it for less. It's a fact. I've seen the estimates and the proposals. What we're trying to do is get municipalities — and ourselves now with Crown land — to lease the land to bring that cost down; some people have even donated land for this purpose — left it in their will. We try to get land at a reasonable cost so that we can provide housing for those who are very difficult to house at a cost that's affordable, because you and I and the taxpayers of the province are paying that. It doesn't come from some magic tree; it's paid by us. So yes, we're looking at all those areas. Your comments are very well taken, and I agree with you.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just finishing up on a couple of previous speakers, on the issue of housing.... On Saturday I attended a rally where a group of tenants, mentioned by the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), were trying to bring some public attention to their plight. It really struck me that a large section of the people marching up and down the sidewalk were senior women. Many of those women had run out of options. The minister has said repeatedly through the debate around housing: "Well, if there's a particular problem, have those people referred to me, and I will see what we can do to help them." The point that everyone on this side has repeatedly tried to make is that the minister can't hope to begin to deal with this problem on an individual basis; that his philosophy and direction in dealing with this housing problem by letting the market deal with the supply issue isn't working, and that what we need is the minister to take another look at the housing problem and at a way of dealing with this crisis in the lower mainland that will help the number of people facing either eviction or rent increases that will create real hardship.

For the minister to say that we should put those people in touch with the B.C. Housing Corporation or other agencies, whether it's GVRD or whatever, doesn't recognize the fact that many of those subsidized housing projects have waiting-lists for over two years. The minister indicates that maybe there's something that he can do to fast-track their applications, and indeed bump other people down that list. The point I'm making is that most of those people on that list, looking for that subsidized housing and that kind of support, are there because their options are also restricted, because they live on pensions that make it very difficult for them to pay rent. So what you're doing — and the minister should recognize this, given his previous responsibility — is like bumping heart patients. In your previous responsibility, you had waiting-lists for surgery. And in those waiting-lists for surgery, when you had someone in need of a heart operation, the situation you found yourself in was having to assess the critical nature and bumping one critical need for another critical need. That's not satisfactory. And it's creating a society that none of us ever expected to see here in British Columbia.

A number of years ago, I was in one of the big American cities for the first time and saw people living in doorways and on sidewalks. I was appalled. I recall the first time that my children saw that, and how frightened they were to see it. Now I drive in downtown Vancouver and my kids say, "Oh, look, Mom, there's another bum sitting in the street." What I'm saying here is that under this administration we are seeing our society changing in a way that I don't believe anyone in this province ever wanted to see. We're seeing food banks. We're seeing people in increasing numbers living on the streets. Not only the single men one would think would be the people most likely to find living in doorways, but we're seeing in increasing numbers families having to live in tents in parks to be able to keep their families together. Again, I can't say in strong enough language that the minister's response to this crisis, being one of dealing with cases on an individual basis, is not

[ Page 9866 ]

adequate. The minister indicates that his commitment is to the marketplace and increasing supply, but he has to see that that is not working and that we need a different approach, a different way of looking at the needs of housing people in this province. The people who have to pay are the people who are most vulnerable — the mentally ill, the seniors and families. And if this government cares about families, as they repeatedly say they do, I can't understand why on earth the minister would repeatedly stick to his line of answering. The minister has to understand that it's not working.

I want to talk a little bit about some other areas of social services, unless the minister wants to respond directly on the housing.

HON. MR. DUECK: I think I'd like to talk a little bit about the housing, if this is the wind-down; at least that won't leave it up in the air. I believe I heard you say that the individual on the street.... You said the "bum" on the street; I don't call them "bums"; I think they're unfortunate people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: You said: "There's another bum on the street." But I want to say very emphatically that if an individual Is down and out and has no place of shelter, I will make the commitment to house them. I've said that I don't know how many times in this House, and you keep repeating; you keep going around. I've told you repeatedly that we have to be notified. We have to know, and if we haven't got room for the night in one of our hostels, we will put them up in a motel or wherever. As far as families are concerned, that's our number one concern. Single moms with children is one of our biggest areas of concern.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't mind. I talk to my people too. It's not that I'm trying to be impolite or anything like that, but the ones most in need.... When we talk about the B.C. Housing Management Commission, you have to understand that there may be a long waiting-list. Some of them, when we look back, yes, would perhaps be better served in a social housing unit, but they're managing not too badly. If we have a case like those that you mentioned you had gone to visit....

Incidentally, I saw you on TV and you looked very, very good. You had your hair done and it was a good picture of you. I just wish I could have been there and looked as good.

If those people are in need and really have a problem, I wish they would get in touch with the B.C. Housing Management Commission. There are a lot of units around in the province, and if there's someone in dire straits, we can probably fit them in — at least those in greatest need. We do it by a point system, so if you have someone — a single mom — and she really literally hasn't got any place to go, we will look after her.

You mentioned pensioners. If they are 60 years and over and in need.... I don't know if you were in the House when I mentioned this, but we have changed. We have upgraded the amount for the pensioners by quite a bit and that should help a lot in the housing area for the rent that individuals and couples have to pay. That was just announced on Friday, I believe, and the news release went out. It was a good announcement. I know a lot of seniors will be very happy to see that. They have written me letters and phoned, and I've got a lot of letters from people saying that if it wasn't for that SAFER program, they wouldn't be able to manage, but with the SAFER program they're quite happy. As a matter of fact, with this increase I think they'll manage even a little better. There also will be a news release in the not too distant future on the GAIN shelter allowance that will help some for those people who are In the other category.

We have also a system of tracking the units available as far as hostels are concerned. If somebody comes in, we have a system in place where they get in touch with the other agencies and we make sure we have the beds filled rather than going to a motel or hotel. So there's a network in place to find housing for people.

I think I mentioned in response to the housing critic earlier that very often people.... It's because people aren't knowledgeable. Let's say they applied for social housing a year ago and the situation has changed. They should keep updating and upgrading and get in touch again and say: "My situation is now worse. I've had notice. I've got to move out at the end of the month. I've got two children and no place to go." We will do everything in our power to get them into housing. It's not easy. There are still people who have a problem. I don't want to make light of it at all, because I think if I put myself in that position.... It is very, very serious.

But you know, I've also had a lot of people phone me personally, and I have phoned people who have been on TV and on talk shows, or had my ministry get in touch. I would phone the ministry and say: "What's going on? Would you look into it?" And we were able to help.

In one instance I know she phoned me personally and I said: "Have you made application to the B.C. Housing Management Commission?" "No, I haven't, but I'm sure they can't find anything for me either." We found two units within one day, because she was in dire straits, but then she found a place by herself that was adequate, and she felt it was better than what we were offering.

We do have situations where we help people. You have to remember that there are roughly 60,000 subsidized housing units in British Columbia. It's not a small number. They are serving roughly 120,000 people. You can argue it's not enough, and I accept that, and I am doing everything in my power to improve the situation.

[ Page 9867 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says if anybody is without housing, your ministry will help them and put them up?

HON. MR. DUECK: I can't let something like that go by, because it's on the record. We're talking about people sleeping on the street. I said if there's an individual who's down and out and hasn't got a place to live or shelter for the night, we will provide shelter for the night. That's what I said, and I make that commitment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For order and effective debate I would just like to remind the members that the questions and comments should be made through the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thought that that's what I said, but the minister is splitting some hairs here. I guess the message is that you will not provide housing but you will put them up for the night.

Mr. Chairman, I think the issue here is recognizing that there is a long-term housing crisis in the province. If you are talking about putting people up for the night, you also have to recognize what the options are in communities for that accommodation.

I would bring your attention to a story in the Province on Friday where they were talking about the emergency shelter for psychiatric patients in my riding, in Surrey, where they are putting people up for the night at the Turf Hotel. Would you, Mr. Minister, find that to be suitable accommodation for people in need in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: I will repeat again. If people are on the street and haven't a place to go for the night, we will provide that shelter. I said it's not necessarily adequate, but we will provide shelter. No one has to sleep on the street. That's what I said. If at all possible, we will provide more and more and housing, which I'm trying to do as best I can. It's not easy. I'm doing absolutely the best I can in the housing area.

When we talk about people who have been moved from Tranquille, Woodlands or Glendale, those resources were in place before any mental patients were ever released.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I am saying to you that no one was released from those places until there were resources in place. Now what happened since.... There could be. There could be some who say, "I don't want to live here, " and take off. Then we try and find other means of helping them. But every one of those individuals.... It was in cooperation with the parents, if there were any, or relatives, or the community, or an association. Everyone had a part to play. We work very closely with them. They don't always agree. Some want us to move faster, some say we should leave them in a housed institution. But we are providing facilities. We will not move any individual out of one of those institutions before the resources are in place.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to pick up the point that the minister made respecting those people who are homeless, who have no permanent residence, no address. You have given the undertaking that you will provide them a place overnight if they don't have a place to stay. Is that correct? What if they need one over a series of nights by virtue of the fact that they are staying on the streets? There are documented cases of people living under a bridge, behind a Smithrite container, underneath a canopy, in a parking lot or under someplace that is in business during the day but closed in the evening. These people usually crash.... Sometimes you find them in vacant homes, etc. I think these people qualify as being homeless. If you're saying that none of these people needs to be without a home and that you will provide them a place overnight, I would just ask if that would be overnight or until suitable accommodation can be found on a permanent basis.

[4:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I think I was quite clear on that. We will provide them overnight lodging. In other words, our society — and I personally — cannot accept someone sleeping in an alleyway. We must provide them with at least a place of shelter for the night; and then, of course, we try to provide for the longer term. If they are one of those downtown east side residents, we try, through DERA or one of the other organizations, to provide a more permanent place of residence. That is certainly our aim. I have made that commitment, and we will certainly follow through on it.

There are perhaps cases where people are in situations where they haven't even got the wherewithal to ask for accommodation; I accept that. Maybe we are not coordinating that well enough, and some people just don't know how to go about it. There may well be some — although we would provide that housing — who don't know how to go about it or haven't got the ability to do so. But I say to you that if our hostels are full, we will even provide a place of residence in a motel, hotel or whatever. In our society we believe that no one, but no one, should sleep on the street and say: "I just cannot find anybody to help me."

MR. BARNES: You'd have a difficult time finding someone on this side of the House who would be opposed to such a policy, because obviously you are saying that there is no need for anybody to be homeless in this province. But you know that our experience has been quite the contrary, because in case after case, just about any day of the week, you can find people who are without a home. In fact, that is one of the problems when it comes to taking a census: trying to find people who don't have a permanent place of residence. It is also a problem with people who might need social assistance. One of

[ Page 9868 ]

the requirements is that you have to be able to locate them. If they are unable to afford a place to live....

I guess the question now is: have you a policy in place where your staff is aggressively seeking out these people? As you just pointed out, some of them may not have the wherewithal or may not be aware of the policy. It is the kind of policy that I think should aggressively be made available and publicized in those areas where there is a fairly high incidence of homeless people. Although they may be all over the province, there certainly are quite a few in and around the core of the city. I certainly haven't seen anything publicized that would indicate that the government is trying to reach such people to let them know that they can have this assistance.

Another question I would like to ask is: where would you put these people? Would it be in hotels? What facilities would be available?

HON. MR. DUECK: The hostels, of course, are for that purpose — for the overnight people. In the downtown east side, where a lot of these people live, we work very closely with DERA. Incidentally, since 1986 we have produced just under 1,000 units for the downtown east side. Jim Green and I have had a number of meetings. As a matter of fact, until I got into this ministry, I didn't know Jim Green. When you see him on TV, he comes across as a pretty ruthless, bombastic type of person. But I have certainly changed my mind about him. I think he's one heck of a good person, and he has done a tremendous job for us. We use him and he uses us. We exchange information on how we can best solve some of these problems.

We've just entered into an agreement. You weren't in the House, Mr. Member, when I made the announcement that we now have a registry specifically for the downtown east side, exactly for information on housing and relocation of people in need. Vancouver city has a registry, but this is specifically for the downtown east side.

We've got a partnership between Vancouver city, DERA and us. We talked about it just a couple of weeks ago when Mr. Green was in my office and made this proposal. I said, right off the bat: "Absolutely, no question about it. I'll go along with that. We'll try and get the city involved." They said yes, and if it's not operating already, it will be operating very soon.

The police, too, are very cooperative when they find somebody in need of shelter. They give us that information, and so does the community — we get that information from street workers. The other chap I went on the street with, John Turvey, was very, very helpful in that area, in that whole east side district and the core area. So we get that information.

Once in a while you get some individual that refuses and does not wish to, but that's very rare. As a rule, if they find out there is a warm place — because they may go to one shelter.... We have a network, and with this relocation and housing information, it should be even better.

There is a network in place now, and I'm sure the member is aware of it because he spent a couple of weeks on the street himself. I watched that with glee, wondering how he was going to make out. "Glee" is probably the wrong word — I watched with great interest because I thought living on the street for that period of time must be quite difficult. We live in a very protected society, and we come from a protected background. It's quite a challenge. So you have a good feel for what goes on.

But I do believe that conditions have improved. We've got certain safety nets in place; perhaps not any more housing units per se, but we have better coordination and a better way of looking after those people that haven't got a warm place out of the rain for the night.

It's not really ideal for the long term, and some people perhaps will be in this situation for some time. But Jim Green has got a bunch of units coming on stream again now for social housing, and more and more people will find a place in a more permanent situation, I hope.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to follow up. The minister didn't answer my question. Does the minister find the Turf Hotel adequate accommodation as an emergency shelter?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question. I don't know the Turf Hotel. I haven't been in the Turf Hotel. I don't know what it's like. I don't know what clients.... Maybe that kind of question belongs in the estimates — I don't know. I suppose I'd have to visit it. I suppose I'd have to talk to some social workers and say: "Look, do you find this an appropriate place?" Obviously the member has some information that I haven't got. I'm not going to answer a question like that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: First of all, I am a little surprised in that the member's riding is in the lower mainland. The Turf Hotel is one of the hotels that has acquired quite a name for itself. It's a pretty rough pub.

I think the bottom line here is that while the minister is more than happy to talk about the programs that are in existence in the core of Vancouver, through DERA and other agencies down there, there are people in need throughout the province, and the minister's programs are piecemeal at best. If the minister does recognize that the programs provided by people like Mr. Green are good programs, then I guess I would like to know why the minister hasn't taken the initiative to make sure those programs are available to other communities as well, so that communities like Surrey, where people are moving out of the downtown core into the suburbs, can begin to deal with some of the problems.

Very clearly, hotels like the Turf and others are not adequate housing for people with mental illness, as was indicated by this particular story. Nor are they

[ Page 9869 ]

adequate housing for young people or for families. They are very violent places.

I would hope that the minister would care enough about what other communities are doing to look into what those options really are in the suburbs, in smaller towns throughout the province. While the minister speaks very highly of the programs in downtown Vancouver, I'd like him to explain what he's doing to put programs like those in place throughout the province.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, programs that we have are not for downtown; they're for everywhere. We have programs for the needy: GAIN, the shelter allowance, social housing. Where the need is the greatest, that's where they go first. But the programs are for all around the province.

As far as the downtown core is concerned, saying that they move out of the downtown core is not really true, because Jim Green tells me it's about the most stable community in all British Columbia. They're not moving out from there.

If you are talking about families being put in a situation such as you just mentioned, I would have to say that I'm opposed to it, of course. If we're putting families in a violent situation for the night, then discretion should be used, and they should be put in more appropriate motels or hotels. It could well be that you know of an incident; obviously you do. My deputy and assistant deputy are here; they are hearing this from you as well as I am. We'll have to look at it very carefully. I don't want families brought into a situation of violence, danger or inappropriate housing.

MR. BARNES: May I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I would like the House to welcome the students from the International Academy of B.C., along with their teacher, Mrs. A. Glass, and four other adults who are here with them. There are about 20 of these students from various parts of the world. On behalf of the leader of the official opposition and myself, I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to go back off this topic, which I'm sure my colleague will want to return to in relation to some of the more serious social problems that we face. They are generally related to cities or heavily populated areas but not necessarily so.

[4:45]

I can say, for example, that in my community of Prince Rupert it has been common practice to locate some of those people requiring emergency shelter in what I consider to be less-than-desirable accommodation. What makes it worse, in my view — and I'm sure the minister would share this — is when children are involved. When you see very small children on the street late at night not receiving the care that we think would be desirable and being deprived of opportunities in their life....

The difficulty with the multifamily housing market.... I'm mindful of the comments made a few days ago by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). He talked about the road to Bratislava; I think he was attempting to be humorous. But I think there are some lessons that we in North America can learn from situations that have developed in some European countries in how they deal with housing. I'm reasonably satisfied with what some of the countries with social democratic administrations have done. Not in every case, but in many cases they have come up with some fairly innovative programs for providing housing.

If you look at housing as a basic need of society, much the same as food, you tend to see it from a slightly different point of view. There has been an over reliance on the marketplace to fulfill and satisfy everybody's housing needs. I don't think there has been a broadly based program with a variety of proposals and policies aimed at providing decent accommodation and shelter for average British Columbians.

Certainly the British experience with the council houses has not been all that successful. I don't even know if we cast that far a net in evaluating these things for whether privatization initiatives have achieved any change in those projects, but one thing is clear, and I believe the latest issue of options reinforces the notion: you can't really build housing ghettos. You can't build low-income housing and say that it's exclusively for low-income earners. Too often those areas become ghettoized; it becomes very difficult to maintain those projects. The minister is probably aware of examples in some European countries where that's been the case.

On the other hand — and I've had some experience in co-op housing — all too often you run a risk when you try to maintain that mix of incomes, which I think is necessary to avoid ghettoization. It wasn't that many years ago that a Minister of Housing for your government was sharply critical of the fact that people with middle incomes were living in cooperative housing. But he did not have any understanding — or was deliberately not paying attention to the fact — that one of the ways to avoid this ghettoization is to have that range of incomes.

When I look at co-op housing, generally I find it superior, because under the National Housing Act, they are required to commit a certain percentage of their units to low-income people who otherwise could not afford housing, and some of their units are rented to people who have reasonably good incomes. You get that kind of mix. I would like to know the minister's feeling about that.

Even with the advantage of the National Housing Act, it is still very difficult — there is considerable cost-relief in that — to get approval for those kinds of projects; the money is very tight. Although the province administers the seniors' program — which

[ Page 9870 ]

is essentially the same section of the Housing act — and there is a provision for the province to donate land or to cover the cost of land, to the best of my knowledge, that's not done in regard to normal co-op housing. That is an area where the province could contribute significantly by providing land at very reasonable cost — or in the case of Crown lands, no cost — so it makes the projects that much more attractive and easier to build.

How do you deal with the issue? The marketplace clearly does not allow — except maybe at the top end — developers to build multi-family housing. I don't think it has for some time. The last federal program that I am aware of was the MURB program, and basically it was a subsidy to developers of so much per unit and provisions to write off costs on taxation.

The difficulty with that was that a number of people started to take advantage of that, and for whatever reason, it became simply a tax game. The overriding impetus to do anything was the tax advantage that could be gained by the developer. As a result of that, we saw a few holes dug in the ground where nothing ever came of it. But we also saw units built where developers could take advantage of this generous tax write-off, yet they weren't necessarily required to build social housing.

We've also seen the case where, when the term is elapsed — and I assume that is the issue.... I saw the same newscast as the minister, and I thought my colleague from Surrey — your critic — was very able in her capsulization of the issue for the people out in Surrey. But when the term ends, what happens? There is really no protection for those people who can't afford to pay those rents.

So an over-reliance on the marketplace ignores people who are simply out of the market, for whatever reason. There is a variety of reasons. That some of the wage rates are very low tends to influence whether people can buy housing. The fact that we get these booms in a very hot market tends to keep people out of housing. In my view, we tend to overbuild — and I noticed that in subdivisions we developed when I was an alderman in Prince Rupert — and people want to construct a house that occupies the maximum percentage of the lot. They want the most they can put on that lot. We have created housing that is unnecessarily large. I don't think there has ever been an attempt at innovation.

We all recall what we used to call "wartime housing." Years ago, down in the lower end of North Vancouver, there was quite a large area of wartime housing.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: That was in Heywood, my leader advises me. It was an area that eventually became known as Norgate Park.

I know that Prince Rupert — which had a population of about 25,000 during the war — had extensive wartime housing. They came in standard models; there was the wartime four and the wartime six. Most of that housing is currently occupied and over the years has been upgraded by the people who have lived there. Some of it, to this day, is very attractive housing. It wouldn't meet the norm of some of the areas in Vancouver that are currently being developed, but it nonetheless is attractive, and it provides those things that families need. You need a roof over your head to keep the rain out; hopefully it's warm, and you've got some room so that you don't end up at each other's throats when those family tensions start to mount. Nonetheless, I think we could develop housing which is much smaller than conventional housing. I don't see why you can't build housing on 25-foot lots.

Maybe the minister might want to comment in terms of any work that he has done with municipalities. I come from a rural area, so I don't want to get too tied up with what's happening in Vancouver.

As well, I think you have to look at a broad range of policies. Several things happened in England. First of all, I think the impetus came from trying to clean up what they used to refer to as "the smoke" in London. The minister may recall that in the fifties it was a very dangerous place to live. Industrialization had taken place to such an extent, without adequate controls, that when those fogs used to descend on London, as they do from time to time, they became killer fogs. And old people, or people with respiratory problems, ended up dying in the streets. So there was a conscious decision to clean up the smoke; and they did, I think, a fairly effective job, in terms of fish eventually coming back to the Thames River. But at the same time, they embarked on a program of decentralizing industry. When I was living there, there were a fairly extensive advertising program and also government programs primarily aimed at moving industry out of the heavily populated urban centres into some of the areas which were not so heavily populated, where there was more room, where housing could be provided much more cheaply than in the city. All of the other issues that flow from those heavy population densities — the traffic problems, the transit problems, the expenses generated trying to deal with those problems — were dissipated. They were moved out of those heavy concentrations of population into more sparsely populated areas. And there the government has a perfect opportunity, in terms of a variety of programs, to really deal seriously with housing.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think one of the best programs I've seen in both Prince George and Prince Rupert is the land-banking, where the prime developer of residential lots is the local government. The advantage of that scheme is that you take the profit motive out of developing the basic residential lot. You can then follow that up with programs to restrict the sale of these government-developed lots to only a few single developers; you allow people the opportunity.... And believe me, there are lots of people who still would do this. People building their own housing was quite com-

[ Page 9871 ]

mon when I was a boy, and it's still quite common in many areas of British Columbia where the opportunities exist and where reasonably priced lots are offered for sale and not locked up by developers. Through the use of government lands in these areas, you can substantially reduce at least the initial development cost to provide residential lots.

I think there are all kinds of innovative ways you can approach that, whether that would be offering assistance for self-construction or bringing people together who may want to assist each other — which used to be another common practice in this country. The guys I used to work with back in the sixties would quite often say: "What are you doing after work?" "Well, we're all going over to work on so-and-so's house." And when that house was finished, they all went over and started working on somebody else's house. You can cut down costs through those kinds of programs. I don't claim that they would apply in every single jurisdiction. Clearly, they wouldn't apply in downtown Vancouver, but they would apply in many areas.

Someone earlier mentioned mobile-home development. Again, that's an option available to take the squeeze off. These needn't be substandard developments at all; in fact, they can be very attractive. The program that we put in place in 1973-74 in Prince Rupert to develop a mobile-home park.... We made arrangements at that time with a credit union, where the credit union supplied the financing. They basically did the transaction and supplied the financing for the purchase of the mobile home. It worked out very well. We were able to relieve a very tough housing situation very quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time is up under standing orders.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was intrigued by the previous speaker's speech, and I'd like him to continue.

MR. MILLER: I think the byword is "innovation."

But I suppose a cautionary note is: if the marketplace will not provide multifamily housing that's affordable, how do you do it? Generally, the issue has been dealt with by subsidies, primarily to developers. That has not resulted in any permanent solutions to the problem. Developers will take advantage of whatever tax concessions or subsidies are available. They'll take their money as long as the subsidy is available, but the minute it disappears, their commitment, which they clearly didn't have in the first place, disappears as well.

[5:00]

The issue I have raised in discussing this with people in the housing field and people I know in CMHC — the debate as to whether we should subsidize developers or in fact subsidize individuals directly; whether by that subsidy to individuals we can give them the leg up that is required to get them into housing at an affordable rate.... Hopefully, over time they will be able to assume the market prices. I'd like to hear the minister's response to that.

I have a great fear that the growing income gap between the rich and the poor will also contribute to changes in what we have traditionally known in our housing — which is, because of our space, that it's within the grasp of most families, given some reasonable fairness, reasonable equality and the ability to earn an income, etc.; that the so-called dream of having a single-family home of their own is within their reach. I worry that what we are seeing in the United States could find its way north. We see a lot of parallels in policy. This government and other rightwing administrations seem to want to copy what is happening in the United States.

The results have been very bad. We have tended to segregate people. The gap, as I said, between rich and poor has widened considerably, and we are left, in a sense, with a real lumpenproletariat that exists and ekes out its living on the streets. They certainly don't buy into that dream; they don't sustain the system we have. That's true on any level that we deal with those people on, whether it's in social service requirements, housing requirements or whatever.

As we go farther and farther in widening that gap, it seems to me that the risks are greater and greater. We will have a population that can live in relative luxury in the kind of housing I see as I drive out to the airport, the kind that's currently being constructed up on the heights on the right-hand side out by Royal Oak. It's great that people can afford them, but these are houses in the $2.25 million and higher range. We are simply shutting out a huge number of people. We are shutting them out from the opportunity to acquire housing, because the developers can make money.... They'll put their money where they can make the most, and to heck with the needs of your average citizen.

I have touched on a number of issues and areas in the question of housing. I think that governments have yet to come to grips with programs, and I say that there should be a wide variety of programs. I don't think they've come to grips with the issue in terms of any public policy relative to decentralization of industry or trying to look at incentives to encourage people to leave highly congested areas. I don't think they've looked at it in terms of a government land-banking program and the advantages that that can offer in reducing the cost of housing. I don't know whether there's been an internal debate on the subsidy question of individuals versus developers.

Perhaps I should leave it at that point and allow the minister an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. DUECK: To begin with, the member opposite mentioned that some of the projects in the countries that he has visited are superior to what we have here. He thought perhaps we could take a lesson from some of that housing. I have also seen housing in many areas of the United States and Europe over a period of years, and I would venture to say that their waiting-list is an awful lot longer than ours, their units are much smaller, and they very often double

[ Page 9872 ]

up with family members, which we are very reluctant to do. I am not saying that we should. However, some of the points he made were quite valid.

Also keep in mind that the GST in most countries that he's speaking of is 23 percent, and their income tax is 72 or 74 percent. I don't think we want to take much comfort in what some of those countries are doing.

I think it's well known around the world that we are the best-housed nation in the world — not perfect; not good. We have a crisis in British Columbia right now, but by and large, in general terms, we are the best-housed nation in the world. That's a fact. Building on that, of course, we want to constantly improve.

The member also mentioned co-op housing and ghettos — building social housing that becomes ghettos. That is true. Some years ago we built projects of 100, 150 or 200 units. We don't do that anymore. We build smaller projects, and they fit right into the community. But when you start putting in a mix, and the higher income is subsidizing the lower and vice versa, you have a cost.... Especially in ones that were put up by the federal government some years ago, where they capped the upper limit of the rent, you have situations where people who should be paying higher rent are now taking advantage of social housing, and I cannot accept that.

We do subsidize units in co-op housing now. We haven't got enough of our own, so we subsidize, and we'll pay the 30 percent in co-op housing, but we're not involved in the construction. We've discussed this many times with the federal Minister of Housing, and he says yes, we can go into co-op housing, but it's then taken off the allocation of social housing that we have. That would cost us money, so we refuse to do it. We can provide more houses for those in need rather than share it with people who don't need it; even if, as you say, the mix in some areas — social housing, what have you — is better. There's a limited number of units we can build. We cannot afford to build units for people who can afford to pay the going rate.

Further than that, we have programs in place. For example, the shelter allowance is going to be increased. We just announced SAFER increases. This is helping those who live in their own accommodation and don't need social housing — helping them to survive in their own home or rented accommodation so they don't have to go into social housing. I think that's good, because we don't have to put out that extra capital construction.

Yes, we probably have a nation that's quite wealthy. We probably have a lot of wealthy people who have no problem finding housing. But when I consider 40,000 units started last year, all sold before they were even begun except towards the end of the year when we found a little bit of a lag, it tells me that people are still quite able to house. That leaves room for the others. Every time you build a house, someone is leaving a house vacant. They move UP, and the next one moves up. That's why we had such a problem in the low-income houses; they were starting to gravitate from this area down into lower-cost housing. We now see a movement again back up, because we're providing more houses on the market. The rental supply program, I hope, will do exactly that: people living in low-rental accommodation will move up to the market rentals because they are available, and that leaves a vacancy in the less expensive units.

Decentralization. There's a great movement afoot in government: we want to move some of these company and government offices out to areas where they can be accommodated better and spread around so they are decentralized from the Vancouver-Victoria area. It's not easy. We've done some already. There's are quite a few examples, like the lottery branch in Kamloops and others that don't come to mind right now. We can move them out. They don't all have to be located in Vancouver, although generally the senior people would like to have them stay there.

The housing program is far more than just rental supply or social housing. Mr. Member, perhaps you weren't here. I can go over it again — all the various areas of housing assistance that we have in various programs. For example, the homeowner grant this year has been greatly expanded. The land tax deferment program is good for seniors — they can defer their taxes. The B.C. mortgage assistance program for those who want to get into a home has been expanded. The homeowner grant program; purchase tax relief for the first-time buyer and the ones who have a high-percentage mortgage; shelter aid for the elderly, which I've mentioned a number of times; GAIN; the shelter allowance-it goes on and on. There's a billion dollars in that particular initiative plus, of course, the $720 million worth of construction in the rental supply program, plus the approximately 1,886 units of social housing. So it all fits together.

I agree with you that it's not enough, especially in these times. But remember — again; ad nauseam — we had a net in-migration of 60,000 people in this province. You have to take that into consideration. That's a lot of people. And it appears there will be that many more coming in this year.

So we must get on the wagon. We must provide housing. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. It's not easy, Mr. Chairman; it takes a while. But we'll get there.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased that the minister praised the seniors' tax deferral program I was actually going to ask about that, and I would be interested in knowing what the response to that is. Generally, I was under the impression that seniors view that somewhat suspiciously. Perhaps it's being used to paying your bills, and they don't like the idea of not paying their tax bill. Yet I've always thought it was a pretty good opportunity to let the appreciation take care of the bill, and let your heirs decide. I think that 99 percent of the time they sell the house anyway. So how that's going, and whether

[ Page 9873 ]

or not there needs to be any more encouragement to seniors to take advantage of that program....

The minister did not really respond to the issue I raised with regard to land-banking. Again, to the best of my knowledge, that program is not active at the current time, and yet it is a good one where's it's applicable, where municipalities can take advantage of the up-front financing offered to keep ahead of demand.

One of the things that contributes to price is demand, and when there's a housing shortage, the price goes up and the problem becomes all the more difficult. If we can keep ahead of that by keeping a good supply of building lots available, we tend to dampen that price spiral. Clearly, that's an area where the government could have a direct effect. Yet I believe they have abandoned or are not proceeding with that program.

The only other thing I would say — and the minister isn't in the House — is that you always have to strike a balance, I suppose, in terms of the issue of taxation. You can't abandon people. Some countries have done that and we, I think, reject the notion that if you're not able to survive on your own means, then that's tough luck. We reject the notion that people who can't afford it don't have access to good-quality medical care. I reject the notion that anybody who, because of their circumstances, cannot afford decent housing should be simply left to the vagaries of the marketplace. Once you make that conscious decision as a society that that's your policy, it seems to me that you inevitably end up in the situation where you have to decide how much money you're going to spend. Clearly, that money is raised through taxation

If, Mr. Minister, I could be assured, as an individual, as a legislator in this House, that a reasonable degree of taxation would resolve some of the problems of poverty and want that I see, then I'd be quite happy as an individual. And I'd be quite happy to talk about that on any public platform. I think you'd be surprised: there would be a fair degree of support for that.

I would just ask the minister to respond on the two specific points: the seniors' tax deferral program and the land-banking program.

[5:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, on the question that was asked about the land tax deferment program, it was stated that it wasn't used as of May 2, 1990. It has been used by 3,700 people. That is quite substantial. So it is being used.

As far as land-banking is concerned, there are some municipalities that land-bank. I think it's perhaps more appropriate for them to do it. Some have done it successfully. Others have been very unsuccessful; they ran into great difficulty, because it depends on the marketplace. Some certainly have not had good results. However, I certainly have no objection. As a matter of fact, that's what we're doing with Crown lands now. We're going to make it available for housing, and that is a form of land-banking. We have that land on hand at the present time, and we've got to make it available for that purpose on a lease basis so that we never lose it.

I assume, from what you're saying by referring to countries that do certain things, that you would like to have a 23 percent GST rate and a 72 percent income tax rate. There's a fine line. We could provide everything if we could get enough money. I want to be sure that we're talking about the same thing. I think we have to balance with the moneys available. As Minister of Housing, I have to balance it with the moneys that I get allocated. I think you know very well that there isn't a minister in this House who ever gets as much as he wants. The housing situation is critical. I think we're coming out of it. I don't accept the fact that people should be responsible for their own housing. If they just can't make ends meet, that's where the government comes in.

As far as housing in general is concerned, the private sector will do fine, thank you; they're looking after it. If they start 40, 000 units a year — and that's a lot of units; a record, ever — hopefully they will continue to do that. I believe this year will even be an increase over last. There are some signs of a break in the market, and hopefully it will be in the rental market as well.

I still believe in the principle that to bring the price of rentals, housing and land down — well, not land, because there is only so much; it is there, and there will never be any more — its supply, supply and supply. In real estate we talk about the three most important things to think of when you're purchasing real estate. They are: location, location and location. With the cost of houses, the cost of construction and the cost of rent, it is supply, supply and supply. We saw that in '81 when there was a drop. Suddenly there were all kinds available, and you had your choice. You could argue that they competed with each other. That has gone, and we have to get back to that sufficient supply. That's what I'm trying to do.

Again, I have to go on record to tell you that as fast as 8,000 units can be built — that's $720 million worth of housing construction.... Under the rental supply program, it is there. Just go ahead and build. If you have developer friends, say: "Please get on with it." If you have municipal people you know well, say: "Please do not hesitate to give it fast zoning through the system." If you have banker friends and a developer who needs money, go and sign the note for him so he can get the money. No, that wouldn't be possible. At least I wouldn't want to do it.

If the social housing units are there, plus the 40,000 units a year in the private sector, that is a lot of housing. Do you know we surpassed Ontario in housing starts in one quarter of last year? It's no small fry. We're doing a lot for housing, but we can't seem to catch up because of the big influx of people. It is a crisis. We're trying to address it, and we are addressing it.

Perhaps there are other ways. I've even listened to some suggestions from my friendly housing critic. He had some suggestions that we've looked at which are very viable and very valid. A member of our caucus

[ Page 9874 ]

from the Okanagan had some ideas which we've looked at and we're following through on, like manufactured homes and zero lot lines. All these things are excellent.

We must bring down our expectations. Young people must bring down their expectations. Our kids cannot start with a 2,500-square-foot home; they have to start with something smaller. I think the day has gone when you can start with a 3,000-square-foot home. Some of those people are still living in that dream world. I'm not talking about the poor people; I'm talking about the middle-of-the-road people. They must also consider perhaps a zero lot line, less land, because there is only so much available. No more land is going to be made; that's all there is. The answer is supply, supply and supply.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I know other members want to ask the minister about housing situations, particularly in their riding, but they will do that as the estimates continue.

I want to focus a little bit on services to children at this point in time. I spent considerable time in the last couple of years looking at the ministry and wondering what was going wrong with the services to families and children. Very much like many of the professionals in the field — including some court judges — I have wondered why this province spends more money per child in care than other jurisdictions, yet this province doesn't seem to be able to provide the services that are needed.

When you look at the comparison between B.C. and Ontario, as an example, the numbers I have indicate that B.C. spends upwards of $300 per child as compared to Ontario, which spends $200 per child If you look at the overall accessibility to services for those kids, and a prime example — again, back to the newspaper accounting of an example in my riding.... Maybe some of the other members in the House wonder why I continually bring up what's going on In Surrey, but I think that it's a really good indicator of some of the inequities and deficiencies in the province.

I don't think that the minister saw this article, because he wasn't familiar with the issue around the mental health situation in Surrey, but it talks about the counsellors in mental health in direct relationship to sexual abuse counsellors. It talks about a particular young child, a three-and-a-half-year-old, who has to wait something like four and a half months, and this young child went through a very traumatic time in her very short life. The minister — and previous ministers also — seems to feel that the way to deal with the situations in the province is on an individual basis. It makes it very difficult for people who care about services to families — professionals in the field — to get a handle on the bigger picture, because this ministry either refuses or doesn't know what that big picture Is.

I have a couple of direct questions to the minister. The minister said two things in the last hour. He said that the programs will go where the greatest need is Can the minister Indicate to me whether or not he has done an analysis of where that need is, whether he has done an analysis on the equity of dollars spent throughout the province and whether he can tell us the ratio of dollars by need? Those are numbers that I've been after for some time, and they haven't been forthcoming from your ministry.

Secondly — and this again goes back to a specific comment of the minister, when he said that no person in this province has left an institution, whether it be Woodlands, Riverview or Tranquille, without having a place to go — I'm wondering if the ministry has done an analysis lately as to where those people are now and whether their needs are being met today. I'm wondering whether there is an ongoing monitoring of the status of those individuals.

HON. MR. DUECK: I haven't got the answer to the last question available at this moment, but we can certainly get it for you. If you want to continue with your questions, then we can answer that.

As for family and child services, I think we do subscribe to the philosophy of where the need is the greatest — certainly when it comes to children.... I believe it is very important, and it is certainly my belief that children in need should be our greatest priority. We have increased the budget again this year for that area. We have also increased the number of FTEs to provide a better service to children and families.

You touched on many subjects. You touched on a little child who needed services and needed them badly. I believe you were referring to counselling services, and they would be provided for by the Ministry of Health. I haven't seen that article, so I am surprised that a child in need would have such a long wait. I would like to have an update on that and see what the reason is for the long delay.

We're monitoring the standards of care in residential resources at all times, particularly proprietary care. If you're talking about people in the community, it's more difficult. We generally get involved when there's a problem; but as far as our facilities are concerned, they are certainly monitored continuously to ensure that they give the quality of care that should be given to children.

I am not sure whether you asked about the facility or about people in general. If we're going to monitor In the community — other than those who come to us In need — it's very difficult. If you're talking about people who come to us and need help, those are very closely monitored. We also like to see the outcome and whether they go back to their families. If they are children in care, I understand 74 percent go back to their families within one year. So that is a good indication.

I think anytime children are in need.... I don't think there is anyone in the House whose heart doesn't go out to a child. Certainly those are the ones we want to help first of all; then, of course, families and anyone else who requires help.

[5:30]

[ Page 9875 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to zero in on the issue of money or programs going to where the need is. Some time ago I asked one of my community agencies to do an analysis for me of the money that comes into Surrey. At that time we were looking in particular at the need for a school lunch program. We looked at the number of children in our municipality living with their parents on welfare and compared it to the number in Vancouver, as an example. Vancouver actually had fewer children on welfare by population ratio than we had; we had more poor kids in Surrey than Vancouver, just on the ratio.

From that, I began to think about the services to those kids and where the dollars were going. The most recent figures I have were tied to the 1981 census. They compared the amount of money coming into the different areas by population, and at that time there was $1.31 coming into Surrey, $3.59 into Vancouver, $1.27 into Richmond and $4.07 into New Westminster. Those were ministry funds; there is actually a greater discrepancy in United Way allocations.

I am wondering if the ministry has an analysis of the money it puts into these communities and whether you can attest to having a philosophy of equity in this province for providing funds where the greatest need is.

HON. MR. DUECK: We try and find equity among all regions of the province — those in greatest need. But before I go into that, I think one question was asked about meals for children in school. That has to be of concern to everyone, if children go hungry — no question about it. Also, evidence shows that learning ability certainly decreases by not having enough food. However, I believe we have programs in place. If there is a child who is hungry, that's what we have social programs in place for.

If you or the school knows of a situation, you certainly should let us know. If It is an emergency situation, we will look at that also and not just say: "There's your money; do with it what you want." We're very concerned about individual children who go hungry. But I don't think it's up to my ministry to provide a meal program. Perhaps it would be more fitting to have the school board do that by way of referendum or whatever they wish, because some schools think they should have a meal program, and others feel they shouldn't.

As for allocating funds throughout the province, the ministry works to ensure that child care resources are evenly distributed across the province to all areas according to population and identified need For historical reasons and shifts in the population, an imbalance among regions occurred, and the ministry has now taken steps to address and to correct that, rather than redistribute the budgets. This would have resulted in a net loss of residential space for regions. We're talking about spaces, so we have actually added to the budgeting process.

In the 1989-90 budget year, the total increase in budget for child care resources was 19 percent. The actual allocation to regions ranged from 1 percent to 73 percent. That was the reallocation where the need was the greatest.

To the question you asked: yes, we are trying to do that. More specifically, you mentioned your particular community. I think that's valid; one is interested in one's own community where one has a responsibility. I think it is very appropriate.

In Surrey, effective interagency cooperation exists through the Interministerial Children's Committee with representation from Social Services, Solicitor General, mental health, public health, alcohol and drug programs and local police. This committee exists in every community in the province. They meet on a regular basis to make sure that the needs are met. In Surrey alone, the ministry provides a full network of services to families, including residential resources for children and adolescents and encompassing group homes. Therapeutic treatment beds: the region has a capacity of 144 beds for that purpose, and they also purchase treatment beds from other resources in the lower mainland on an as needed basis. Intensive child care resources are also available, which provide residential services with fully integrated day programming to teens identified through this committee.

Other services to families include a wide variety of programs: parenting skills; resolving parent-teen conflicts; family counselling; support to teen parents. There is government funding through an initiative called Families First, which was very strongly criticized last year by the opposition but is working very well. There are various programs, which at that time were called Strengthening the Family. We call it Families First, and that money is still being used for this purpose.

In Surrey and elsewhere In British Columbia a variety of services are made available to ensure that the particular needs of families in each community are met. Families First services include the following. I'm going to go through these for the record. The family advancement program, working with school personnel, provides counselling, crisis intervention, communication skills development and referrals, primarily to elementary schoolchildren and their families. In the past fiscal year, $3.7 million was spent on this program, with $550,000 directed to the Surrey area.

Nobody's Perfect, another program, is administered cooperatively by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the Ministry of Health. It aims to assist young, inexperienced parents through the use of community-trained parent groups. Approximately $100,000 was spent on this program last year. That was in Surrey.

Another one in the Surrey area. Rehabilitation resources provides child care workers to assist youth experiencing behaviour problems, in an alternative school setting. Last year approximately $7 million was allocated to the program, with over $600,000 going to the Surrey area. This program has recently been expanded, with $3 million in new funding, $438,000 of which will be distributed to meet Surrey's needs. That's particularly for the Surrey area.

[ Page 9876 ]

Reconnect program. That program was designed to help street kids. I think you're well aware of the program for youth under 19 who have lost connection with their families and their community and are frequently involved in drug and alcohol abuse. Street workers and social workers offer resources and referrals to these kids, to help them establish a safer and healthier lifestyle. Total provincial budget for this program is $1,174,000.

Special services to children. Through the provision of child care workers, this program provides support to families in caring for children with exceptional physical, social and behavioural needs. Approximately $9 million is allocated provincially to this program, with Surrey purchasing approximately $300,000 worth of these specialized services each year.

The interministry handbook, which I showed you before, gives the protocol for the child-in-crisis need. It is sponsored by a number of ministries; it's an interministry program: the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, the Attorneys-General, the Solicitor-General, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Health — and that is over and above the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, which is comprised of more ministries than that.

So we aren't perfect, and there is no way that I would in any way suggest that we are perfect. I am saying that we have come a long way. We are enhancing programs. We're getting more FTEs this year than we had last year by somewhere in that vicinity of 119, exactly for the purpose of helping people in need, helping families in need, and helping children that need assistance. Quite a number of dollars are going to the Surrey area. I am pleased about that. There are many other programs, of course. They are endless, because it is a total budget of $1.7 billion, so there are a lot of activities. A lot of services are purchased on a contract basis and very closely monitored, and most of them provide good, solid service to the people of the community.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I recognize that the minister feels he has to defend his government's policies and his government's record, but I would feel an awful lot better trying to grapple with the situation we're facing in this province if the minister would make a little bit more of an attempt to deal with the questions rather than to pump out his government's propaganda.

Of the last list of services that the minister indicated were provided in Surrey, many do not exist in Surrey at all. The minister was giving the province's budget rather than the amount of money that was given in Surrey, and completely avoided the question of equity in the delivery of those services: whether they exist in every community in this province, whether they are good programs, and whether the funding support for those programs is equal to need, which I would suggest it is not.

I'll go back to this particular article. We are looking at professionals to serve children and families. This article was talking about mental health.

While this isn't directly the responsibility of this minister, this ministry relies on these professionals to help many of the children in communities throughout the province. This is just a comparison of services in Surrey and Vancouver. I wish our member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was here, because she wouldn't let this go by for a moment without pointing out that while Surrey has only eight private psychiatrists compared to 183 in Vancouver, many of the communities outside the lower mainland don't have even eight.

There isn't the equity in service that many communities pay for through their tax dollars and expect for their families and their children. When we talk about a waiting-list of four to five months for counselling for sexually abused children, the minister responds by indicating that he is surprised and that he'll look into that particular case. I point out to the minister that that is not an exception. That waiting list exists because there are not enough services for children in this province, and many of the services that did exist were gutted by previous Socred administrations.

[5:45]

There are a couple of different issues here. There's an issue of whether or not the services for families and children exist in this province. The more we explore that particular aspect, it becomes very clear that those services do not exist. There doesn't seem to be a focus from your ministry to identify where the gaps are, and whether or not there is a role for your ministry in providing those services in communities around the province.

In addition to that, there's also an issue of accountability for taxpayers' dollars. I touched on that in my introduction by talking about the amount of money that is spent on children in this province. Part of that, I believe, is brought about by the fact that your government has abandoned the field of prevention and support, and instead spends very expensive taxpayers' dollars on crisis intervention. That's why we are in the situation of $300 as compared to Ontario's $200.

The minister continually throughout these estimates has said: "I wish I had more money." Every minister does. But the fact of the matter is that we don't have the kind of accounting that I believe is necessary to have a real handle on whether that money is being spent effectively and in the best interests of children and families in this province.

I wonder if the minister could explain that discrepancy. Why is it the care in this province is so expensive and yet has so many gaping holes in service?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm tired too.

First of all, it was mentioned that we don't distribute services equitably; that the money is not evenly distributed throughout the province. I think I

[ Page 9877 ]

made it very clear that we do distribute evenly. I'll go over it again just for that member's information.

The ministry works to ensure that child care resources are evenly distributed across the province according to population and identified need. I said that before, and the member got up and said that we didn't do that. I said we did. For historical reasons and because of shifts in the population, an imbalance between regions occurred, which the ministry tried to address in that way.

Rather than redistribute the budget — this would have resulted in a net loss of residential space in regions deemed to have more than their fair share; an unacceptable solution — we chose to address the imbalance through the budgeting process, weighting the allocation of new funds towards those regions whose needs were identified for catch-up. I thought I made it very plain that this was the course of action chosen, and I think it was good. Rather than taking away from something, we got extra money and distributed it to those areas.

In the 1989-90 budget year, the total increase in budgets for child care resources was 19 percent, but the actual allocation to regions ranged from 1 to 73 percent. So some of them had the catch-up.

Just to give you an example from your area -because you're concerned about it — this year the increase in budget for families and children was $1,796,000, making a total of $17,666,000 for your region. Would you believe that that is a 13.6 percent increase? One region of Vancouver received a 6.5 percent increase, another region 10.5 percent, and another region 12.2 percent. So we did exactly what you were implying we did not do. We identified the population increase and the needs of children, and we upped it by 13.6 percent.

Again, as I said in housing, you can stand up and argue, "It's not enough, " and I can argue that.... And I do argue that when I go to cabinet. But I'm telling you that we have distributed It evenly and equitably, and I think I have done a fair job in that area.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am pleased that we still have some time, because the minister hasn't answered my question about the discrepancy in the amount of money spent in this province. We're trying to get at the issue of accountability and equity here. As I said before, when you compare Ontario and British Columbia, we spend $300 per kid where Ontario spends $200. Can you explain the difference?

HON. MR. DUECK: Number one, we offer far more services than they do, in many areas. Number two, they only go to 18 with their child support and children's services; we go to 19. Furthermore, their system is entirely different, and a lot of the agencies don't report. So it's a completely skewed figure, and you can't use it.

With the particular services that we offer, I would say that we are ahead of Ontario. Ontario has been out here and looked at our services, and they compliment us. Don't mix apples and oranges, because the two don't compare. I just want you to be at ease; we offer better services for less money.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to lay a little bit of groundwork for tomorrow. Perhaps the minister can take a look at a series that ran in the Globe and Mail looking at Ontario's services. In particular the article looked at the accounting that is legislated in Ontario and the monitoring of each of the children in care in that system. The government of Ontario, in the past couple of years through its legislation, has made it mandatory to monitor each of the children who fall under their responsibility. It was very interesting looking at the reporting of that monitoring process to find out the number of violations in the care of those children. I would hope that we could spend some time tomorrow looking at the kinds of systems in place in British Columbia for monitoring children in care, developing plans for those children and ensuring that the plans are carried out to the best of our ability.

I'd also like to spend some time looking at services for those children and, in particular, support to foster parents. I'm repeatedly told by foster parents of their frustration in trying to get professional help for their children — long waiting-lists, their inability to get the care they feel is necessary for their kids, and repeated stories of foster parents trying to identify those needs and not having that kind of information shared with them through the ministry.

That is basically the direction I'd like to go in the next day. In particular, I'd like to have some answers about the number of foster homes that, on average, children are in during their stay with the ministry. I'd like to know the number of social workers that a child interacts with in a stay with the ministry. I'd like to take a look at, in broad terms, the ministry's responsibility as a parent to those children. And I hope there will be some information forthcoming as to the direction you, as a new minister, see your ministry taking as far as services to children go.

Unless we begin to deal with that bigger picture — accountability for taxpayers' money, access and accountability for the delivery of services to the children in your care and some basic accounting of the actions of the ministry in a public fashion — I don't believe we can begin to deal in an equitable way with the services or with the families in this province.

HON. MR. SMITH: Last week I took a question on notice in committee that I wish to briefly reply to, dealing with the matter of the cost of legal services. I stated at that time, in comparing the cost of legal services involved in land claim issues to that incurred by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, that I understood the Insurance Corporation spent over $30 million per annum. I was incorrect in that matter, and I said I would check it out after I got back. I would just like to advise the House that it isn't over $30 million; it's $28,800,000.

[ Page 9878 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that the committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn, I would remind the members that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts will sit tomorrow morning at 8:30.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.