[ Page 9955 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

National Transportation Week. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 9955

Mr. Rose

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9955

Mr. Rose

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Reid

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Ms. Cull

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rabbitt

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. DE JONG: In the gallery this morning are some 45 students from Abbotsford Christian Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Gelderman, and several parents. I would like to ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As Minister of Transportation and Highways I would like to recognize June 3 to 9 as National Transportation Week in British Columbia in keeping with the same initiative being taken nationwide.

The twenty-first anniversary of National Transportation Week provides an excellent opportunity for each of us to examine our transportation system as we move towards the next century. With our transportation plan now in place, we have a five-year program to guide us towards our goal to continue to improve upon the safety and efficiency of a multimodal transportation network to better serve public and industry.

I am honoured to support the very special intent of this week in the name of all people who appreciate the fundamental importance of transportation and the many thousands who work so hard to provide us with the freedom to move.

MR. ROSE: I would like to join the Minister of Highways in acknowledging National Transportation Week and note that transportation is vital to our success as a province, and it certainly enhances and maintains the kind of wealth and investment that we've grown accustomed to and which provides us our standard of living.

I don't think it will come as any secret to the minister to know that we've had some serious problems in terms of commuting, especially in her riding, my riding and other ridings of the Vancouver suburbs. I want to note that only 5 percent of people in the lower mainland are commuters using public transportation.

SkyTrain increased that by only 1 percent. To equal Toronto at 10 percent of the riders is going to take us a long time. But if we do it, that means 200,000 cars off the road, leaving all kinds of room for other things.

So I welcome the announcement. I wish the minister and her plans Godspeed. I know that many of my constituents look forward to not just the plans, but the realization of these plans.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add just a word regarding National Transportation Week. On behalf of all those who ride two-wheel transportation and are coming to visit us today at noon.... I'm speaking of the motorcyclists of the province, and I know there are a few in this chamber. Perhaps we'll have more to say on that this afternoon after we've all gone for a ride on one of the beasts.

Where's the rest of your party this morning? Did you give them all the day off?

AN HON. MEMBER: They've been taken for a ride.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As long as it's on a motorcycle.

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. ROSE: I can't let this go by without lodging a protest about proceeding with these particular estimates when we had the minister's resignation yesterday and there is a brand-new minister. In spite of how bright, intelligent and quick-witted he is, I'm not certain that even a genius like him would be up to speed on the very complicated estimates of Social Services and Housing.

I think it should be noted in this House that I've asked the House Leader of the government for a delay in these particular estimates. The reply I got was that we'd spent considerable time on it now — I think it was 14 hours; I don't know whether that was just our speakers or whether that time includes the response of the government. But, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that it's going to be particularly productive to proceed unless the bureaucrats who are just entering the chamber to assist the minister are constantly whispering in his ear. But we'll see what kind of a performance he's able to put on.

I do protest this because I think estimates are for the examination of the accountability of the minister. The minister has had one day on the job, and I don't think it's enough to be accountable or to even give a proper examination of these estimates.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just for the record, I think we have spent considerable time on these estimates to date, and that any remaining time should be spent on getting factual answers as to the spending estimates of the ministry. I think that the minister and staff are quite capable of providing that. Perhaps we can shorten the time of estimates if we stick to facts.

[ Page 9956 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to sit down and hear the opening statements of the new minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 59 pass?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think the point is very clearly made that the temporary minister has decided not to get up and give any insight into his new role as Minister of Social Services and Housing. I wonder if the minister understands how many people in this province are relying on him at this time. I wonder if the minister understands how many children, how many seniors and how many people with handicaps are waiting to hear what he will bring to this ministry. I am waiting, and I would like to hear what insight he brings to his new job.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the minister's intervention. He's got his mike up. I notice that the minister of trade and commerce — or travel to the far east — was struggling to his feet as well. I'd like to hear from the minister.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The government House Leader has indicated that we have now spent 14 hours on these estimates. That's an indication of the fact that the Ministry of Social Services is one of the three largest ministries in this government. It has one of the three largest budgets in this government and employs one of the three largest numbers of employees in this province. This is the only opportunity the opposition has to ask significant questions of concern to the people of this province. That it has taken 14 hours to deal with the people's business is a reflection of the fact that half of that time has been spent on the housing crisis. If the government figures that they can use this particular crisis that they face to get out of answering questions and to limit the time, they are wrong.

We have asked and will continue to ask the government to withdraw these estimates to give the minister an opportunity to at least be briefed and to provide some direction to his staff. Clearly— and it is my understanding — the minister is indeed the captain of that ship. If what the government is saying right now is that this ship has no captain and you can proceed with a minister who hasn't even had the opportunity of a significant briefing — that that is satisfactory — then I will protest and it will take longer for these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps some questions pertinent to vote 59 might resolve the dilemma which we face.

MR. REID: I sat through almost a total 14 hours of previous questioning of the minister. There is no question in my mind that the balance of the questioning to the minister in the last two to three hours was totally irrelevant and repetitious, and I think that the former minister, when he was in this House, provided answers continually. The same questions were asked. I think I could quote verbatim the debate of the so-called housing crisis by that member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) because I've heard it 30 or 40 times in this House.

[10:15]

I think it's time that the staff, provided with a new, qualified minister...be given the answers he needs in a correlated way. They can ask all the questions they want, but I do not intend to sit for another 14 hours in this House and listen to the same questions being asked by the members on the other side, because I want to get on with the business of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest the hon. member was trying to make a point of order, as opposed to entering the debate on vote 59.

MR. LOVICK: The members opposite — and I am sure he speaks for others than himself alone — can say that they are not prepared to listen for another 14 hours. Fine. Leave the House.

The fundamental issue here is that the estimates debate ought to continue and it ought to be conducted by people who are knowledgeable and understand what the issues are — i.e., the minister responsible for that particular portfolio.

What this government is doing, Mr. House Leader across the way, is showing absolute and utter contempt for this chamber and for procedures. That's the issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair.

MR. LOVICK: There is no good reason whatsoever for members on that side to suddenly say, given their crisis, given their political predicament, that we will then somehow subvert the process of discussing estimates.

You're showing contempt for the people of the province; you're showing contempt for your....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would suggest we get on with vote 59. Shall vote 59 pass?

MS. SMALLWOOD: As far as I understand, my role in this debate is to bring forward not only the opposition's concerns but the concerns of the people of the province, and I will continue to do that. I'm not sure which number crisis this government has been facing, but the fact that it has decided to continue in this fashion is of concern not only to the opposition, because of our commitment to sound and reasonable government, but to the recipients and taxpayers of this province. It is relevant to this debate because of the choice this government has made in putting a minister responsible for labour and consumer services in a temporary position....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the member is truly as concerned with the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing as she professes to be,

[ Page 9957 ]

then she stop making a political speech and get on with asking questions pertinent to vote 59.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, would the member take her seat, please. In the mind of the Chairman, the appointment of ministers of the Crown has absolutely nothing to do with this chamber — who they are or how they are appointed. We are here, however, to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. We have two votes to deal with –– 59 and 60. I suppose some comment with respect to the appointment of a new minister might be in order, but to continue and debate the subject is certainly out of order. The Chair will have to insist that we move ahead now and deal with those matters pertinent to votes 59 and 60.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. We don't quarrel with the idea that the government has the right or the power to do this; that's not the point. The point is not that you have the right to name any minister or bring any estimate or bill forward at any time; we don't quarrel with that. But we do think it is a contempt of the House to bring in a brand new minister who has had one day's experience on the job and continue with a very complicated and expensive set of estimates. That's why we protest it.

I asked to have it delayed, and to give the government credit, they have been most cooperative in other matters in delaying legislation or altering the timetable thereof. But here, I just don't accept this. I think that it's a contempt of the House. I believe that it is wrong-headed, stubborn, blind and arrogant to proceed in this matter with a minister who doesn't know which way is up in terms of this ministry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, Sir Erskine May advises us that in Committee of Supply, the minister is responsible for answering questions about the administration of the particular vote under consideration. The opposition is making the point that the minister can't answer. They are doing that in a vacuum, because to this point, they haven't asked any questions of the ministry.

Why don't you sit down? I'm not finished yet. It seems to me that someone said that a minute ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I've.... Please continue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, if I could just continue.

Therefore I think it would be incumbent upon you, sir, to rule and to endorse the comments and instructions of Sir Erskine May with respect to asking a minister about the administrative capacity of the vote and his ability to administer that ministry. I think any other debate from this point on would be irrelevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the advice from the learned minister. The Chair mentioned a few moments ago that we were not here to debate this particular issue, and I think I should now make it firmly understood to everyone that we are not going to debate this particular issue any longer. It has been well canvassed, in my mind, and I think we should proceed to the matter which we are here to deal with this morning, and that's vote 59 of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the minister. We have a great concern about affordable housing in the city of Vancouver. I understand that through the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the ministry is looking at this problem. I understand there was a first stage set of 4,000 units, and that has been upped to 8,000 units. I would like find out when we'll see some of these units on stream.

My second question to the minister is this. There has been a great deal of expansion and very dramatic changes in the style of housing for some of our special-needs citizens. I'm wondering if he could confirm the number of social housing units that we will be building through that special program this year. For a starter, I wonder if we could get, for the citizens of Vancouver particularly, an update on the affordable rental housing and on the special-needs housing for so many of our seniors. I understand B.C. Housing Management has approximately 53,000 units already in place throughout British Columbia.

With the government's excellent program of deinstitutionalizing the disabled and seniors throughout the province, from various rehabilitation centres and hospitals, they don't have to go miles or, in some cases, move to other cities; they can relocate to their own communities where their friends and families are, where they are close to shopping, libraries and senior day care centres that they can attend.

Also, in many communities we're building up care components that will allow seniors to have Meals on Wheels and any type of care — maybe it's attendant care; maybe it's a housekeeper. We will allow them to have people come into the facilities that they stay in, where they have company.

I wonder if the minister, as the Minister of Housing, can speak about the program of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, particularly as it relates to the affordable housing which we're finding to be so needed in the Vancouver area and now stretching out into the Fraser Valley.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, the member asked about the affordable housing and the rental housing supply. Of course, there is a difference between those two.

In the affordable housing, the program for this year involves 1,800 units for the province; approximately 700 of those are for the Vancouver area. A number are under construction now. They are being completed at various intervals.

The rental supply program, where the financial assistance on the interest is provided, is an $80 million program. I believe 8,000 units are planned for

[ Page 9958 ]

this year. Many of those are under construction at this time and being completed at various intervals.

MR. MOWAT: I made some notes on that. I think that's an excellent program. I commend the ministry on it.

I'm wondering if the ministry is going to continue the excellent program that we have in place now where we take some needs citizens and, because they need some attendant care or a homemaker, we're starting to put them into a facility, but not a total facility of that one type. Rather, we're integrating the building with working people, young people and those with families. We're sending in, or having grouped, their hours of care needed. Then we're moving those people into the facility, which allows them to leave a costly extended-care unit and have a better quality of life.

My question to the minister is: in the budget this year, are there still funds to provide that ongoing policy, which we have recognized to be such a valuable program to so many citizens in British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, it is the government's position to continue that integration program. We believe that it's a very desirable initiative and something that we wish to continue to promote.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, it is traditional in this House, when we enter the process of estimates, for the minister to make an introductory or an opening statement, and then for the critic responsible to lay out his or her overall concerns before getting into specific questioning. It's also traditional, when we have a new minister, to make an attempt to understand what that minister's priorities are, and what the minister will bring to his new job.

At this time I'd like to lay out some of my overall concerns about the ministry. While the minister has turned down the opportunity of expressing where he would like to take the ministry in his new portfolio, I would like to express some concerns about the ministry in general and this government's overall attitude towards their responsibility of governing.

At the last opportunity we had to deal with the estimates, we began to get some answers and make some progress in the very complicated issue of child welfare in this province. I felt it unfortunate that we are indeed having to go over some of the same turf because this minister was preoccupied with his previous responsibility and was not present in the House to hear the debate. Perhaps as the estimates go on, the minister, with his staff, can look over the debate and understand more clearly what the opposition's concerns have been.

[10:30]

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, as I outlined before, is one of the major ministries of the province. It impacts the lives of many people in this province, and many people — the professionals related to the ministry, the staff and the clients — have found it very difficult through this government's last term, since 1986, to figure out how they can best access the ministry and access the services provided by that ministry. There have been two reasons for that difficulty: (1) the huge reorganization that went on in this province; and (2) the lack of attention paid to the concerns of the taxpayers and the people of this province, because this government has been involved in its own crisis management. Many of the ministers in the past number of years have been too busy with the infighting and trying to keep the government afloat to be able to deal with the concerns and needs of the people of this province. We began in previous debates to outline some of the real deficits in service.

We're now in a situation where this government is saying that the only thing that is keeping this boat afloat is the staff. Very clearly — whether the government backbenchers realize it or not — it takes a considerable amount of time, effort and understanding to even begin to talk intelligently about the needs of this ministry. Regardless of how committed and indeed intelligent this minister is, the reality is that no one could possibly either have an understanding or answer intelligently on the issues that I want to canvass, the issues that have been brought to me by parents and people within the system who have been working for a number of years to grapple with the problems themselves.

The ongoing criticism of people who are trying to have a positive impact in the area of human services is that it becomes increasingly difficult, with the type of management that we see in this province, to deal in a constructive overall manner with these concerns; that the only way people have of dealing with their concerns is to become a thorn in the side of government; and that the way the government responds is to deal with those problems on an individual basis rather than on a systems basis. It is repeatedly obvious to me that the only way people can get any attention is to bring their specific problems to the attention of the media to embarrass the government. That is the only way that they as individuals get some of these very difficult problems dealt with. That is not satisfactory as far as I am concerned, nor should it be satisfactory as far as the government is concerned.

There are significant systems problems, and now I am faced with the reality that I am debating those systems problems with the staff. Either the staff does make all the decisions and is leading the government, or this government is so superficial that they do not understand the responsibility that they bring to the job.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. One hates to lecture the Chair, and I know that you're doing your best to bring this member to order. But I must insist that we get back to vote 59 of Committee of Supply and some relevance to this debate. The member already made a lengthy opening statement the other day. The former minister made a lengthy opening statement outlining the goals, objectives and aims. The current minister has spent many

[ Page 9959 ]

hours in committees and is quite conversant with what happens with the social policy of this government. So, Mr. Chairman, I must insist that the debate be kept relevant and that this member be kept to vote 59.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, the iterations about being in order are passing strange and ironic, coming from this House Leader, who has quite flagrantly proceeded with having these estimates when we really ought not to be. So I would suggest that any consideration of relevancy ought to be put in that context. We've seen a contempt of the whole process here this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will point out before we continue with this debate, to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) first of all, that the Chair sees a flaw in her hypothesis with respect to this debate this morning. We are not debating the estimates of a minister; we're debating the estimates of a ministry. The opening statements were made previously, and I do not think that the change of ministers within the Ministry of Social Services and Housing in any way, shape or form brings forward any requirement or allows us to repeat those matters which have been debated and discussed previously.

Certainly there are other items which I am sure the member wants to canvass that fall within vote 59. But those items which have been previously canvassed I think we'll have to rule as having been dealt with sufficiently. To revise them and deal with them all over again would just defy the rules of repetition. I would ask the member to continue with being relevant to vote 59 being dealt with this morning.

MR. ROSE: On the matter of relevancy, it's been a practice of this House ever since I've been here to have a very wide-ranging debate on the minister's office, and we don't have individual debates on various votes within that ministry within those estimates. So as far as relevancy is concerned, we have been very tolerant and wide-ranging. I think if we want to nail down specifically to a particular.... We're dealing now with the minister's office and subsequent votes within the ministry, so I  think we can tolerate a wide debate, rather than a narrowly conceived one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One other point before we continue. If members would like to make a note of Sir Erskine May in the seventeenth edition.... If they would turn to page 766, they would find the answer to many of the points that have been raised.

Let me read one part of it: "The Committee of Supply does not afford the proper opportunity for discussing from which House of Parliament a minister should be chosen, or whether he should be in the cabinet or not, or which minister should represent the government in respect of the estimates under consideration." That seems to be pretty straightforward and understandable.

All right. We'll continue to debate vote 59.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I would like to make a very quick comment to the statement made by the member. It wasn't a very flattering statement, in my opinion. Part of the comment was that the member would not be able to get an intelligent answer. I think in order to determine that, you had better ask some questions and find out. You be the judge after you've had the answers to those questions.

You asked about an opening statement. There was an opening statement made here by the previous minister. It was a lengthy statement, and it covered the ministry in great detail. I think it's unnecessary and irrelevant to go through that process again.

You asked about the priorities of this minister. In this capacity my priority is to continue the good work that has been done with this ministry in the past, and to do everything that I can to assist, encourage and build hope in those people who have difficulties within their lives in this province, so that they can move upward and forward and enjoy the good life along with the rest of us.

The member talks about her concerns. I'd like to comment that I'm pleased the member does have concerns, but I want her to know that she's not the only one in this House who has concerns about the people she's talking about. We are concerned about them too. I think we've done a creditable job of looking after those people. We will continue to do that. So the concerns and interests of that part of the public are shared as much or more by the people on this side of the House as they are by the people on your side of the House.

So if you want to ask questions and you want answers, I guess you'll have to start the process by asking the questions. If you don't want to do that, we don't have to continue with the process at all.

MR. GABELMANN: Now for something entirely different. I'd ask the House permission to make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery behind me is a group of students from Fort Rupert Elementary School near Port Hardy, accompanied by teacher Paul D'Arcangelo and one of the parents, who is also a council member in the district of Port Hardy, Bev Parnham. I'd ask all members to make this group most welcome.

MR. REID: A question to the minister. In my constituency at the moment we have a bit of a dilemma, and it's to do with the infant development program. I know the previous minister was responding to it the other day. It's reaching a crisis point. The infant development program is administered by Peace Arch Community Services. I know your budget provides some funding for that particular program, but I would hope that in the earlier days of your new role you would look at the funding allocated towards that particular program and give that particular request serious consideration.

[ Page 9960 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 59 pass?

MR. LOVICK: With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, you ought not to be precipitate in asking "Shall the vote pass?" because the predicament is that the minister can't answer the question until he receives a detailed briefing. That's the point we've been making, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please.

MR. LOVICK: I'm serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was not being precipitate in calling the vote. There was no one standing on their feet, and when no one stands to say something, the vote is called. We will not enter into an argument on this, hon. member. Would you have something else to say, hon. member?

MR. LOVICK: Duly noted, Mr. Chairman, but I will stand here on my feet and prepare the minister for the next question until such time as he is ready to answer. Surely you can sympathize with us, Mr. Chairman. Here he is. The minister is ready.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: To the member who asked the previous question, it should be clarified that the infant development service is a support program to families with children up to the age of three who are developmentally delayed as a result of physical or mental handicaps. Program workers supply information and support to parents and design individualized learning and activity programs for parents to implement.

Monthly visits by the workers are normal, and parents carry out the programs and exercise their own initiatives between visits. While the strike is undoubtedly an inconvenience and a worry to the parents, they are equipped to maintain their children's development in the meantime.

The ministry hopes the current dispute can be satisfactorily resolved, but hastens to assure the parents of our commitment to ensure that infant development services will be available in the area In the future.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the emphasis of my government certainly has been and continues to be on strengthening the family. I was hoping the opposition members would have some questions on the Strengthening the Family program.

It certainly has been an effective program, and one that's most appreciated by the people of our province. But the opposition obviously is not interested in seeking any information on these types of programs.

[10:45]

They are not really that concerned about what the ministry has done or how effective the program is. They have not even proposed how, in their view, changes might be made which could effectively deal with some of the concerns they supposedly have. Instead, they like to stand up and continue to make political points which certainly don't serve the people of the province very well.

MR. SIHOTA: You've never tried that, have you?

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would like to dwell for a moment on the Strengthening the Family program. First of all, I would like to commend the ministry and its staff for the wonderful job they have done in this particular program and continue to do.

MR. SIHOTA: You talk about strengthening the family; you fired the child abuse worker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew can speak if he wishes to rise in his place as soon as the Premier is finished.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to make some further points on the Strengthening the Family programs and to tell the House just exactly what might be done, or how these programs could be continued in a way to help with this priority of government of providing whatever assistance we can, in order to further encourage this very worthwhile program.

I think it's of great interest to British Columbians everywhere. I am sure I can speak for people from every part of this province when I say there is a great appreciation for this program. It's probably one of the reasons, Mr. Minister, that the people have looked to Social Credit time and time again. They see in the Social Credit government and its philosophy this very important aspect.

MR. LOVICK: Wasn't he saying a minute ago no politics in the Legislature?

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it's relevant. The fact that we continue to see this party re-elected year after year certainly is indicative that the people are supportive of this program. I know the opposition has shown little interest in that particular program; they've not had much by way of questions or comments on the Strengthening the Family program. So I'd like to hear a few words from you, Mr. Minister, on that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: In answer to the Premier's questions, this government is indeed very proud of the work that's been done for the purpose of strengthening families. Everyone agrees it's a very noble undertaking on the part of government — something that all people in the province, regardless of political persuasion, should be ready to applaud. Families are, after all, the foundation of our society. Unless we care, support and strengthen families within our communities, communities themselves will deteriorate and our society will not do well.

[ Page 9961 ]

We have a number of programs that I'd like to mention. One of them is the Families First program. It's a community-based program designed to enhance families' capacity to meet their members' needs. Referrals are provided to families through 272 contracts in 80 British Columbia communities — a very broad and far-reaching program. It has provided approximately 500 jobs and introduced needs services to small communities which had few, if any, before the program was initiated. The annual budget for this program is $10.26 million.

There's the Nobody's Perfect program, which is jointly funded by the Ministry of Health and my ministry. Both ministries and the community deliver this program, which provides parent training for young, isolated parents of preschoolers.

There's the rehabilitation resource program, which is jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Education and school districts. This program is designed for youth with social and emotional problems that adversely affect their school performance. Over 5,000 children are served each year. The annual budget here is $6.85 million. Three million dollars has been allocated to expand the rehabilitation resource program to serve a new target population of 2,573 children aged ten to 14 with severe behavioural difficulties. This increase enables the ministry to reach into new areas and the needs identified by the Royal Commission on Education.

Also we have the Reconnect program. It now exists in over 14 communities to assist youth to sever their connections to the street and to return to their home community. In the fiscal year '89-90 the total annual budget is $1.7 million.

There's the family advancement program. Through contacts through non-profit societies, the objective is to provide direct service to families where no other exists and to ensure families have access to existing services that support the integrity of the family. The program is offered in 37 communities. There are 60 programs in total. There's the family advancement worker program. In 1989-90 the total was $4.9 million.

There's the special services to children, which provides support to families to care for children with exceptional physical and social or behavioural needs These services reach 1,800 families and children each month and have an annual expenditure of $9.73 million.

There's the homemaker service program. This provides temporary support and relief to families so that they can maintain or regain independent functioning. Approximately 14,000 families are served each year by this program of $5.6 million a year.

There's the at-home program, which I believe was talked about here earlier. In 1989 government introduced this program to assist families of severely handicapped children to remain in or return to their own homes. The initial commitment was for $14 million annually, representing 1,500 children.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the record speaks for itself. The government has done a great deal of creditable service to strengthen the families in this province. I'm proud to say that this ministry is a member of the Western Conference on the Family.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to finally be able to get up after having been interrupted — I'm not sure how many times — by the repetitive points of order.

I'd like to continue on my trend of thought and at the same time raise a couple of relevant points with regard to previous speakers. As I said in my attempt to make some introductory comments with this new minister — and let me first of all thank him for reading the last two responses into the record — what I am interested in at this point is not verbatim written responses from the staff. I still believe in the political process. I still believe that the people make the decisions about who the captains of the ships are, despite the actions of this government, and in the fact that each and every minister brings to the job a different perspective.

I would like to point out to the people in the House today that we now have three ministers, that I'm aware of, sitting on the government's benches: the previous minister and now Premier of the province; the minister now responsible for forestry; and as of yesterday, a minister who had been in the job for four months. It's interesting to look at what each and every minister....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Two things become very obvious here. First of all, the member is not heeding the admonitions from the Chair about relevance. She continues to be totally irrelevant to this vote. Secondly, it becomes increasingly apparent to myself and members of this House — and I want to point it out to people in the gallery — that this member is obviously not prepared for these estimates, because we have spent the better part of an hour, and she has yet to ask a question of the minister and has yet to be relevant to vote 59.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll ask the member to continue and to confine her remarks to those appropriate to the votes under consideration this morning — 59 and 60.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As I was saying, we have three very different styles, already having had experience with the Premier, with the Minister of Forests and the past Minister of Social Services. The Premier's contribution to the Ministry of Social Services is one of telling welfare recipients in particular....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we've brought up this matter of relevancy a number of times now. I think you've had one or two warnings in this regard. The Chair must insist that we be relevant to the subject we are discussing. The points you raise are certainly not pertinent to vote 59 or 60. Would you please continue and be relevant in your comments.

MS. SMALLWOOD: With regard to the Ministry of Social Services and the direction that this govern-

[ Page 9962 ]

ment plans on taking that ministry, I'd like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, as I've been trying to, that all ministers bring a different style, different priority and different way of handling their responsibility. What I'm looking for is a commitment from this new and possibly temporary minister as to what leadership he will provide to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

I can assure some of the previous speakers that I have done my homework and that we have a considerable number of issues that we want to canvass with this ministry — both myself and other members of the opposition — and we'll do so. I am very regretful that rather than give legitimacy to this process, the government has chosen to proceed with the estimates this morning. I would wonder whether this minister has even been in the buildings of the ministry.

Let me talk specifically about some of the programs raised by previous speakers, in particular the program that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) brought to the attention of the minister and the minister's response, which was provided to him in writing by his staff.

Truly, he could have gotten up and said to those families and individuals that if they would receive Christ and if they would pray, their problems would be a lot easier for them to deal with and would be resolved much quicker — as did the Premier when it was his responsibility.

[11:00]

He could very well have gotten to his feet and responded in the fashion of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and said something to the effect that it was future policy and he was unable to share that information. You see, that minister is noted for not being forthcoming with information that people needed.

Or he could have — as did the minister responsible for this area yesterday — gotten to his feet and said: "That is a serious problem. I am concerned. I will look into it. I will make the commitment to those families that the program will continue." He was unable to do any of the above. He was unable to respond, as was the Premier. He was unable to respond as the Minister of Forests, nor was he able to respond as the previous Minister of Social Services. Indeed, all he was able to do was read the written response of the staff.

I would like to, as I did earlier, bring to the new, and possibly temporary, minister's attention that that area was canvassed yesterday, and that he does have an opportunity to make his own commitments, as the new captain of that ship, to the direction that he will bring in the provision of services to families and children in this province.

I would remind the minister, while he is looking at the Blues and making his decisions about how he will respond to the situation of the 190-some-odd families in the riding of the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, that at the time we were making those inquiries, it was the current Premier of this province who called for the question and did not give the previous member for Social Services the opportunity to answer. Instead, we had an intervention that took a considerable amount of time, and I would suggest to the government House Leader that if we're wanting to get on with the issues of relevance to the people of this province, he should control his own Premier.

As far as the issue of providing services to families and children in this province, and in particular in the infant development program, I would bring to the new minister's attention the fact that without that program many families, not only in the riding of the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale but in the whole catchment area of south Fraser, will be in jeopardy.

The support that this particular program provides was outlined in a letter that was written to me by one of the families. I'll have to paraphrase because I don't have that letter with me, having believed that we had dealt with that and had a commitment from a previous minister.

Let me paraphrase that particular family's concerns. The letter spelled out the short life of Nolen Diamond. Nolen was born prematurely. He spent a considerable amount of time in Children's Hospital in an incubator. When he was born, he was just over one pound.

After spending all of that time in the incubator in intensive care, with a large number of professionals at his side 24 hours a day, he had gained enough weight to be sent home. He was sent home to his family. His family was very frightened at that prospect. After the child was born, they went through the process of being told that he wouldn't survive the night. They spent that night at the child's side and had the child baptized because they didn't believe he was going to live through the night. They found themselves in a situation of feeling quite incompetent in dealing with their young miracle baby, not knowing how they would be able to give the time, energy and commitment that had been given by the dedicated professionals at Children's Hospital.

They were ecstatic when they got their first call, quite frankly, from the infant development program based out of White Rock. They were relieved when they first had their visit from the infant development worker, who helped them assess the baby's needs and develop programs that could meet those needs.

You see, when a baby has spent so much time in an incubator, lying on its back, plugged into all of the equipment that they are plugged into, what happens to the child is that when the mother tries to pick the baby up, the baby arches its back and becomes very stiff. One of the things that the infant development program provided was a process of exercising and manipulating that child's muscles so that the baby could learn how to relax.

There was nothing particularly wrong with the baby when it responded in that fashion; it was just a natural response to its environment. But there's no way that a mother or a father would know that, because this is not the natural circumstances that families have to face.

That's only one example of the kind of care that the infant development program provides. The minis-

[ Page 9963 ]

ter's response — and I was saddened by it — is not accurate. The minister said that the negotiations are ongoing.

As I brought it to the attention of the previous minister, has the new, and possibly temporary, minister had the opportunity to be briefed, or at least had the opportunity to read the debate to date? If so, he would have understood that the negotiations have broken off. He would have understood that the program's sponsors had indeed laid off the workers and closed the program down. The program no longer exists.

The intervention yesterday was a plea to the ministry to take a look at the situation and indeed to intervene and assure those families that they could expect continued support. The fact that the minister read his response into the record is typical and a prime example of the concerns that I have laid out this morning.

I would like the minister to personally make a commitment to look into the situation and to make a commitment that the program will continue.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the gallery are two people who are very committed to assisting all the people of British Columbia in dealing with issues involving youth. They have traveled all around the province and are involved with the Attorney-General's and Solicitor-General's advisory committee dealing with youth. I would like the House to please welcome Tom Gove from Vancouver and Deborah Frolek from Kamloops.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The government House Leader also seeks leave to make an Introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting the Legislature today are 42 grades 6 and 7 students from Kay Bingham Elementary School in Brocklehurst, my hometown. They are here with four of their teachers — Mrs. Sharpe, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Jeffery and Mrs. Cianci — and eight parents. I would like the House to make these people from Kamloops very welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Nanaimo would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have this opportunity to interrupt the business of the House for introductions, because I note in the gallery a dear friend of mine and of my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger). Mr. Herb Bibbs is visiting the House today, and I would ask the House to please join me in making him welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, may I say that we agree with the member that the infant development program is a very good and important program. Our recognition of that is shown by the fact that we have 1,717 spaces available in the province. That is a 16 percent increase over the previous year. The budget of $3.74 million is a 34 percent increase over the previous year.

The information I have available to me suggests that the situation the member was talking about is in fact a labour dispute, and we are still hopeful that it will be resolved. But I can give the member my assurance that I will look into that particular situation and determine what the situation is, in my view.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In this area of social services and housing, because of what people are facing in this province, we have a lot of business to deal with. While I am and will continue to be very unhappy with this government in the way they deal with the business of the people, I think it's important for us to get some of our concerns on the record and to get some commitments from this new minister. We have two or three housing situations that have been brought to our attention today, and I want to look for some commitments from this minister on those issues.

However, upon adjournment of these estimates the day before yesterday, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was questioning the minister on some housing policy. I'd like to have her take the opportunity to finish that questioning.

MS. CULL: I am just going to quickly remind the new minister as to where I left off two days ago. I had been talking about why — despite the fact that we have had many announcements about housing programs and many housing programs supposedly being effective over the years — after 15 years of these housing programs we still find ourselves in exactly the same place that we were in 1975: the same vacancy rates, the same affordability problems and even the same levels of in-migration. So certainly in-migration isn't the reason for our problems right now.

There was one difference — I forgot about that — in where we were in 1975 and where we are today. We're actually spending less money out of the budget today on affordable housing than we were in 1975. In 1975 we were spending approximately 3 percent of the provincial budget, and now we're spending 0.27 percent.

I was going over some of the points that I thought the minister should be aware of. The minister might want to inquire into why, after all these years of Social Credit housing policy, nothing has really seemed to change. I said that perhaps one of the problems was the lack of a long-term, comprehensive housing policy which addressed all of the issues — not just band-aid programs in times of crisis.

[ Page 9964 ]

Unfortunately the minister declined to answer my question about objectives, targets and staffing. I don't know whether the new and possibly temporary minister would like to go back and answer that question, but I concluded the other day that no comprehensive policy exists. Certainly the minister was not able to answer my question as to whether there was one.

[11:15]

When we reached adjournment, I was talking about another problem; another possible reason why, after all of these years of Social Credit housing programs, we seem to have moved nowhere; another reason why this is the situation we face today. I said that perhaps there hasn't been proper consultation about some of the programs being put in place. Throughout this session the former minister and other members on that side have blamed local governments for not providing zoning for housing programs. They've blamed them for taking too long. They've blamed them for not taking up the development incentive grants. The question I was asking the minister upon adjournment was: what kind of consultation has taken place, particularly with respect to the development incentive grants, and why were municipalities not taking them up?

Now we've had a two-day break between the questions. Maybe the staff has now had time to advise the new minister as to what consultations took place and what local governments have said to the former minister about the difficulties they are having with zoning, timing, services and meeting the demands placed upon them by the government's rental housing supply program.

While the minister and his staff are considering that question, I just want to move to another issue of consultation: the rental housing supply program. I would like to know, again, what consultation took place prior to the introduction of that program. Since we seem to be having a slow uptake on this program as well, although the minister has not admitted as much — he said that the program is working very effectively — we have the development community themselves saying that the program is not working effectively.

The new president of the Urban Development Institute's Victoria chapter, Dave Ganong, has said: "They forgot to consult the lending community when they put the program together." If the government didn't consult the lending community and didn't consult the municipalities, I would like to know who you did consult before putting the program together. If there are problems with the rental supply program and development incentive grant uptake, what action is being taken to consult with these people after the fact to find out what should be done to improve the situation?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, there has been consultation with the municipalities. I am familiar with some of those consultations because I was part of the meetings that took place to discuss this problem with the municipalities. They were lengthy meetings and were well attended. The meetings we had representing the municipalities in the lower mainland.... I think there were 12 mayors at both of the meetings, and there was very free and open discussion.

We discussed the problems that the municipalities feel they have. We told them our expectations. There was an agreement that both the province and the municipalities would work together to do what they could to enhance the program, but it does take time. I can say that the communication between the province, the ministry and the municipalities was really very good. They were very cooperative meetings; there was a good spirit in both of them.

As far as the rental supply program goes, there again consultation has taken place between the industry and the ministry. The industry is relied upon to provide the construction, so the items that were discussed were the cost of land, the cost of money and the availability of land.

We have addressed two issues — the costs — by the funding provided through the program; it is assistance to overcome those costs. On the availability, there has been a considerable amount of effort to try to find land for different classifications of the housing program. There is land available, of course, but it is a question of zoning it and going through the process before it can be utilized.

MS. CULL: It seems somewhat curious that if there has been all of this consultation with local governments, the former minister could not answer why local governments are having difficulty meeting your requests for zoning. What I have heard time and time again from members on the other side of this House is: "The program is wonderful. If only those bad municipalities would provide the zoning, we could get on with providing the houses." Is there consultation going on now with local governments to find out what the problem is with respect to the take-up of the development incentive grants and to providing the appropriate zoning when it's necessary?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, there is. Consultation is continuing and will continue.

MS. CULL: Can the new and possibly temporary minister tell us what the municipalities are saying with respect to the zoning problem? Can he enlighten the House as to what difficulties there are?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The problem — and there's no secret of it — is that municipalities have to deal with their communities. They have to overcome the problem, for affordable housing particularly, that people object to the rezonings. Municipalities have some difficulty in rezoning the properties. That's something that they have to deal with; it's under their jurisdiction. That's a concern for the municipalities.

MS. CULL: There certainly is difficulty that local governments are having with respect to zoning, and part of it is dealing with their communities. Part of it is also dealing with the fact that local governments

[ Page 9965 ]

are now becoming more and more aware of the cost of growth and are finding that, in many cases, the higher the density, the more expensive it is for their community to afford that kind of growth.

I'm curious to know what the ministry is doing to assist local governments in those matters.

There are all kinds of examples we can point to across the country and in the United States. I just want to talk about what's going on in the province of Ontario. Ontario has put forward a comprehensive approach to housing. The approach they've put forward is to ask local governments to deal with housing in a much more comprehensive way in their official community plans. They have suggested to them that 25 percent of all land developed for housing in their communities should be at appropriate densities for moderate- and low-income families. The government in Ontario is showing some leadership in what is expected with housing in communities, and they're providing assistance to them in terms of planning, servicing and meeting the financial costs of growth.

Can the minister tell us what is being done in terms of housing policy in this province to address those issues?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There's a great deal being done in this province. It's interesting that the member feels that Ontario is leading in this area. It would be one of the very few, because in most cases the programs in British Columbia lead the programs in Ontario. That becomes apparent very often.

The question of what is being done to assist municipalities in development and growth is a question that would be more appropriately put to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson). You will have that opportunity, I'm sure. I would just defer the question until that time.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to pursue with the new Minister of Housing the issue of the rental supply program. The current minister was here for much of the debate that was carried on when the former minister was in charge. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have indicated that we have some concerns with the projected success of the rental supply program. Indeed, I and the staff on our side did an analysis of the government's program and its impact on the lower mainland. I have to reiterate that we have limited resources, and we don't have the ministry staff or their information. We don't have the details of their program as they know it. They are the government of the day.

I was trying to pursue with the minister at the time what information they had in terms of their perception of success for the program. As I say, we projected in our analysis that the vacancy rate in the lower mainland would not improve by 1992, with even the best of intentions. Giving benefit of the doubt to the program in many instances, we concluded that the vacancy rate would be lower in 1992, even with 75 percent of the units being allocated to greater Vancouver; currently that seems to be the target.

The former minister indicated, after a day and a half of questions, that there was some analysis by the ministry, although we also have on record from B.C. Housing Management Commission people that they have not done an analysis of the rental supply program and that they really rely on CMHC. The minister indicated they expect a 1-to-2 percent vacancy rate. I asked the minister for the information to back up that claim. Today I want to know if the minister will provide me with that background information, as the former minister promised. That's my first question this morning: will the new minister provide the information that backs up the claim of a 1-to-2 percent vacancy rate?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I understand that the previous minister offered that member the opportunity to sit down and discuss with the people responsible the program and what was happening, and to make himself available with the information that there is. I would just reiterate that the offer still stands. I'd be happy to do anything I can to educate that member from Victoria. He's a good member, but he tends to be a bit negative, so I'd like him to get good information. Get the facts, and you'll find out that the programs are going very well and that you can look forward to a great improvement in British Columbia. Have no doubt about that, Mr. Member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this minister has a slightly different approach from the former minister in terms of some compliments, which I thank him for.

I appreciate the opportunity to meet with B.C. Housing Management Commission staff. Obviously that opportunity is always available to this side of the House, and I appreciate that. But in terms of the debates of the Legislature, it would be very useful, because I understand that the information is available now.... Apparently a B.C. Housing Management Commission spokesperson was saying in a report this morning that they have a preliminary.... There is information on various desks — probably even on that of the former minister and this minister. We've been asking — and our staff have been asking — for a full update on the rental supply program: how many units there are, where they are being built and what the track record is. We've not been able to get that information, although there was some reference today that it clearly is available. I appreciate the minister's offer to meet the staff — and we will do that, obviously — but for the legislative debates it would be very useful if we could have any information that you have to document what you perceive to be the success rate of your rental supply program. Again, the government is claiming that this is their major initiative for housing in British Columbia.

[11:30]

I would like the new minister to perhaps, within the atmosphere of a new spirit of cooperation, provide as much information to this side of the House as possible because, as you say, we have done our

[ Page 9966 ]

analysis, and we are prepared to admit that we don't have all the information to base that on. There are two things I would like: the analysis to back up your 1-to-2-percent vacancy rate and a full, up-to-date reporting on where the rental supply program is — how many units, what's under construction, where they're being built, who's developing them, the financing, how developers are taking them up, if they're having trouble with them. I'm going to get to that in a minute. Maybe the minister can say he will do that today.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Again, we have offered to cooperate with the member to obtain the information. It's a little difficult, I hope you can appreciate, to provide all of it in this forum. It would be nice to be able to sit down and go over some of the figures with you and explain how we see this particular program unfolding. On the rental supply program, there are at the present time 68 units completed. I appreciate that's not a very large number. There are 743 under construction at this time and 4,028 awaiting approvals at different stages.

On the affordable housing program, I don't have the piece of paper here with me today; but the other day I expected that same member would ask me a question about it, so I did get my numbers together. He was unfair to me that particular day because he didn't ask me the question. He went to somebody else.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

On the affordable program, I was pleased to be able to compile the figures. I found that one area of my constituency — Mission, the town I live in — happened to have one of the lowest vacancy rates of all. I was concerned about this. I took the surrounding area, which would be reasonable to accommodate people within that geographic area because it's close, and the number I had, if my memory serves me correct, was 500 and some-odd units that would be completed before the end of this year in the affordable housing area. There were many others under construction, and some that would be completed in early '91 and so on. Those were not counted; the affordable housing that was expected to be completed this year in just that little area was counted. We could certainly get the figures for the broad area of the province, but that gives you an indication.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two more supplementary questions, then my colleague for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) wishes to return to some issues she wishes to raise.

Let me move on again on the rental supply program. One of the difficulties in the analysis of any program like this is that when the opposition provides analysis to the best of our ability, it's often perceived within the confines of government versus opposition. There are going to be differences within that environment.

But I do note, Mr. Chairman, through you to the new minister, that a major player in the private sector here in Victoria, the Victoria chapter president of the Urban Development Institute, said today that the provincial rental supply program is unlikely to reach anything like its target of 8,000 units. To quote Mr. Ganong, the president: "I don't think the program is really working as was intended. I don't think it will produce anywhere near the levels they are thinking of." We're not saying that; the Victoria president of the Urban Development Institute of British Columbia is saying that, somebody clearly identified with the private sector, someone who is objective in looking at the rental supply program.

To some degree, it backs up some of the things we have been saying. We want some evidence. We've had some concerns about the ability of this program to deliver. Now that the Urban Development Institute itself is questioning the ability of your program, I'm wondering if you will, as the new minister, be reassessing your housing program. Will you be taking a look at innovative ways to deliver housing?

The government has been claiming — and I've made it quite clear that I think it's somewhat misleading — that the billion dollars for housing, etc., and all those things that I've covered already, would solve our housing problems.

My good colleague for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has shown that over the last 15 years very little has changed in housing policy. We don't have a comprehensive strategy. We tend to go from crisis to crisis, and rather than plan for the short term and the long term, we look at the statistics. I think government looks at the polls and says: "Housing is an issue; we'd better throw something at it."

I would like to know — given that we have somebody here from the private sector backing up some of the things that I and some of my colleagues have been saying about the ability of your program to deliver — if the new minister is now prepared to reassess the program. The former minister said that he was on the road to cabinet to introduce some of the programs that we had tabled some time ago as a comprehensive strategy for British Columbia.

Maybe the government, in its wisdom, should take a look at some of the things that we have suggested in a clear enunciation of policy — that I think both the public and private sectors have received well — and maybe give some recognition that housing is such an important issue that it's not who is right, but what is right. The former minister, for whatever reason, said he was about to look at, endorse and introduce many of the things that we had suggested. Maybe now is the time to do it.

We now have Mr. Ganong of the Urban Development Institute saying that the major program from the government is, in his estimation, unlikely to reach the target, and it really is not working as it was intended. I think he's also saying that the government really didn't consult as well as it should have done, and that there needs to be a rethink. I wonder if the minister has any response to those comments.

[ Page 9967 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I'd like to respond to those comments. First of all, we certainly do not agree that we don't have a good housing program; we think we have an excellent housing program. But I can assure the member that as minister I will most certainly be monitoring and concerning myself with how the program is going and how well we are doing and, as we always do, searching for better and more innovative ways to accomplish the things that need to be accomplished. I have no hesitation in assuring the member that it will happen; it certainly will.

I'd just like to comment on the Urban Development Institute and Mr. Ganong's comments. I suppose that the Urban Development Institute is a good organization, but like all organizations, it's made up of a number of people. And people within an organization, as we all know, don't always agree with one another, just as you people on the opposition side may not always agree with each other on every issue.

Well, this organization has that problem too, and this representative from the Victoria chapter made these comments. But I have to tell you, Mr. Member — and let it be clear on the record — that the comments he made are not supported by the institute. The president of the institute has not supported those remarks. In fact, I believe it's quite contrary to that; I think they're quite pleased with our program. So while one member of the organization has questioned it — so be it; the organization itself does not question it.

MR. BLENCOE: I have no intention of getting into competing comments and organizations or people in the same organization — this person said this, but this person said this. There are some questions being asked, quite frankly. There are some concerns. With respect, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, it doesn't look like the program is delivering as it should. I have been critical of the claims for this program made on television, etc. I think Mr. Ganong from the Urban Development Institute here in Victoria does touch on some very important aspects. Not only does he say that he doesn't think it will deliver, but he also says that you forgot to consult the lending community when you put the program together. I know this minister wasn't part of that, but I think it's a very important statement. I suspect that once again what happened was that the government knew there were some problems with housing. They knew that it was very much on the minds of a lot of people in British Columbia, and I think it was like what too often happens with government — there is a firefighting approach. You get a hose and put it out as quickly as possible, where a program is ill conceived.

I hope that the minister will seriously think about some of the things we have suggested and some of the programs we think could work. We want to work in the interest of all British Columbians on housing. Here today we have a member of a highly respected private sector institute suggesting there are some major problems. I think the minister should reflect on that.

MR. RABBITT: Some interesting points have been raised by the two previous opposition speakers. The matter of housing, of course, is of concern to everyone. It appears that the matter of social housing is more of a concern to the opposition members than housing in general is.

The new and temporary member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head certainly has raised some interesting points which I think we can debate under different estimates, those for Municipal Affairs. Yes, there are some areas of concern with regard to grants and how they can be administered and tied to those communities which assist in solving the housing problem. I think there's a variety of interministry solutions that we can look at. It's an area that should be canvassed with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we'll canvass it with the minister at that time.

The issue I want to canvass with the minister today is the at-home program. I would like to commend the minister and the ministry on developing this program to assist families to meet the significant financial and emotional burden of caring for profoundly handicapped children in the home. I understand that at this time we have approximately 1,500 children that have been assessed as chronically dependent. I'd like the minister to confirm those numbers.

I would also like to have the minister confirm that we are still providing substantial and adequate assistance for respite care allowances and additional support for both goods and supplies for those at home. These are two other areas I would like to get an update on. First, I understand the ministry was negotiating with the federal government with regard to cost-sharing of this program. I'd like to know the status of that, whether the negotiations are ongoing or whether they've been concluded. If so, were we successful or unsuccessful? As to the second point, is it cost-effective to provide the supports required for the care of children by their families at home rather than in institutions and in hospitals? As we all know, these particular children require a great amount of care. I want to have an update to know that this program is going to continue.

[11:45]

While the minister is putting those figures together, I'd like to congratulate him on the post. If he carries out his role in this ministry — whether it's temporary or not — I know that we're going to see a good level of service and care carried through to the citizens of British Columbia. I look forward to the minister's response.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm pleased to respond to the member. I see the member for Victoria has left the chamber, and I just wanted to comment to him that I respect comments regarding our programs from anyone. My intention is to check those out and to determine what is correct. The information that was provided regarding our program by the gentleman from Victoria is not agreed upon within the ministry. Nevertheless, my style is to pay close attention to people who have concerns about what we might be

[ Page 9968 ]

doing and how we might be doing it. Through that, we can always improve and find any weaknesses. We're satisfied that the program is doing very well.

To the last member who asked concerning the in-home program, first of all, I want to correct the number. To date, there are 450 children registered under the program. I think the 1,500 number you have was the number that was budgeted. At this point in time there are 450 registered.

We're very pleased with the program because it's one that was not previously available. I think it's very important to the emotional well-being of the people involved and is something that we certainly think of as fulfilling a very important need. However, as far as assessing its cost is concerned, we're not quite sure at this time. It is being assessed, and we think that it's more cost-effective to provide for these children at home, but we can't say for certain at this particular time. I think that when we come to assess the program, we will have to consider not only the costs but the well-being of the children and the benefit of them being able to reside in their homes. Certainly that will be part of the evaluation of the program, not just the costs, although we don't have those at this particular time to be able to make a decision.

MS. SMALLWOOD: For the first time in these estimates this morning, I'm glad that the minister is here to answer some questions on housing, given his other responsibilities with Labour and Consumer Services and the rentalsman.

I brought to the minister's attention a couple of different times the situation at Imperial Parkside and Imperial Pine. At that time we told the minister that this particular complex was raising its rents up to 65 percent. There are large numbers of seniors and people on GAIN who are in a very difficult situation because of this rent increase. We've also brought to the minister's attention that the new owner has made a decision about families there and is indeed changing the status of that complex.

As he is the Minister of Social Services responsible for housing, I'd like to ask the minister now, given the fact that at 1 o'clock today there will be an eviction of a woman who is, to quote her doctor, "potentially very seriously ill," and suffering from a form of cancer and currently being treated by chemotherapy, whether or not the minister will intervene. This particular woman, with the assistance of my office, has appealed to Sunridge Management — as well as taking her particular concern to the rental review board, which Is also under your responsibility, Mr. Minister. While the rental review board — and I might quote from them — has stated, according to the legislation as it sits now, that "the landlord legally can force this eviction," they also stated that on moral grounds they find it very offensive, although they unfortunately are bound to rule solely on the legislation.

This is another example, Mr. Minister, of the housing crisis in this province. Because you now have a dual responsibility and wear two hats — one for Social Services and Housing as well as your previous role — I'd like to know what you plan to do in general about situations like this. Specifically, what are you going to do for this woman?

I might bring to your attention, as I have to the previous minister, that there are long lineups in our area for subsidized housing, and if your answer is to assist this woman, keep in mind that you are bumping someone else.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First, with regard to assistance to the woman you mentioned, I have to agree that it sounds like a very serious and difficult situation, and I have every sympathy for the person. It's an unfortunate situation, and it's unfortunate that situations like this occur.

However, I am assured that this ministry does not leave people stranded; if her situation is such that she needs the services of this ministry, she will get them. She will be provided with a place to reside and be cared for until permanent arrangements can be made. I don't think anyone in British Columbia is left without that type of response or that type of care from this ministry.

With regard to the other questions you mentioned about children in apartment blocks, and you talked about rentals, and I guess what you're talking about there is rent controls. Just let me tell you that I understand that in a short time there will be another minister coming in here to talk about those kinds of things. I understand he is very good, he's looking for those kinds of questions, and he will be happy to answer that. That is under the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. Once he gets here, you should be prepared to ask that question and associated questions, and I can assure you that he will be very happy to provide you with detailed answers.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I first of all want to state for the record that I don't appreciate the minister making light of this issue.

Secondly, I'd like to again emphasize that there are 400 people in this complex. While they are not suffering from the same medical problem, they are suffering from insecurity of tenure. They themselves are uncertain as to what they are going to be able to do as the deadline of this month-end comes. The minister says that his staff under the Ministry of Social Services and Housing will not see anyone without somewhere to live. I bring to your attention that it's my information that the sheriffs will be brought at 1 o'clock today to evict Maria Hutnyk. I would ask the minister to ensure that there is someone there to take her and guide her through the process, because without that, someone in her situation is unable to act for herself.

Thirdly, Mr. Minister, if it is the policy of this government to interact and intervene on an individual basis, rather than dealing with a systems problem and rather than providing some leadership in housing, then I would suggest that our staff time is not being spent....

[ Page 9969 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, we're dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. While I'm sure the member is greatly concerned about another situation, and perhaps it should be brought forward, it can be brought forward in the House and not in committee; it can be done in question period.

At this point I would like to move that the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.