1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 11
[ Page 10141 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. P. Ramsey tabled the 1992-93 annual report for the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.
The Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday last, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, an alleged interference by the Premier and by a minister with the work of a special prosecutor named to investigate matters surrounding an affidavit filed by the Attorney General.
I consider such allegations relating to the conduct of members as matters of grave concern. Standing order 35 is a vehicle by which the House may set aside its usual business to debate a matter that is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. In determining whether the matter should be given immediate attention, the Chair takes into account the wording of standing order 35, as well as other considerations established through practice. The Chair also weighs the possibility of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.
With respect to other reasonable opportunity for debate, I remind hon. members that the estimates, including the Attorney General's estimates, having been referred by order of the House, are currently before Committee of Supply, a venue which traditionally affords members an opportunity to address questions such as those raised by the hon. member. I would also point out that the matters raised by the hon. member have been the subject of questions by members during successive periods of oral questions over the past week, and may continue to be so, again providing a further opportunity for raising the matter.
I now wish to turn my attention to another issue relating directly to the allegation that a minister interfered with the investigations of a special prosecutor. In my view, the allegation is a matter which relates to the conduct of a member, and as such, the authorities clearly indicate that the issue should be raised in a substantive motion. The discussion which could ensue under the adjournment motion for a emergency debate must not raise any matter which can only be debated under motions on notice.
On the application of standing orders dealing with emergency debates, I refer hon. members to citation 395 in Beauchesne's sixth edition: "The conduct of a member ought not to be a subject of debate under this standing order. If a member's conduct is to be examined, it should be done on the basis of a substantive motion, of which notice is required, drawn in terms which clearly state a charge of wrongdoing."
I also refer hon. members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition, page 430: "Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms... reflections must not be cast in debate upon...members of either House...."
I further urge members to consult the debates of the House of Commons in Ottawa for March 25, 1971, at page 4590, where the Speaker rejected an application for leave to adjourn on the grounds that the matter related to the conduct of a minister and was a substantive matter, which could only be debated under a distinct motion on notice.
For the above reasons, I cannot find that a genuine urgency of debate has been established for the purpose of standing order 35. Hence the application must fail.
As well, on Monday last the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, certain events which occurred in Committee of Supply and the ramifications thereof on the estimates process. The Chair was notified in advance of this request, a courtesy for which I thank the hon. member.
The hon. member's application was the second matter raised under standing order 35 during the same sitting last Monday, second to that raised by the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I refer the hon. member to standing order 35(10)(a) of this House: "The right to move the adjournment of the House under this standing order is subject to the following restrictions: (a) not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting."
It is my opinion that the matter raised does not satisfy the requirements of standing order 35(10)(a), as leave for such a motion of adjournment under this standing order was already sought by another member during the same sitting. When there is more than one application for leave in the same sitting, the Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 35(10)(a), can only entertain one such request and must give priority to the member who first catches the Speaker's eye. For this reason, standing order 35(10)(a) disallows the hon. member's application.
While this finding effectively disposes of the member's application, in these particular circumstances I have considered the hon. member's statement of the matter which, in his opinion, justifies an emergency debate. The member referred to the need for urgent and immediate address in the House to the issues under the responsibility of the Attorney General, which issues, in the member's opinion, will no longer be the subject of debate because of -- and here again I quote the member's words -- "the inability of the members to debate those estimates due to the sudden termination of the estimates."
In his presentation of the matter, the hon. member referred to a decision of the Committee of Supply last Friday, April 15, 1994, to rise and report progress on the deliberations of the Attorney General's estimates. From the debate surrounding this motion, he concluded that the government had terminated the debate of the Attorney General's estimates.
It is not the Speaker's intention, nor is it his role, to discuss the rationale behind decisions of a committee of this House. I refer members to Beauchesne, sixth edition, citation 478: "The proceedings of a committee may not be referred to in debate before they have been laid upon the table." It is also well-established practice that within this term of reference, committees have total independence in their deliberations and decisions. Proceedings in Committee of Supply -- and indeed, in any other committee of this House -- cannot be brought into consideration or debated in the House, except by way of a report from the committee. I remind members that the Committee of Supply has not presented a substantive report to the House during the current session.
A number of authorities support the independence of committees, the first of which is our own standing order 71(1): "Procedural matters arising in committee shall be decided in committee." I further refer members to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 760(3): "The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees.
[ Page 10142 ]
Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure." Members may also wish to consult Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-first edition, page 618, and Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, February 14, 1968, page 52, on the same subject.
[10:15]
I also wish to remind members that the government does have unfettered discretion in calling government business both in the House and in Committee of Supply, a practice which is followed in the United Kingdom and in Ottawa. Hence it would be difficult to justify an emergency debate predicated on an alleged government initiative in Committee of Supply, which is based, in any event, on an absolute right and power the government exercises every day without provoking the need for emergency debates on other matters not before the House.
On technical grounds, and for the substantive reasons outlined above, I find that the matter raised by the hon. member cannot succeed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in Section A, the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services; and in Section B, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions for the minister. The minister will know that the annual report was recently issued by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Can the minister offer an explanation to the committee why an annual report for the period 1991-92 would be released by the ministry in early 1994?
Hon. M. Sihota: I won't repeat what my predecessor, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and former excellent Minister of Environment, had to say, but I assume it's because of the routine time lines that apply to the release of these reports.
W. Hurd: Two years is a long routine time line, but we will reserve the ability to question some aspects of this report as to whether we are going to see finer time lines in the future.
As I reviewed Hansard of the last discussion, I noted that we had raised the issue of private testing labs in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could elaborate for the committee his ministry's policy with respect to the use of private testing labs in the province. What kind of future does he see them having, given the rather significant shift in policy that appears to have occurred in October or so of last year, shortly after he assumed control of the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: As I was saying the other day, we are evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a variety of solutions to the lab issue. I'm sure the hon. member knows that lab work is still being done by Zenon, which is a private sector firm.
W. Hurd: I'm certain the private testing labs in the province would welcome some direction from the minister, some advice that's far more wide-ranging than he has offered the committee with that response. What kinds of studies has he done to identify the cost benefits he's talking about? Does he see a strong future in the province for private testing labs?
Will they be able to rely on bidding for government contracts for routine testing work that is not necessarily of the contentious variety? Is an entrepreneurially-driven system...? Can he at least elaborate for the committee and for the benefit of the owners of these labs what kinds of policies his ministry will be pursuing to preserve this particular industry? This business really will be relying, I'm sure, on the ability to bid on work from the provincial government that may be necessary to verify the kind of scientific standards we talked about in this committee yesterday.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said the other day in estimates, the primary focus of government is to make sure tests are done that the public has confidence in and to protect public health and safety. We want people to do tests that are not only reliable but have the confidence of the public. The previous administration chose to privatize these services. There was a public outcry. The public argued very strongly at that time, and the points were made here in the Legislature, that public health and safety are paramount and that it is the responsibility of government to achieve a set of reliable tests.
That's not to say that private sector firms are incapable of providing information. It's rather important that we be able to take the information and use it in a way that works in the interests of government. One of the problems we were having with the private sector tests, for example, given the fact that we did not have a direct hands-on relationship with the private sector firms, was that we were running into some problems with regard to evidence. These problems did not occur in the past with public sector firms. For those reasons, and others that I have amplified in terms of cost-effectiveness, we chose to proceed in the direction we did.
On top of that, hon. member, I should let you know that government did take a look at the tenders that came in, and at the cost exposure that was available to government, and concluded that moving these services back to the public sector would generally serve the public interest better.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I notice students in the gallery. I understand that they are from Glenlyon-Norfolk school in Oak Bay. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Bowers. As Minister of Education, I would like to ask the House to join me in making them welcome.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether he has reviewed the auditor general's concerns about Zenon Laboratories? Did the decision that was made take the concerns raised by the auditor general about this particular lab and how it was conducting tests for the ministry into account in any way?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows that the auditor general issued a report with regard to the experience the government had with the private sector. In his report, the auditor general indicated that he was highly critical of the
[ Page 10143 ]
private sector in terms of doing this work. He indicated that government was not getting adequate value for the expenditures it was making. There was a lack of quality assurance in terms of the quality and depth of the reports that we received. That report obviously played a role in our decision to return these services to the public sector.
A few minutes ago, the hon. member asked what independent analysis was done. I assumed that he knew the auditor general had done a report, and I'm glad he has confirmed that. That, I think, underscores the reason the government re-evaluated the decision made by the previous administration.
W. Hurd: I'm sure that the private lab testing industry will be interested to receive copies of Hansard with the minister's concerns about their ability to conduct proper scientific testing in the province.
Perhaps I could ask the minister a question with respect to the auditor general's report. I'm sure he's aware that the concerns were being expressed about Zenon Laboratories particularly; this particular company was singled out. It obviously begs the question: why would the minister then consign laboratory testing to Zenon for even an interim period, given the fact that the auditor general had expressed such concern about the way this particular company was doing its lab testing work? Surely he has had an opportunity to read the auditor general's report and the concerns about the quality of tests being conducted. The question the committee would ask is obvious. Given the concerns raised by the auditor general, why would he place the health and safety of British Columbians at risk by using this firm, even for an interim period?
Hon. M. Sihota: The government read the auditor general's report with great interest, assessed it, and realized that things had to change. We changed them. First, we put aside the contract that the Social Credit government of the day had negotiated. Second, we corrected the deficiencies with Zenon found in the auditor general's report. Third, we renegotiated the price, at a saving to the taxpayer of about 30 percent, or $1 million. On that basis, we are prepared to continue to bridge an arrangement with Zenon. For those reasons, we proceeded with an arrangement with Zenon as we moved towards our decision to return these services to the public sector.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to get in on the estimates of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. It's always a pleasure to ask questions of that mild-mannered, unassuming, politically correct Minister of Environment.
For the record, I would like to advise the Minister of Environment of a couple of things with respect to pulp mill emissions and the level that we brought in -- in December of 1990 under the former government -- of 2.5 kilograms per tonne of effluent for AOX. I am bringing that forward because the minister was incorrect in his statement that it was fixed at that, and that the Premier had superimposed that level on top of the level imposed by the former Minister of Environment. It is incumbent to remind the minister and the members of the Legislature that the Premier said that if it were desirable to reach the level of 1.5 kilograms, then he would change the legislation and the regulations accordingly. But in order to get the scientific evidence that it was necessary, the Premier commissioned two studies: one to take place at Simon Fraser University and the other at the University of British Columbia. There was no scientific evidence that proved conclusively that the level of 1.5 was more desirable or less desirable than the level of 2.5 kilograms per tonne of effluent disposal. With that level -- which was one of the strictest levels in North America at that time -- it was costing the industry well over $1 billion. So my question to the Minister of Environment is: why did this current government cease those two studies that were taking place at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University?
[10:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to congratulate the hon. member on his defence of the Bill Vander Zalm government. One of these days Social Credit is going to have to start looking forward instead of defending a rather terrible environmental record of the past. Having said that, let me say that the studies were not ceased; they were completed.
C. Serwa: For the minister's advisement, the "terrible environmental record of the past" is just as hollow as any of his other words have been. The study that his own government commissioned on the state-of-the-environment report denies the accuracy of his statement. So he'll have that to tussle with, and it certainly doesn't fly with me. The State of the Environment Report for British Columbia was simply outstanding in comparison to that of many other jurisdictions.
The minister concedes that scientific evidence was not utilized in his politically correct statement about seeking zero emissions -- the noblesse oblige of the Minister of Environment regarding that. When one understands the magnitude of the challenge and the capitalization and planning, the reality is that all of the improvements with respect to pulp mill emissions, as the minister points out, were made by that archaic government. It is responsible for the current state of the environment in British Columbia, which is very good. I want to make that point.
There are only two ways in which we can have zero emissions in effluent. One is through a closed-circuit system in pulp mills, and even that is subject to some problems. We have seen leakages and other problems at Cominco, for example, where inadvertent spills into the Columbia River system occur even with a closed system. So that's not all that secure.
We can do away with chlorine bleaching and go to oxygen bleaching, which is a more expensive process. Or we can perhaps change consumer demand for white paper products, which are associated with cleanliness and hygiene, by encouraging them to use more unbleached paper. I note that we were using unbleached paper napkins in the Legislature for a long time, but we have reverted to bleached paper napkins. That's a rather interesting statement.
We know that the costs would form a type of hyperbola graph. If we tried to reach zero pollution, which the minister sees as a noble goal, the cost and zero would never meet. They would meet at infinity. It's not possible to do that in a normal situation.
The minister is very proud of the reduction in the emission levels. I'm going to ask him some questions with respect to that. What is the number of pulp mills in Prince George, and are they all in compliance with the current standard of this government of 1.5 kilograms or less? Would the minister also then elaborate on the measuring criteria used in making the determination of 1.5? Do we ever exceed 1.5, or do we average it over one month?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are five pulp mills in Prince George. All of them are in compliance. We monitor them
[ Page 10144 ]
regularly. We have daily maximums, and we know, on a monthly basis, what is occurring in those pulp mills.
C. Serwa: "On a monthly basis" doesn't give me the criteria regarding measuring. Do we choose one day or a 24-hour period? How is that monitoring accomplished?
Hon. M. Sihota: We take instant samples. We go on site and grab the sample and take it from there. We do daily and monthly measurements.
C. Serwa: That's really interesting. We have five pulp mills in Prince George. We have a river with a finite water supply. All five mills use water from the river, and they discharge into it. Can the minister tell me how he can justify no accommodation for the change in emissions in this situation? What is the difference to the environment if we have five mills emitting 1.5 kilograms per tonne of effluent or one large mill emitting 7.5 kilograms per tonne? Do your static demands make any sense at all?
The minister has been adamant that they have used scientific evidence, none of which was available when I was Minister of Environment. That's why the studies were commissioned; that's why it was so important for Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia to conclude their research and give us information with respect to what has happened. The State of the Environment Report for British Columbia clearly states that there has been a substantial improvement since the reduction in emissions in the system. It is working.
What I'm trying to get from the minister.... While he is being very noble and saying that we are under 1.5 kilograms of AOX per tonne of discharge, we have a situation where we don't care. We've got a finite water resource, and we have a substantial amount of pollution from five pulp mills because it's cumulative. It makes no sense in that type of situation to have a fixed figure. If we were really concerned about it, then the five mills could not emit more than 1.5 kilograms of AOX in total.
There is no accommodation in the minister's statement for areas.... Let's say it's a coastal pulp mill. There has to be a great deal of difference between a situation like Port Alberni -- it's at the head of the inlet and has fundamentally very little discharge of fresh water; it's mostly dead water -- and a situation on a headland where there is a substantial amount of tidal action and a dilution factor. In Prince George there is no potential for an increased dilution factor.
All that we're doing is hearing the minister stating things that are politically correct but scientifically untrue and unproven. That's the point I want to make this morning.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member encouraged me to be mild-mannered, and I'll try to be. Where he's getting mixed up is that there's a difference between the fixed rate and the per unit analysis.
C. Serwa: For myself, and surely for the public and other members of the Legislature.... How can the Minister of Environment sit there and not recognize that it makes no difference to the environment whether one mill pollutes by the cumulative amount of 7.5 kilograms of AOX per tonne of discharge or if all five mills produce the same volume? It makes no difference to the environment. That's why I'm saying that the figures the minister has come up with are insensitive, unrealistic, unsupported in scientific evidence and have cost far more money for no logical purpose. With that combination in Prince George, we've got a pat situation, and we're saying that they're all in compliance. The fact remains that the environment doesn't care if they're in compliance or not. The environment is saying that the cumulative toxic effect of discharges is far in excess of anything that was recorded previously. Even the mill at Prince Rupert didn't pollute in this volume prior to this.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you take the hon. member's argument to its conclusion, it really demonstrates the differences of opinion between this side of the House and that side of the House. The previous administration set a rate of 2.5 AOX per tonne. We set a limit of 1.5 AOX per tonne. If you followed the hon. member's argument to its logical conclusion, he'd still be arguing that we should maintain the Socred standard of 2.5 AOX per tonne, which I know that he, as Minister of Environment, supported and signed on to. The reason why he became Minister of Environment and was able to sign onto it was that his predecessor tried to do what our government did, which was reduce it to 1.5 AOX per tonne.
What we are trying to do here is reduce the amount of discharge into the water from pulp mills. We're trying to do that because we want to clean up the damage that's caused to the environment by these discharges.
When the hon. member was Minister of Environment, the industry said that there was not enough scientific evidence to support the 2.5-AOX-per-tonne standard which he advocated at that time. We heard the same arguments when we reduced them to 1.5 AOX per tonne. The industry said that it was not scientifically possible to do it, and that it was going to cost too much money in any event. Do you know what? We said that 1.5 AOX per tonne was the rule, the law. That's the regulation we passed. The previous government didn't have the jam to force the industry to begin complying with a lower level. They could not stand up to the pressure from industry: they wilted, they succumbed, they caved in. The hon. member signed a regulation that said 2.5 AOX per tonne.
This government came to power after the October 1991 election, and we said that we were not going to waver, wobble or move in any way from our position of 1.5 AOX per tonne. My predecessor, the current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, had the fortitude to stand up, look the industry in the eye and say that those were going to be the new standards. And you know what, hon. Chair? He had a stack of scientific studies to support his position. The industry said that they didn't believe those scientific studies. He said: "Well, that's going to be the standard, because we on this side of the House place a premium on protecting and improving the quality of the environment."
A funny thing happened. The industry began to realize that this government was not going to wilt, as the previous government had done; we were determined to have the toughest AOX standards in North America applied in British Columbia and we were going to exercise the requisite leadership in environmental stewardship -- something which the previous government and that former Minister of Environment failed to do.
In January 1994, a year ahead of schedule, the industry was averaging 1.4 AOX per tonne. That's a significant improvement. We've said as a government that the industry has to get to zero discharge by the year 2002. As much as I was happy to congratulate the industry for achieving 1.4 AOX per tonne, I have to admit that I was frustrated when they indicated that they did not think we could hit the zero discharge level. In fact, they still continue to argue that the 1.5 AOX per tonne may not be scientifically provable. So we asked them to come to my office, and then we asked them to
[ Page 10145 ]
produce a scientific study. They gave us one, and they put it in the table. I asked staff to come forward with scientific studies that supported our position, and there was a stack this high. For fairly obvious reasons, I asked the media to come in to take a picture of the stack on this side versus the stack on that side. On the basis of the precautionary principle, hon. member, we decided that we're not only going to pursue and stay with the 1.5-AOX-per-tonne standard but we're also going to get to zero discharge by the year 2002, because we owe it to our environment to get there.
[10:45]
If you take what the hon. member says, we would still be at the 2.5-AOX-per-tonne standard, we'd still succumb to the industry, we'd still doubt the scientific evidence and we'd still not have the capital investment of $1.4 billion from the industry. And, I guess, in terms of those five pulp mills in Prince George, the level of toxins going into the river would be greater than they are now.
Our mandate is to improve the quality of the environment; we've done that. That is why we earned a mandate from the public on October 1, 1991, and that's why the hon. member and his party lost theirs.
C. Serwa: It's always nice to know when you're cutting close to the quick, because then the minister stands up with a great deal of dialogue and rhetoric, and with a louder voice defends an indefensible position.
Mr. Minister, your government at the present time -- through you, hon. Chair -- has the ball in its court. Your former minister killed the independent, objective scientific research studies at two British Columbia universities to provide you with that information. I challenge you, hon. minister, to provide that stack of scientific information for your conclusion. Sweden was the only jurisdiction in the world that had the 1.5 kilogram level. The reason they were able to attain it was not a difference in the process or the use of chlorine bleach; it was because of the mix of hardwood and softwood fibres, which required less in the way of bleaching process. That's why the 1.5 figure was talked about, and that's where the figure came from.
There is more than a little hypocrisy in your statement. At the present time you are allowing the pulp mills in Prince George to pollute at 7.5 kilograms per tonne of AOX, and you're doing nothing about it. You can't have it both ways. If you're comforted by some silly level without any consideration of environmental impact -- with the finite quality of the water and the dilution factor -- then your whole basis is nonsensical. You have no wisdom in that decision. All you have is the comfort of saying: "We've laid out parameters and we're within those parameters, so don't bother us with reality." But I am telling you once again that the environment doesn't know and doesn't care whether it comes from one pulp mill or five. The net result is a cumulative effect, not only from the Prince George mills but from the mill at Quesnel and any other mill on that system. That's what is silly about your standards and your actions in this area. You've got to do something; otherwise you are simply using political rhetoric for partisan political purposes that have no objective reality, no substance in fact and no scientific support.
The Chair: Before recognizing the minister, let me caution the member for Okanagan West -- and others in the chamber -- that we all know the rule, and the rule is very clear. The word "you" does not appear in our vocabularies unless and until we are addressing the Chair, and it is usually the first sign that the debate is getting out of control. I would therefore caution all members to please avoid doing that and make all their comments through the Chair.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member can't have it both ways. He can't say that the regulations are too tough and a few minutes later argue that they're not tough enough. That's essentially what his argument boils down to.
We've reduced the standards. When Social Credit was in power they wanted higher standards. They wanted more discharge than what we are allowing. Our standards are 1.5 AOX per tonne. The Social Credit standards were 2.5 AOX per tonne. The hon. member tried to defend those, because he gave into the industry and bought the argument that the scientific evidence wasn't there. That's the whole essence of this matter.
Let me clarify a couple of points the hon. member made that I think should be put on the record. First of all, the studies were not killed; they were completed. Secondly, in January 1994 I released a study that showed that there had been significant improvements to the environment as a consequence of these new, tougher standards that this government brought in -- the toughest in North America. As a result of bringing in those standards, tests were done with crabs, and we discovered that the dioxin levels were reduced. Through studies released at that time, we demonstrated that heron eggs -- which were previously not hatching -- were now beginning to hatch. So there is a positive impact on the environment as a result of the regulations we brought in that the previous Social Credit administration was not prepared to bring in because they succumbed to pressure from the industry.
As a result of the leadership we have demonstrated in terms of improving the quality of the environment, other jurisdictions are now following suit. Ontario and jurisdictions in Europe and throughout the United States are now embracing the kinds of tough standards that we brought in, because they know they work.
Each year we spend about $300,000 in evaluating and re-evaluating those standards to make sure we are moving in the right direction. Obviously the rest of the world thinks we're moving in the right direction. Regrettably, the Social Credit Party doesn't think we're moving in the right direction and would have us go back to those old days of Social Credit, when they used to say: "Well, don't worry about it. It's just the smell of money." Those days are gone, hon. member. In addition to the studies we're doing, we have jointly funded a chair for five years at UBC, with COFI, the Council of Forest Industries, to study the effect of effluent discharge. We're proud that we've been able to do that.
There is a whole range of steps that we are taking to improve the quality of the environment. If the hon. member had his way -- i.e., that the regulations are too tough -- we would be back in 1988, those happy old days of Social Credit, when we used to have 6.4 kilograms per tonne of AOX discharge in the water. We are down to 1.4 AOX per tonne, as a result of the policies that we brought in to tell industry they had to get to 1.5. You know what? We'll be down to zero by the year 2002. I don't think any government of any political stripe at any time would go back to those days when they used to simply say: "It's the smell of money."
J. Weisgerber: Well, indeed, talking about smells, I'd like to pursue a little bit the topic of air pollution and in particular the testing around air pollution. The minister may well be aware of concerns around air quality in my constituency in Dawson Creek with regard to air emissions coming out of the Louisiana-Pacific waferboard plant.
[ Page 10146 ]
Indeed, there was a documentary on television a few weeks ago that ran for three nights, so the minister may have at least some secondhand knowledge on the topic.
While the air-testing results would indicate that Louisiana-Pacific is well within limits on all of the measured discharges, the fact of the matter is that many residents in the Peace River region believe their health is being affected by the discharges coming from the plant, and they are uncomfortable with the process by which the air quality tests are conducted. It was very clear to me in a well-attended public meeting that my constituents would prefer (a) that the Ministry of Environment themselves conduct the test, or (b) if that isn't possible, that the testing of air quality be conducted under the supervision of the Ministry of Environment.
When listening to the debate between the minister and the member for Okanagan West, I was curious when the minister said: "We test samples coming out of the pulp mills at Prince George on a daily basis." The "we" would lead one to believe that the Ministry of Environment staff were checking those pollution levels on a daily basis. I have a sense that that's not the case; I know that's not the case with the air quality tests that are being done in the Dawson Creek area. Maybe the first thing to do is have the minister outline for us the process that corporations are required to follow in ensuring that they are in compliance with water and air standards.
Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for raising the issue. Approximately three weeks ago, we issued a new permit to Louisiana-Pacific. State-of-the-art technology was placed at Louisiana-Pacific's facility in Dawson Creek. As a consequence, there has been about an 80 percent reduction in the level of emissions at that site. So it's a state-of-the-art facility, a new permit and about an 80 percent reduction. In a more comprehensive way, we are now also monitoring both the air ambient quality of the emissions coming out of the stack and the area ambient levels in Dawson Creek. Thirdly, the burden of the cost for doing the monitoring is placed on the company; but we audit those results.
J. Weisgerber: I take it from the minister's comments that both at Louisiana-Pacific with air quality testing and also in Prince George, for example, with effluent discharges, the ministry itself does not actually conduct tests to ensure compliance.
I'm not going to pretend that I don't understand the way the system works. From comments made by the Ministry of Environment director at a meeting in Dawson Creek, I understand that the practice is to require the corporation -- be it Louisiana-Pacific, a pulp mill or any other industrial facility required to do testing -- to contract with a private testing facility that is on an approved list coming from the ministry. You have to use an approved testing facility in order to comply with the ministry's requirements.
The point that I want to make to the minister is that my constituents simply aren't satisfied with the testing that's being done by a group of individuals hired by and paid by the company. The clear message coming out of that meeting was: "We the people of British Columbia, we the citizens of Dawson Creek, believe that he who pays the piper calls the tune." They are very much concerned that the company knows, for example, when the tests are going to be conducted. The company knows that some time in a particular week someone will come up to Dawson Creek and do testing. They know, for example, that testing is done during the day shift rather than the evening shift.
The people whom I represent want the ministry to be more involved in the testing process. As I said before -- and I think it's a compliment to the ministry itself -- they would prefer, first of all, that ministry staff do the testing. I would be interested to hear from the minister why he believes that practice can't be followed. It would, of course, be curious for him to say that it's always been done this way, so that's the way we have to do it. I'm sure that wouldn't be his defence, given his willingness to bring in the substantive changes that he was so willing to talk about a few minutes ago.
[11:00]
So I'd like to know, first of all, why the ministry couldn't do air and water quality testing and, if necessary, have a fee structure built in to charge or recover for those tests.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say that I think the concerns of the people of Dawson Creek are legitimate. What they really demonstrate, of course, is the desire on the part of the public to know with confidence that the results and the information that we're receiving are reliable. They obviously want to know that they can have some confidence in what's being done. That's quite legit. Quite frankly, the ministry has a role to make sure that people have that sense of confidence. In order to communicate that, at least at this level in this chamber, let me just say a couple of things.
First of all, it is true that the tests are done through the private sector in a contract with the company, but it is my understanding as well -- and I hope you will share this with your constituents -- that those tests are then verified through a contract that we as a government have with B.C. Research. In other words, we do some verification of those tests through the public sector to make sure they're accurate. There is a level of involvement from the public sector. We have about 4,000 permits out there in the province at any given time. I'm not sure that we can have someone on site on every one of them, but obviously we must establish a system that gives the public a sense of confidence. By doing these verifications of the tests that the company puts forward, we have a fairly good read on what is occurring there. We are looking at an accreditation system with the labs. We have some quality assurance standards, obviously, that the labs have to comply with. When we move to a fully serviced, public-sector-operated lab, we will have a greater audit capacity.
J. Weisgerber: I would be curious to know if the verifications that B.C. Research does include random auditing of actual air quality samples. Do people from B.C. Research go to Dawson Creek unannounced and conduct an air quality test at midnight in order to verify the results? Because that is really the primary concern I heard from that well-attended meeting with some people who had spent a great deal of time preparing to make their arguments to the ministry staff that were there. They believe that a danger under the current system is that companies know when a test is going to be done. They hire someone from this approved list, but they have a pretty good sense that the fellow is going to be there that week and perhaps, if production at 80 percent of capacity results in a certain level of air discharge and it's significantly changed by production at 100 or 105 percent, they simply modify their operation in order to get through the testing period. I would be curious to know, first of all, whether B.C. Research actually goes on site with unannounced verification tests, or whether they simply look at the material that has been provided by the private testing agency.
Secondly, I would like to suggest to the minister that there might be a way of doing this that would provide more
[ Page 10147 ]
assurance to citizens in an area without having to actually involve ministry staff in the testing process. The suggestion has been made -- and it's a rather good one -- that rather than the corporation hiring someone to conduct those tests, the ministry hire those private labs and arrange for payment either directly or indirectly. That would then ensure that the testing procedure was completely at arm's length from the company and plant managers.
The Chair: While waiting for the minister, perhaps I could acknowledge the member for Abbotsford, who I understand wishes leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. De Jong: From the Terry Fox school, one of the many fine public schools in the Abbotsford constituency, and where the teachers feel that education is the primary purpose for being there, we have the pleasure this morning to have here 65 grade 5 and 6 students, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Geissler. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to deal with the points that the hon. member raised, particularly his latter point with regard to the government actually entering into the contract to do the testing. I have two points. First, in terms of whether or not the company has slowed down production in order to meet some of the standards, I don't know if that has occurred; and I don't know whether or not we have the ability to be able to make those kinds of verifications. I don't know if the hon. member knows, and I'm not taking his comments to suggest, that that is what has occurred. I'm sure that if he had evidence of that having occurred, he would share it with all of us in this House. But I'll be happy to look into that and see whether we have any scope to do this, if that would provide greater comfort to the citizens of Dawson Creek.
The second point I'll make is that with regard to the matter of the government contracting with an agency, as opposed to the industry contracting, I'm prepared to take a look at government considering the viability of doing that. My concern is that since we've got 4,000 permits out there, I'm not sure we could do it with every one of them. There may be a value in doing it from time to time, and there may be a value in doing it in a situation which I recognize as being of great concern in the community of Dawson Creek.
It seems to me that it is doable, that we ourselves could contract with a private sector company and have them go in and do the work at Dawson Creek, then pass that cost through to the industry. I don't know what our additional administrative costs would be in terms of time that would have to go to doing that kind of work. I would think we could actually pass those costs on as well. So I'm prepared to take a look at determining the viability of doing that, because I think it's a fairly legitimate concern. So on those two points, I'll be happy to do that.
On the first question you raised, I'm advised that the answer is actually yes, we do those studies.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I appreciate the response because I do believe that there is a great deal of concern in Dawson Creek. I'm not suggesting that the company slows down production and knows when the tests are being done. The difficulty -- which I think the minister has now recognized -- is that many of the people concerned about the testing being done there believe that there is a risk, if you're hiring the testing agency, that you know when the tests are being done, and therefore the tests may not be done without some influence.
It's simply in my interest to give residents the greatest possible confidence in the testing being done. I would like to see the minister explore these things and perhaps come forward with something further. I would be particularly interested to know, with respect to B.C. Research and its verification of the testing that's done -- I understand that the minister's response was probably generic -- whether or not it has verified any of the tests at Dawson Creek with respect to Louisiana-Pacific. I would be delighted if the minister could tell me today whether that's been done, but I expect he would be able to advise me at some later date. Perhaps he would give a further undertaking to keep me abreast of his endeavours to examine new ways of contracting out the testing, and not only at one plant. I think this issue is in the minds of British Columbians interested in water and air concerns, not only in Dawson Creek but across the province. In my mind, the most immediate situation is the one at Dawson Creek. If the minister could give me a bit of assurance along that line, I would allow the debate to move on.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, with regard to B.C. Research, I am advised that we should be able to get an answer to you fairly soon -- perhaps even as early as the end of the day -- with regard to the occasions on which B.C. Research has verified the results in Dawson Creek. We will endeavour to get you that information during the course of these estimates. Secondly, I want the hon. member to know that staff will be going to Dawson Creek in the next couple of weeks to deal with these issues again. I'm sure they will report back to me regarding the concerns that you raise in a way that we may be able to accommodate those concerns and give the public a greater level of confidence.
I want to make one other point, because I think it links the point made by myself during debate with the member from Okanagan a few minutes ago and the point that you are making. As a government, we have argued that the laboratories which do many of the environmental quality tests and some of the assurance tests we need to do should be vested in the public sector. Once they are vested in the public sector, there is a greater sense that the tests are being done in conjunction with public interest. Some of the suspicions that the hon. member referred to would not arise if these facilities were in the public sector. That's why we have moved to make sure that some of the tests that were previously done and privatized will now return to the public sector. It ensures that issues of confidence which the hon. member is raising are not as salient as they can be -- and as they are, as is reflected by the hon. member's comments.
D. Jarvis: I want to jump to another area, pertaining to the copper acid drainage problem at Mount Washington. I think you are probably a little more familiar with that area, because I understand you fly in and out of there quite a bit. The last time it was mined was about 28 years ago -- in 1966, I believe. About four or five years ago the Energy and Mines minister took responsibility for the acid drainage problem in that area and said they were going to do some work on it. I wonder what is being done about it and how we can justify the high levels of acid drainage from the mountain.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to thank the hon. member for the question, and I want to encourage him to take advantage of one of the nicer ski facilities on Vancouver Island and go to
[ Page 10148 ]
Mount Washington. When he's there, if he wants to look at the minesite, they have this great run called Boundary. It is a black diamond run, but I'm sure that his skill level is such that he should be able to do it. It's a nice run. You have to go alongside a cliff to get there. It's very narrow, with lots of trees and huge moguls, but once you get over there, you can look across and see the minesite.
[11:15]
With regard to the question the hon. member raised, we don't have an answer. We know that a study was done three or four years ago, and I think he alluded to that. I have asked staff to get us a response about the results of that study, and I'll have that information for him this afternoon.
G. Wilson: As we are involved in the environmental protection aspect of these debates, I'd like to move specifically to an issue that, while directly relevant to my constituency in Powell River, is also applicable to many other communities in the province: waste and water management. Let me say to the minister that as I see it, there are really three aspects to this issue. I'd like to ask questions specific to those three aspects. The first is the question of protection of a domestic watershed and the potential hazard that a proposed landfill site may pose to that watershed. I'd like the minister to perhaps tell us a bit about what levels of protection the ministry is prepared to put in place to make sure that domestic water is not affected or impacted.
The second aspect is with respect to local control and decision-making about when and how such a landfill should be approved. The minister will well know, because he's had many letters from my constituents on this particular issue -- although, regrettably, they have not had any answers yet. I'm certain the minister would like to answer today. To what extent does the decision-making authority of local government -- municipal and regional districts are now empowered by amendments to the act last year -- provide protection for citizens who may have serious objections? I'd like the minister to talk about that.
The last aspect is a question of liabilities. Who does the minister see as being liable in the instance that such a landfill project is approved and leachate damage to the watershed occurs?
Let me start specifically with respect to the proposed landfill site in Powell River, which -- and this minister will be aware of this -- has been in the forum of public debate for many years. I really don't want to get into the debate of landfill versus incineration, because that's not the issue here. The issue is that a decision has been taken to move toward landfill. To what extent is the minister prepared to involve his staff directly in doing detailed analysis with respect to potential impact on that watershed? To what extent is the minister prepared to listen to the many concerned citizens who simply would rather not have their watershed contaminated by a landfill site?
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: I just wanted to make sure that I had the process down pat so that you could understand what it is.
As you know, the regional district has made an application for the landfill. As you may be aware, the province issued new guidelines that had to be complied with before a permit would be issued. The Ministry of Environment will ascertain whether or not the general conditions we've laid out have been met. When we are satisfied that they have been, a permit will be issued. Part of the issuance of the permit will require provisions for monitoring, so as to ascertain whether or not the guidelines and the permitting process, as it developed, actually achieve the goals we thought they would. There is a monitoring provision that applies to that afterwards. That's the process.
What wasn't clear to me when the hon. member asked his question was whether or not he has specific questions as to what stage we are at or whether there are specific guidelines that he takes issue with and argues ought to be strengthened. If he could clarify that for me, that would help me in terms of being better able to answer the question.
G. Wilson: I'm well aware of what stage we're at. Permits have been granted to the regional district to upgrade a road and also to remove vegetation in preparation for such a landfill. There has not yet been a permit provided for the landfill. I'm well aware of that.
The difficulty we have is that a growing number of constituents of mine have come to me -- either directly or through a petition, and I have a petition signed by many hundreds of people who simply oppose the site that is being proposed. They are fearful that the ministry has not taken into account the concerns provided to them, both verbally and in writing, when the public unveiling occurred. There was a request in the fall of 1993 that these considerations be taken into account.
I have had an opportunity to review the proposal in some detail, and I understand that there is to be a liner put in, which is supposedly going to act as a protection against leaching, and that monitoring is going to be done on the downstream side of that site. The difficulty we have is that once that site has been determined and the permits have been issued -- notwithstanding the amount of monitoring that will be done -- if leachate occurs and starts to be found in the watershed, then it's going to be somewhat like closing the barn door after the horse has left. I wonder to what extent the minister and his staff are prepared to look at (a) having alternative sites -- which are available, and I understand they have been discussed -- because of the proximity to the watershed and (b) where the liability will fall if this proposal goes ahead and we find that we have contaminated a watershed that supplies water to hundreds of people in Powell River.
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair. Some in the opposition would argue that you're a lot safer in the chair than you are in your desk.
The hon. member raised two concerns. One was that there are alternative sites available for people who are opposed to the current site. But as I understand the situation, local government identified that site because, as I think you mentioned in passing, there was incineration occurring in Powell River. That incineration resulted in the region being placed on one of the lists of worst polluters, and we had to look at alternative solutions. They identified the site, and we determined whether or not the site met the criteria -- or we are, I guess, as the case may be. That is the process. The fact is that local government identified that, and those are the reasons they're being required to do it. We evaluate the site.
In the future, all sorts of liability issues may or may not arise. Obviously, you hope that the front-end work you do will prevent liability issues from arising. If there are problems in the future, liability considerations could occur. It's not for me to give the hon. member legal advice with regard to something that may occur, and I'm not too sure he would come to me looking for legal advice in any event. Any skilled lawyer in Powell River should be able to tell you who
[ Page 10149 ]
the potential litigants are in that kind of situation. But I am certainly not going to say -- nor would the hon. member realistically expect me to say -- that the ministry has to and will accept full liability. That's not the way the world works, and I'm certainly not prepared to make that kind of statement. Liability issues can occur, and when they do occur, a process in the courts can resolve them.
G. Wilson: On the first point, I suspect it's largely the government members who feel more comfortable with the current incumbent in the chair, rather than members of the opposition.
Nevertheless, coming back to the issues respecting Powell River, in two referendums the people of Powell River soundly rejected this waste management plan. Under Bill 29, the government has amended the legislation, which provides now for local government to proceed. Believe me, I understand the complexity of this problem and of this long, very heated debate. A couple of evenings ago there was an extremely heated debate in the community. The community is becoming widely divided on this question. Everybody wants a successful resolution to the question of how Powell River is to handle its waste.
I am loath to suggest that we try to go back through a referendum route. But quite clearly, if the Ministry of Environment suggested that greater amounts of materials need to be removed from the waste stream into a recycling system that is properly developed, managed and financed, and any incineration must be done in an approved incinerator that will only incinerate a very small percentage of garbage, because we should remove the vast majority of materials from it for recycling and simply dispose of ash, I think everybody would buy into and accept it.
Notwithstanding that the site was identified by local government -- and I'm well aware of that -- we're proposing a landfill in a watershed. By their very nature, they're two mutually incompatible land uses. Furthermore, the lake system where this landfill would go has a high recreation and tourism value. This minister stood up moments ago in a passionate defence of the environment with respect to AOX emissions. Powell River is a pulp mill town and has clearly been affected -- and, I would argue, positively affected -- by the new pulp mill regulations. One questions why the ministry would not take a stronger hand with respect to the technical provisions that need to be met. Clearly one can look at.... I know that Dayton and Knight is the engineering company that did the study. They are well respected as municipal engineers. I understand the concept of the liner. We understand what the water drainage systems are. I'm well aware of the site and its value or lack thereof.
The difficulty is that we have a community widely divided on this because it exists in a watershed. This minister has had many letters. Members of my constituency would like some response to those letters. Indeed, what they would like -- I don't know if the minister is prepared to commit to it right now -- is an opportunity to come and meet with the minister and/or the minister's staff to talk about this issue. This has been defeated in two referendums, and yet they now see a local government proceeding with the very kind of waste management plan that they turned down. There appears to be no desire to look at sensible alternatives, because of the long and sometimes hostile debate that has taken place up until now.
[11:30]
As the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I -- and many of my constituents -- am asking that this minister demonstrate some leadership: come forward and recognize that if this situation is allowed to proceed, it is going to cause a great deal of disruption and hardship in that community. We need to find a sensible solution. I'm not certain we've come up with it. I wonder if the minister might comment on those questions.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I listened to what the hon. member had to say, I began to wonder whether or not he should be debating this issue with local government first.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hear him saying that he has been. I congratulate him, because in many ways that's the proper venue. I'll elaborate on that in a minute.
Let's look at this in terms of a broader perspective. First of all, incineration has been occurring in Powell River. It is causing an air pollution problem, which is obviously having some health impacts on people there. We clearly need to solve the air pollution problem in Powell River. It has been one of the worst polluters -- if I can put it that way -- in the province. The regional district knows that they have to move away from incineration, whether they like it or not. So we have that as one fact in the equation.
Secondly, local government has identified the site. The hon. member has served as a regional director in the past and knows only too well the degree to which local governments jealously protect their right to make land use determinations with regard to their jurisdiction. They identified that site; that was a decision that they made. If the citizens of that region do not like the site the regional government selected, then it seems to me that they have an argument with their regional district, and that has to be the focal point of political action in terms of that component of the problem. I think that much of what the hon. member has said so far is better said to local government than to us.
Thirdly, local government, having once made their decision to identify that as a site.... I am sure that the hon. member would not argue against the need to allow local decisions to be made and local autonomy to be respected. I know full well that if I stood up here and tried to override a decision of local government, he may well argue that I had no right to do that, because he knows the degree to which local governments want to protect the rights they have under their mandate. They have identified the site. From an environmental point of view, we do the studies with regard to the viability of that site. If the good citizens of Powell River want to meet with my staff to discuss the issue, that's fine. I have no difficulty in allowing that to occur. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't occurred; I would assume that it has occurred to some degree already.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I find that hard to believe. You may have written a lot of letters and not gotten a response, but I can't believe that my staff aren't aware of what's happening in Powell River. In any event, if that's a concern, they'll meet it. But let's remember what the terms of that meeting will be. It won't be to deal with the threshold issue -- i.e., the site. That's a determination made by local government. We'll be happy to amplify what our responsibilities are in terms of the environmental guidelines that we establish.
Fourthly, I want to say to the hon. member -- and I don't think we're in disagreement on this point -- that this discussion should take on a broader perspective -- not only the perspective of the air pollution problem in Powell River but the broader perspective in terms of the government's
[ Page 10150 ]
goals to reduce the quantum of waste that goes into landfill sites in British Columbia.
One of the things that he should be pointing out to his constituents -- with passion, I would argue -- is the fact that this government has made a decision to reduce by 50 percent the amount of materials, particularly toxic materials, that end up in landfill sites. We are aggressively encouraging British Columbians to look at composting, which people should be doing on a very regular basis, and to do more recycling, which we as a society should be encouraging to reduce the risk to that watershed, if there is one. I'm not saying that there is one, because I'm not persuaded that the hon. member has adequate faith in our ministry to be able to make those assessments. By moving to a regime where we're trying to reduce the quantum of material that goes into landfills -- if we can achieve that in Powell River through recycling and composting, for example -- it seems to me that the depth of the concern should be reduced.
There are some obligations for local government to listen to people on the threshold issue I cite. There are some obligations for us to listen, with regard to explaining the regulations we have in place. But there are also responsibilities on all of us as individuals to reduce the amount of stuff we put into our garbage. Recycling and composting are two things that we can do. In dealing with his constituents, I hope the hon. member will encourage them to take advantage of that. I also want to point out that we're doing our bit as an administration to solve these problems. As the hon. member should know, we have provided planning grants to that district to assist them in achieving the goal of reducing by 50 percent the amount of materials that we put into our waste.
There are broader things that the government is doing that will help as well. I announced some weeks ago that, effective July 1, people will be able to recycle paint. Right now some people have paint that just sits in the garage; they don't know what to do with it. Unfortunately, some people just put it in the garbage. Well, that's not on. We're moving to a major paint recycling program. If you take a look at the material that was being dropped off on our disposal days, I think 70 to 80 percent of the material we were receiving was paint. We're now setting up a system with the industry to recycle paint at the retail level.
All I'm saying is that you have to take a broader look at this problem. You have to remember what drove us to looking at a waste site -- i.e., air pollution. You have to remember that it's local government that determines the site; you have to remember that we apply some guidelines with regard to that site; and you have to recognize that we are doing a lot to persuade people to put less into that site. I think that's where the answer lies. I don't think the answer lies in usurping the power of local government on this kind of issue. It not only lies in us respecting their rights but also in them respecting the guidelines that we establish.
G. Wilson: To come back to three points that the minister made, I'm less concerned about the rights of local government than I am about the rights of citizens and constituents. The problem we've got....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The minister says that it depends what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that under legislation in previous years, the location, site and cost of such a land disposal site was subject to referendum. They couldn't pass it through a referendum -- not one referendum, but two. The legislation was then changed, and it no longer requires that a referendum be done. As a result, the same proposal that failed by referendum is now being advanced without referendum. That's the concern the residents have.
Believe me, I know the members of the regional district, and I'm well aware of Mr. Lockstead, who was a former member of this assembly in the party that this minister now serves. I respect him; he's a fine gentleman. I have utmost respect for the mayor. I'm not trying to take sides on this issue to that extent. What I'm trying to say to the minister is that the people of Powell River want to make sure their watershed is protected.
I would be the last person to stand up in this chamber or at any other venue and argue in favour of incineration. I'm fully aware of the fly ash problem that was a result of an inadequate incinerating process. You have to remember that it was a very old, inefficient and poorly constructed incinerator that we're talking about. It's also well-known that I am very much in favour of recycling and the removal of toxins from the waste stream. What the minister has to acknowledge is that where there is a difference between a large number of residents concerned about their drinking water, which has to be.... The most basic need people depend on is clean, potable drinking water. If they are concerned about that -- and they have twice expressed concerns in terms of site, location and cost through referendum, and concern that now local government is able to proceed without it -- to whom do they turn? Where do they seek to have their rights appealed, and in what form and venue? They've come to me as their MLA, and I have said that I would take that up with the one individual who is empowered to permit or not, and that is the hon. minister. It isn't a question of simply saying that I'm going to wash my hands of it and throw it down to local government. The problem I'm trying to express is that a very serious difference of opinion has divided the community -- not just in the recent months, but over a number of years -- and we're seeking solutions. We're looking for assistance from this minister to help us find that solution so that the citizens of Powell River can be given sound assurance that their drinking water is not going to be contaminated as a result of locating a landfill in a watershed.
Can the minister give us the assurance today that he and his staff are prepared to meet with the concerned citizens? Is he prepared to give assurance that all the reports and studies undertaken by the ministry will be public and open for full review prior to permits being issued, so there can be a full public review of the documentation prior to the permitting? If there are concerns, is the minister prepared to allow the public to have those concerns duly expressed, duly considered and taken into account in a final permitting process? If the minister is prepared to commit to those three things today, then I would be prepared to let the debate proceed and we'll get on with another subject.
Hon. M. Sihota: I understand what happens in this chamber. Members want to stand up and try to make some political points back home and say: "Well, gosh, I raised all these issues in the House." The hon. member is saying that he doesn't want to take sides, and I think he's trying to look good back home without offering any solutions in terms of this issue. Quite frankly, I'd like to know what solution he's offering. He knows full well that there's an incineration problem in Powell
[ Page 10151 ]
River. That's why he said right at the beginning: "Look, this isn't an issue about incineration versus landfill." That's just a bit of political shielding going on there. Let's face facts: incineration is a problem in Powell River -- you know that and I know that. You and I know that the public may not like the fact that the city has made a decision to pick a particular site, but that's their prerogative to do so. If you don't like the fact that they've done that, go and tell them.
My responsibility is to make sure that the guidelines are complied with -- and they will be complied with. I don't have a problem in terms of making that commitment to you, hon. member. But as I listen to you, I don't know what you're trying to suggest to me. Are you suggesting that it was wrong of government to introduce legislation that doesn't require a referendum? Are you saying that you want us to go back to the situation that allowed for referendums -- and only for referendums -- to make these determinations? Are you saying that you are prepared to accept the situation where, if the referendum is turned down, it's okay for a municipality to continue polluting the air with an incineration system?
I think that you have some obligation to stand up and offer a solution as well. I know the advantages of being able to tiptoe through all the lines, to take both sides -- and every side -- of a particular debate and to mail the thing back home. If that's what you want to do, make sure you put my comments in there, so that your constituents know that I appreciate what you are trying to do. But let me tell you what we will do: we will respect the right of municipal governments to make decisions....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a lot of respect for your colleague. I wish she'd just give me time to finish, so that her respect for me can grow, as well.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to know what solution you're putting forward, hon. member. I have no difficulty in having staff meet with residents of Powell River -- I have already said that. As an informed member of this House, you know full well that through freedom of information alone, you could get access to the studies. So it's slightly hollow for you to come in here and ask if we'll give you an assurance that we'll give you studies. You know that you can access that just by filling out a form.
[11:45]
Let's be honest with one another. I wish you all sorts of luck in terms of looking good at home, but make sure that in this chamber you put forward a solution. Tell me, hon. member, are you suggesting that we ought to proceed on referendums only, and that we ought not to have brought forward the legislative changes that I believe we did under Bill 29, as you referred to it? If that's the case, then say so, and I'll tell you that that's something you should have argued when that bill came in. I don't know whether you did or didn't, but I would like to know your solution to this problem.
G. Wilson: I'm astounded -- although I don't know why I should be, having had the opportunity over the years to observe this minister, both as a member of the opposition and in his capacity as a minister of the government. Why should I be at all surprised that this minister would advocate passing the buck and washing his hands, with a "please don't call me, we'll call you" kind of attitude. "Filling out a form" -- of all the irresponsible things for a minister to say! Then he adopts the cynical attitude that all I'm doing here is trying to win some points in Powell River. I find that absolutely outrageous. That's the most outrageous thing I think I've heard. It's impugning the motives of a member of this House who is bringing forward an issue of grave concern to the people of Powell River and has been for a long time. I am just outraged at this minister.
This minister knows full well that he has had countless letters from Powell River constituents, and not even responded to one -- not one. You know why? They filled out a form -- it was called a letter -- and they wrote it to the minister and got no response. That's why they are not prepared to simply do it again. This minister says that we can get access to all these government reports through the Freedom of Information Act -- well after the fact.
His ministry will make a decision soon on the viability of a landfill site in a watershed. This site was selected, and I'm well aware of its attributes and its problems. This is not something new. We have struggled with this for a number of years. The minister wants to know why there is concern. The reason is because this issue went to referendum twice and failed. The majority of people had concerns. What we're saying is that we want somewhere for people to have those concerns heard. They want to know not only that their voice has been heard but that their concerns have been addressed and that there is some kind of solution to the problems that they put forward.
What they're really looking for, and what is sadly lacking on the opposite side of this House, is some leadership on this question so that they can get this community out of what is a very contentious, divisive situation.
This minister knows full well that I have never advocated incineration. I am fully aware of the fly ash problem. This minister is asking for solutions. Let me tell you that Powell River had one of the most effective recycling programs already operating in the municipal waste management site, and it was terminated by local government -- the same local government this minister is passing the buck to now. The reason was that they wanted to put their own waste management plan in place.
A constituent of mine has brought forward a recommendation on a nationwide recycling program that would put in place a uniformity of recycling of product. It's an excellent idea that is well researched and well documented. I have sent it to the Minister of Environment, and I hope this minister will respond to it with a little more punctuality than he's responded to the concerns of the people of Powell River on this issue.
The solution that the minister wants in this instance is to recognize that we need to put institutional recycling in place. We need to remove material from the waste stream and put in place an opportunity for most of the material that is currently headed toward a landfill to be taken out of the waste stream, so that the kind of landfill site being proposed is not required.
The solution to the by-product of material that cannot be put in place would be to either put it into a much reduced landfill site, which would be outside watershed areas, or incinerate it in a high-temperature incinerator that would get rid of the material, save and except for a little bit of ash.
There is a solution to this problem. I recognize that this community is tired of hearing about the waste management problem, because they have been faced with it for a long time. What they're asking from this minister.... Sadly, this minister in an absolutely shameful attack upon this member -- that 'I'm simply trying to gain political points -- is saying that he's not prepared to do anything whatsoever to help the
[ Page 10152 ]
people of Powell River. The people of Powell River will remember that. I hate to suggest that the reason may be that his former colleague in this House, now the mayor of Powell River, is one of the advocates of this landfill and the watershed. Maybe this is the reason. Maybe it's because birds of a feather flock together, even if it's to take it and dispose of it in a watershed.
We want this minister to commit to three things. If he'll do that we can move on. One is to meet with the concerned citizens of Powell River. I understand that he has given that commitment; if he can reconfirm that, that would be great. Two is to make information public -- without us having to go through the Freedom of Information Act, which is a lengthy process that will only allow us information after the fact -- or agree today that it's important for us to review the documentation prior to permits being issued. Three, will he commit that if alternatives are proposed that provide a better solution, his ministry will act as an advocate for those solutions rather than simply passing the buck and washing their hands? If he'll commit to those three things, we can clearly move on.
Hon. M. Sihota: After that remarkable moral outrage on the part of the hon. member, who remarkably suggested that in this non-political chamber he would never play politics, I hope that he sends everybody in his riding a videotape of his presentation.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: They're all watching at home already. They'll be able to judge for themselves whether or not the hon. member's response was one of political hyperbole or a genuine deep sentiment on his part in order to advocate the interests of his constituents. I understand you're playing politics; I know that happens in this House. I also understand that there are some concerns here. Let me address the concerns and respond to a number of the points that you raised.
First of all, in terms of whether or not the views of your constituents will be heard and their concerns addressed, obviously the processes are designed to allow for those views to be heard and those concerns to be addressed. That's why in the Ministry of Environment we've established standards with respect to landfill sites.
The second point you raised during the course of your comments was the issue of a reduced landfill site and a smaller incineration site as partial solutions to the problem. We've already debated that. You know full well that what you're really doing.... As you pretty well admitted during the course of your comments, that's a determination local government makes. It seems to me that you have a dispute with your own local government as to whether or not the decision made by the regional district was correct. By the way, I should say that Mr. Lockstead was never in the House at the same time I was, so you were factually wrong on that point. That's an issue that local government decides. They make the threshold decision in terms of the landfill site. If you want them to go back to incineration that fits with our standards -- if that's possible -- or to a smaller landfill site, go have an argument with them; don't come in here and have an argument with me. You can have an argument with me with regard to whether or not our environmental guidelines are appropriate and whether or not we will do the appropriate work in that regard. I'm telling you that we will because that's what the mandate of the ministry is, and that's what the ministry does.
Later on in your comments you said that the solution lay in eliminating materials from the waste stream. I agree. You know full well that a few minutes ago I said that the government has introduced a number of steps to reduce the amount of stuff that goes into the waste stream. I think you know only too well the comments I made about both recycling and composting, the 50 percent policy objective that we've set and the planning grant assistance we have provided to Powell River. That is also part of our efforts as a ministry to deal with the reduction of material going into the waste stream.
I have already indicated to you during the course of my comments that staff will meet with citizens -- they do that -- and that I will meet with you, as we often do, to discuss issues. Secondly, with regard to the information being made public, you know full well -- and you knew even before you launched into your comments -- that the information is generally publicly available; the information in this case will be publicly available. I just wanted to point out that you knew that before you actually launched into your comments.
In terms of alternatives, I've indicated to you during the course of my comments that we are always looking for alternatives. That's why we have the 50 percent objective in terms of reducing the amount of stuff that goes into landfills. That's why we have provided planning grants and recycling and composting assistance.
Hon. members, with that said, I note that is almost the noon hour. Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report substantial progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:21 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
On vote 44: minister's office, $354,847.
The Chair: Hon. minister, we stand in committee -- it's like the House. And you're invited to make a presentation.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First I'd like to thank the Chair for her guidance; it's the first time we've been in this portion of the House, so it's a learning experience for us. I'm looking forward to the estimates process. It gives us the opportunity to talk about a number of new initiatives for our new ministry.
[ Page 10153 ]
As you know, the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services was formed September 15, 1993. Since that time, we've been working within tight fiscal constraints to deliver an expanding mandate within our functional areas. I would like to express my appreciation for the dedication and hard work of ministry employees. It's been a significant challenge for all of us to meet the expanding mandate with the limited tools at our disposal.
To help guide our work, we have naturally referenced the important work of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. After receiving submissions from across Canada, it recommended stronger provincial leadership on housing issues. I've taken those recommendations and applied them to all areas of our ministry.
My vision is grounded in a commitment to provide provincial leadership and services to all British Columbians. I'd like to share the principles of our new ministry with you.
We will be providing leadership in all areas of the ministry by developing new policy directions; empowering those we serve through public education and advocacy; supporting community and citizens' organizations to expand their mandate in our areas; and working in partnership with local government, industry groups and non-profit organizations to pursue mutual objectives. We will seek input and advice from our partners, a few of which include the British Columbia branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Better Business Bureau, the Canadian Cooperative Association, the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C., the Urban Development Institute and the Rental Housing Council of B.C. In naming these valued partners, I have named those with traditional links with government.
Our commitment includes, and goes beyond, what has been traditionally possible. Our commitment to improving access for groups traditionally underserved by and underrepresented in government will bring a more balanced approach. This inclusive approach will ensure support for our community partners by providing relevant policies, programs and services that are fair, equitable and accessible -- provincial recreation organizations, the YWCA, TRAC, DERA and non-profit and cooperative housing groups, just to name a few. This government recognizes the experience and expertise existing in communities and understands that an inclusive approach is critical to our mutual success.
This budget includes programs to provide jobs and opportunities, improve equity and access, and meet the needs of both rural and urban British Columbians. In the area of affordable housing, it deals with the consequences of dwindling supply and increasing demand. We had to consider what consumer protection could be provided to prevent unreasonable rent increases, while also addressing the reasonable concerns of landlords. We had to assess the supply of social housing in light of the federal government's complete withdrawal from new housing commitments.
Over the last three years, this withdrawal has cost British Columbians over 3,700 new social housing units. Those are enough units to house the population of Nelson. The federal government has been a lead player in Canadian housing programs since the Second World War. This year represents a major departure, because there will be no new federal funding for the development of non-profit housing in British Columbia. The cancellation of these programs will hit everywhere in Canada, but especially here in British Columbia. The federal government's shortsighted lack of commitment means $300 million of lost investment, lost jobs and lost social housing units -- 1,200 every year in British Columbia. These federal cutbacks will mean that seniors, the disabled, and women and children will pay the highest price.
In contrast to the federal government, our government rejected this approach. By creating this ministry, the Premier has made a clear statement that our government understands the economic and social value of housing that British Columbians and the housing industry have brought to this province.
We have taken on the challenge of developing for the first time a housing policy that is truly made in B.C. British Columbia's economy is the strongest in Canada. While housing construction in Canada fell by nearly 7 percent over the year ending in March, housing starts in urban British Columbia were up by 3 percent. The homebuilding industry in B.C. is thriving, putting people to work in good jobs at good wages. Our provincial budget has provided an exemption from the property transfer tax for first-time homebuyers, and it is estimated that as many as 25,000 B.C. renters will now be able to purchase their first home and free up badly needed rental housing stock.
The bad news is that British Columbia continues to have the least affordable cities in the country in which to rent or purchase housing. Victoria and the lower mainland have the highest percentage in the country of renters who cannot afford to buy a home. There has also been a visible growth in the number of homeless individuals and others who are without secure, affordable housing. Because of the federal withdrawal, these social conditions put added pressure on our limited resources.
I'm proud to say that this government is maintaining its funding commitment to social housing and will be enhancing that commitment through B.C. 21. Our goal is to make the very best use of provincial dollars through innovative program design, promoting partnership with municipalities and working closely with the considerable expertise of the B.C. community housing sector. Our housing advisory council and groups like the Cooperative Housing Federation of B.C. and the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association are key partners in our program design.
[10:30]
Building strong partnerships in the housing sector recognizes regional and community economic development potential, good jobs for individuals and the social benefits of safe, affordable housing. Without the security of a home, it is difficult to maintain a job or improve your circumstances, and children are unable to establish the roots they need in communities to aid their development as contributing members of society. Safe, affordable housing has been recognized as a major contributor to the reduction of health care costs for individuals and communities alike.
In short, a made-in-B.C. housing strategy makes good sense on many fronts. We are designing housing programs that put people into homes they can afford and are suitable for the well-being of their children, by providing a range of options to assist low-income families, people who are homeless or who have special needs, working households that can just manage to pay market rents and people who would like to take their first steps into home-ownership.
We are developing a program to replace the renter's tax credit by combining our existing commitment to social housing with capital from B.C. 21. We have undertaken creative initiatives to address the needs of homeless people, people at risk of being homeless and people who have special needs, by listening to them and working with them. We have begun the process of tenant representation in our direct-managed housing stock, and we are working out methods to help local governments identify their housing needs.
[ Page 10154 ]
The province has brought in legislation, Bill 20 and Bill 57, to give municipalities the power to address their own housing needs. This will help them put a human face on growth and development within their boundaries. We recognize local governments as important partners in affordable housing. With these, and all our housing partners, we have been able to focus more attention on the issue of affordability and help raise the profile of housing that is creative, innovative and affordable.
The budget decisions for one of our major branches, the residential tenancy branch, also reflect our ministry's strong service role with respect to the province's 450,000 rental households. The budget for this branch will ensure that both landlords and tenants are aware of their rights and responsibilities under the legislation and have quick access to arbitrators, and that the manufactured home park sector has a dispute resolution capability. Our budget allocation will also improve landlords' and tenants' access to our services in the regions. This will ensure better service delivery to people who have been traditionally excluded from program delivery.
The residential tenancy branch is an important resource for landlords and tenants in British Columbia. Last year, information officers at the branch answered more than 220,000 calls, and its arbitrators made more than 15,000 decisions. This branch will provide outreach and education to both landlords and tenants. Growth centres such as Kamloops, Kelowna, Mission and Terrace have seen rent increases of more than double the rate of inflation in the last year. Rents in Prince Rupert have jumped by over 10 percent. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation defines a healthy vacancy rate as 3 percent; vacancy rates are clearly below that at 2 percent in nearly 60 percent of the towns and cities in British Columbia.
As part of our leadership and equity focus, we are committed to promoting fairness and access in the marketplace. One of the best ways to promote fairness and understanding in the marketplace is through an informed consumer. We will support consumers through active investigation into shoddy and deceptive business practices. For example, as a result of lengthy investigations and legal action, eligible British Columbia consumers who have been subjected to the seize-and-sue practices of Ford Credit Canada will be reimbursed for funds they paid after their leased vehicles had been surrendered.
Consumers, especially elderly consumers, have been provided with some additional protection through the licensing of door-to-door sellers. Direct sellers now have to be licensed and carry photo identification. The licensing process will ensure that a company and its representatives are qualified to carry out their stated business. Licensing will also provide important protection for consumers, particularly older consumers who have been caught by home renovation scams.
We are developing new regulations to better protect consumers when they have leased a vehicle. A requirement will soon be in place to ensure that these contracts are written in plain language and disclose the full cost of leasing so that consumers can make better-informed decisions. Consumer protection supports not only consumers but good business practices as well.
The ministry will also be assuming provincial leadership in the area of recreation services. We recognize the role that recreation plays in maintaining healthy communities. Therefore, within our limited resources, we will work with our partners -- the recreation commissions and the provincial recreation organizations such as the YWCA -- to promote equitable access to recreation opportunities for all British Columbians. A special area of focus for this program will be on leadership training opportunities for aboriginal and other youth in B.C. Small communities are also targeted for assistance in establishing volunteer-led recreation commissions -- an important ingredient in ensuring that all British Columbians have access to recreation opportunities.
To conclude my opening remarks, I'd like to mention that our leadership role has expanded to include cooperatives. The cooperative sector is a key component of British Columbia's economy. As the minister responsible for cooperatives, I will work to establish a level playing field for this sector. By establishing partnerships with groups like the B.C. region of the Canadian Cooperative Association, we can help foster a better understanding of cooperatives within government. I will also be working with my federal counterpart on cooperative matters.
My ministry's budget has been developed based on the principles of our new ministry. We are working to take on new leadership in housing, recreation and consumer services. Our goals are to ensure that traditionally disadvantaged people are fully included in the social and economic benefits of our province, and to support our partners -- particularly community-based and citizen organizations -- in working with us to improve our services in these areas.
With those introductory remarks, I welcome any questions or comments from the opposition.
The Chair: I really have just one comment. I wonder if you'd like to introduce your staff to us at this time.
Hon. J. Smallwood: My apologies -- yes. It's a test to see if I can do all of the names.
The Chair: Well, if you'd like to wait and write them all down....
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me start by introducing....
The Chair: Would you mind standing? This is meant to be as close to the House as possible.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I apologize. The last time I sat in this committee, it was a legislative committee of the House, and we didn't have the same practice as the House.
Let me start by introducing our deputy, Cassie Doyle; ADM of Consumer Services Jacquie Rice; ADM of Housing Denise LeBlond; communications, Dianne George -- this is great; I have all this help, and I'm not registering names -- Saul Schubert from the B.C. Housing Management Commission; Fern Jeffries, whom I've known for so long, and I'm blanking out on; and John Dowler, who is our senior financial officer.
V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for her introductions, both of her material and of her staff. I understand the difficulty with names, because when I call my kids, they say: "Dad, I'm the other one." That's a problem we all have from time to time, and particularly when we're under pressure, what we know usually doesn't come forward.
As we go forward, we will learn more about the depths of the ministry that she has summarized briefly, because -- as she hints in her introduction -- it covers an issue of great concern to the people of the province. Housing is fundamental to everyone, no matter what their financial
[ Page 10155 ]
position is; everyone wants security and stability in their lives. We are aware that there are many people in British Columbia whose housing does not provide a feeling of security or stability.
Affordable housing is a term that we banter around very often. It has many different meanings depending on the sector of society you are in, the community in which you happen to live, the particular job or income opportunity you have, or your age, ability or disability. All of these factors are related to the concern about housing in the province.
We are interested in and will be asking why these three facets have come together under this ministry, and what the rationale is, if there is one, for putting them together in this particular ministry. We might ask about how recreation fits in with housing, cooperatives and consumer services, and whether there is a rationale for this or whether this happened just because it was needed to balance out the other ministries of government at that particular time. In some of the other ministries, the minister had an interest in a particular portion, so it was put in the ministry. When we know the changes that have taken place in the ministries within government, it is always interesting to find out the rationale for changes within the ministry itself, and also how it cooperates with other ministries, which is something we would like to ask about. Health and housing are very closely related. So are social services and housing, as are the economy, jobs and housing. Concern with families and youth is also very closely related to housing. There are many facets that could be put together under whatever rationale is there, so we'll be interested to discover that rationale.
We'll also be interested to discover the focuses within the ministry that are new and other focuses that have been discontinued. The minister mentioned the commission that was formed and that this is a general guideline for the ministry at this point. I met with the staff previously, and I want to say thank you to the staff that I had the opportunity to meet with. One disappointment was that we didn't get the financial breakdown of the different sections, which would have been helpful in preparing for this discussion.
Coming back, though, we'll go through the particular recommendations of that commission, because they can highlight for us where the ministry has moved in different directions and whether the ministry has taken options different than those that were in the commission's report. That will give the community at large, which is very much aware of the document, a better understanding of where the ministry is at this time and what it has done in each of these categories. It gives us a way of discussing it.
We'll also look briefly at the budget, which we note hasn't changed a great deal from previous years in many facets. Perhaps we should say it hasn't gone down much, and in the present circumstances we may compliment the ministry that it at least hasn't gone down, even if in some areas it hasn't gone up. As the minister said, it's a very fundamental priority in the lives of many people.
So we'll be dealing with these, and as the different members of the opposition come in, we may move back and forth in different sections for their convenience. However, apart from that, we will attempt to look at housing this morning. We also want to look at consumer services this morning and at recreation and cooperatives this afternoon. That's a kind of general trend, but as different people come in, we may move back and forth according to their particular needs. Flexibility is something that we all need to have in this discussion.
I will leave that for the moment, because I know the hon. independent member would like to ask a couple of questions. I'll let him do that, because there may be other places he needs to be, and I think I'm here for the day.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thanks to the official opposition critic for an opportunity to ask a question on the residential tenancy branch of the ministry.
I'd like to ask this very specific question because of an emergent concern in the constituency I represent. A community known as Britannia Beach is in a unique situation, and the minister may be aware of it. I thank the minister for the assistance and interest her staff has already shown in what might be called a crisis situation affecting 400 renters in a community that is essentially on private land.
[10:45]
It's a community that has no municipal government and falls between the cracks of any kind of local government, whether regional district or municipal. As a result, a community of approximately 400 individuals, which has existed for many years, is at risk right now because of a lack of services. The landowner is in a state of receivership, and there is a conflict situation with respect to ownership of the land. The concern I share with staff in the ministry, who have also shown some initial concern, is that a group of renters do not have fire protection, water or electricity -- the basic services that all communities in British Columbia take for granted.
I'm wondering if the minister can tell us about the powers of the residential tenancy branch to assist in a unique situation like this, and whether or not that branch has a mandate to help specific individual renters or a collective group of renters such as those at Britannia Beach. Does the branch have the ability to deal with a situation like this?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This is a very good example of why this ministry has been formed. Let me talk a little bit about the specifics at Britannia Beach.
First, I appreciate the member's compliments to the staff. We have found that they are very responsive to community needs, and to Britannia Beach in particular. The complexities of the situation there have provided an opportunity for our ministry to work together with them. We have had an opportunity to speak to one of the regional directors who also expressed concerns about the situation at Britannia Beach, and we have been advised that a public meeting is coming up next week. We will be sending two staff members from the B.C. Housing Commission and the residential tenancy branch to that meeting.
We've taken a look at the situation as we understand it, and it is very clear that it is not an issue over which the residential tenancy branch has exclusive legislative authority. There may be some issues arising of which that particular piece of legislation will be supportive in trying to resolve. But the longer-term issues around housing in that community will be better affected by information from B.C. Housing that we will be able to share, in looking at other options for those tenants. So I'm answering both questions, not only as to our involvement and support for communities in dealing with their housing needs, but also the ability of this new ministry to be responsive in the broader context to communities.
This ministry -- and it will come as no surprise to my critic -- has a community development focus. Whether we're dealing with housing or consumer services, as I'm sure you are aware, the residential tenancy branch is part of the Consumer Services portion of our ministry. It makes all the sense in the world, with the two major investments an individual makes -- whether it's rental accommodation or
[ Page 10156 ]
purchasing a mortgage -- that we bring consumer protection along with the supply side in B.C. Housing.
Recreation facilities. When we are looking at the ministry from a community development perspective, whether it's through social or economic community development, we understand that recreation is a major component of a healthy community. Recreation thus makes all the sense in the world, when we talk about a ministry that is providing real services to people on the ground -- in their communities -- and helping to build a healthy economic and social community for families.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for her comments. I have one further question on the Britannia Beach situation, just to clarify what the minister has said. Before I do that, it may be of some use to let the minister know that, when we go into the Consumer Services part of her ministry, other members are certainly going to have questions. I might just flag a few areas that I have some specific questions on. They include the issue she referred to in her opening statements about plain-language leasing contracts and legislation, the whole issue of consumer arbitration and lemon laws. Those are some areas that I will have a few brief questions on later.
When it comes to the Britannia Beach situation, I appreciate that the minister is saying the residential tenancy branch may not have all of the ability under its statute to address the situation. Does her ministry have the authority or ability to help a community in a rather unique situation like that of Britannia Beach, where the renters are paying rent to a landlord who is, for a whole variety of complex legal reasons, effectively in receivership? Their rent is really not going toward the provision of services they depend upon as a community. Does her ministry have the authority to direct that rent from those tenants -- individually and collectively -- will stay in the community to provide fire protection, hydro, water services, etc.? That's the real concern. The community is in a state of confusion right now. I know that next week's meeting, which is being coordinated by her ministry, is going to try to understand the situation in more detail.
This community has fallen between the cracks, and there has not been a lead government ministry that has been able to assist them so far. My hope would be that this new ministry, whose spending the minister is defending today, would take a leadership role to assist a community that really needs some help right now.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act govern a contract between a landlord and a tenant. Around issues of provision of service, the landlord is not obliged to provide for municipal services. This is simply a relationship between landlord and tenant. With the withdrawal of services under that contractual arrangement, the residential tenancy branch, through the arbitrators, has an opportunity to look at that. That's one of the reasons we'll send an officer up -- to get a better firsthand view of what is happening in that community and to enable us to be of assistance if there is an opportunity under that legislation.
When the member talks about municipal services -- whether they're fire protection, water, sewer or others -- that is a much broader mandate. Hopefully, in looking for longer-term, more stable housing for that community, we may be able to provide some information and resources to the community in addressing those longer-term options.
As the member can well imagine, there are many ways that communities can take an active role in ensuring that residents have affordable housing options. Those options will be explored with our representative from B.C. Housing.
V. Anderson: I'd now like to refer to the policy of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options, because it has set out a number of questions or directions. Perhaps if we deal with these quickly over the next little while.... The areas brought forth in that study were on market rental, non-market rental housing, ownership for first-time home purchasers and the partnerships which the minister addressed in her opening remarks.
The minister also addressed the new situation in which we find ourselves -- without federal funding. It's basically a provincial policy at this point in time, so that changes the format considerably not only for the ministry but also for people within the community. I think it's important that we raise this on their behalf. Perhaps the minister would clarify the definition of affordable housing that is used as part of the ground rules when we're talking about this within the ministry itself.
Hon. J. Smallwood: One of the things that I was just doing a quick check on for the member's information.... Of all the recommendations that were brought forward by the housing commission, approximately 75 have already been acted on or are underway. So we've made considerable progress with the work of the commission. As I said earlier, it is a foundation that directs the work that the ministry has in place.
As far as the issue of affordability is concerned, it's generally accepted -- and the member would readily acknowledge -- that from community to community, depending on the demographics, those numbers will change. The basic principle is that housing costs for an individual would not exceed approximately 30 percent of a household's gross annual income -- whether that is rent or a home mortgage.
V. Anderson: So that's 30 percent of the household's gross income -- the total earnings made by one or two members. It's the gross income you're talking about, rather than the net.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Correct.
V. Anderson: I also realize that the government is very closely involved with municipal governments, and their zoning and regulations with regard to housing, so there are factors involved there. On the one hand, the municipalities are affected by the government's actions, and on the other hand, the government is affected by the municipalities' actions. So there has to be a close interplay between them in that regard, particularly since, for the most part, the federal government is no longer involved. Are there some areas in which the federal government is still involved in housing? Are there still programs they have not yet moved out of?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to take the opportunity to talk a little about our partnership with municipalities. Quite a number of years ago, I became involved with local area planning in my own community. I was really struck -- as a person just getting into politics at the municipal level -- by the fact that at that level at that time, whether you're talking about city planners or politicians generally, they were planning communities. They were planning roads, sewers, water, lighting -- that sort of infrastructure for communities -- but there was very seldom a discussion about the
[ Page 10157 ]
individuals who made up those communities and those individuals' needs.
The work of the housing commission has had a profound effect at the municipal level in the province. We're seeing a number of municipalities now embracing those challenges: looking at developing communities for people and identifying opportunities where they can bring municipal resources to bear in order to ensure that everyone in the community has the benefit of a safe home. While that may seem to many of us to be a very small step, I think those who have been involved at the municipal level understand how profound that change truly is.
[11:00]
The member asked about the involvement of the federal government. The federal government is no longer investing in new housing initiatives, though it continues to maintain its existing stock, which is significant. In addition to that, it has just reinstated the residential rehabilitation program in the province. That program has $100 million that will be available over two years in loans and grants for home renovation for low-income Canadians. B.C.'s share of the funding will be $4.5 million in 1994, at 21 percent of the '93 total.
V. Anderson: What is the involvement of the province with regard to carrying through this particular program with the federal government? Is it managed and controlled, and are decisions made, by the federal government alone? Or is there joint management, planning and programming with the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: At this time the province is not involved with the federal program. Our program is a separate program and targets renters.
V. Anderson: When the minister said that the B.C. share was $4.5 million, is that over and above the $100 million or is it part of it? And is that $4.5 million managed by the province, and if so, how?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for the opportunity to clarify that. Of the $100 million across Canada, B.C.'s share is $4.5 million. That is a decrease of 21 percent from the previous year's program, and we don't have an involvement in administering it.
V. Anderson: Before we leave the interaction with the federal government, what meetings or interactions are taking place on a regular basis between the federal and provincial governments in the area of housing, future planning and future directions?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I've had an opportunity to meet with the new federal minister, Mr. Dingwall, and I encouraged him prior to the federal budget to live up to the Liberal government's commitment to housing. I was quite disappointed to see that he was unable to deliver. I think most provinces recognize that previous federal Liberal governments had a strong commitment to housing, so I think the budget was a considerable disappointment to most provinces.
We encouraged the new minister to take on a similar challenge, as we have done here in British Columbia, in recognizing that whether it's the federal, provincial or municipal government, it's unrealistic for any of us to expect that we -- in isolation or separately -- can solve all the housing problems of those who are not served by the marketplace. We encouraged the minister to look at the kinds of resources that the federal government could bring to increasing the supply of non-market housing in particular, by looking at legislative change, financial resources and resources that included lands where the federal government could underwrite the cost and make housing more affordable for communities.
We continue to work with the CMHC. We are currently on an interprovincial committee looking at the reallocation of savings that were incurred by CMHC and, hopefully, targeting those savings to the supply side for those most desperately in need in our province and in other provinces in Canada.
V. Anderson: When you talk about encouraging the federal government to bring in legislative change, what kind of legislative change were you trying to get them to undertake?
Hon. J. Smallwood: My comments simply reflected the fact that governments have particular resources they can bring to the challenge, reflecting the approach the provincial government has taken around changes to residential tenancy as an example, some explorations that we have underway with the Ministry of Finance around financing, and some discussions we have currently underway around lands policy. We are encouraging the federal government to do the same and to do an assessment of their strengths and their ability to affect the affordability and the supply side in the provision of housing for people who have been excluded from the marketplace. I would also encourage the new minister to look at his existing act, the National Housing Act. And I hope that any exploration of legislative change would include the provinces in that process.
V. Anderson: While we're in the area of relationships, maybe we could take a moment to talk about the kind of ongoing relationships and discussions that are held with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Is there an ongoing committee that meets with it and government, whereby the municipal concerns are being addressed? And if so, what is the direction they are taking at the present moment?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry works very closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We have a director who works on an ongoing basis not only with our provincial ministry but with the municipalities. That work is reflected in legislation that was brought in last spring, which enabled municipal governments to strengthen the tools they had.
The points I made around identifying the resources that each of us can bring to community tables.... That work is ongoing. We will increase my direct involvement at the municipal government level.
I would like to reflect on your opening statements and your question on the creation of this ministry. In the past, when former Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing spoke to municipal governments, often the agenda got shifted to talking about cost-sharing infrastructure. The opportunity to focus specifically on housing, and on community and individual needs, has taken a back seat. Profiling this ministry and the leadership role in providing housing will give me an opportunity, in talking to both municipal organizations and individual councils, to encourage them and provide them with information that will resource their communities' demands for a more inclusive approach to a housing strategy.
[ Page 10158 ]
V. Anderson: You mentioned earlier the shift in community planning away from infrastructure and strictly physical things to a broader concern for the whole community. With your background in Social Services, to what extent has social planning within communities become a part of this new approach and this new picture? And how much is that involved in helping you take that broader perspective in cooperation with municipalities, now that more of them seem to be getting into areas of not only physical but also social planning? Is that tied in with the kind of programming you're doing with people concerns?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member is aware of the legislation that was brought to and passed by the House. Bill 20 actually provided additional resources for the legislative tools of municipal governments in ensuring accessibility to housing and the provision of rental housing. That's the legislative answer.
At the community level, I've been very encouraged to see non-profit housing societies and community groups embrace the challenges. I continue to be disappointed by the lack of investment at the municipal level on the social planning front. I don't think communities will stand for that much longer, as they put their stamp on their own communities and take some of the ownership around how their communities are being developed. In most local newspapers, we see an increase in the kind of community organization that is necessary in a democratic society to ensure that municipal governments respond to that agenda. That provides considerable optimism for most of us.
V. Anderson: Following up on that for a moment -- because out of my own bias I also think that's very important -- through your ministry's involvement with the other ministries and the desire of government to encourage communities to have community plans, I wonder if there is any concerted effort or support from the different sections of government in social planning, to enable municipalities to have more resources to do the social planning they haven't been able to do in the past.
Hon. J. Smallwood: My answer is a predictable one. At a time when there are limited resources not only at the provincial level but at all levels of government, I think the challenge for all of us is to identify ways to ensure that those agendas move forward. While municipalities and/or the province may not have fiscal resources to support the process, many communities have put in place voluntary committees to advise local councils to include community organizations -- whether they're service organizations, housing societies or others -- and to provide the kind of advice necessary so that local politicians can make informed choices.
In addition, there are major initiatives around growth management with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that we're directly involved with. I believe there are resources flowing from that work. Also, money is provided through housing planning grants targeted specifically at housing needs to support both special needs and rental supply at the municipal level.
V. Anderson: I'd like to turn it over to the opposition critic on Consumer Services, while he is able to be with us this morning.
J. Dalton: I thank my colleague for allowing me to step in at this point. I have some questions on Consumer Services. It would be appropriate, as we're in estimates, to start with the budget for this line item. I'm sure the minister will be aware that the voted expenditure for the previous fiscal year was almost $8 million, and the projected figure for 1994-95 is almost $12.5 million. I appreciate that the ministry has been restructured. Perhaps the minister can tell the committee if the reason for such a quantum leap in the budget is because of different responsibilities in that area.
[11:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: We talked a little earlier about some of the legislation that was brought in last year. The increase in the budget reflects some of those increased legislative responsibilities, such as manufactured home parks mediation, some changes with the residential tenancy branch and increasing issues of accessibility around the province. So it's manufactured home parks mediation and Bill 67, which included additional support to the residential tenancy branch.
J. Dalton: That helps, at least in part, to explain the difference in the figures. Can the minister advise the committee as to what the budget for the residential tenancy branch is for the upcoming year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The budget for the residential tenancy branch in 1994-95 will be $7.6 million.
J. Dalton: I appreciate that accurate figure. Obviously, it demonstrates -- as we all can recognize -- the importance of the residential tenancy branch. I may come back to that in a few moments.
I want to concentrate a bit on two major statutes -- at least I consider them major -- within Consumer Services. One is the Consumer Protection Act. In fact, I remember the year it was introduced -- 1967 -- because I was graduating from law school that year. The other significant statute is the Trade Practice Act of 1974, which was a significant addition to the ministry as it was then. I could also tell the committee, for what it's worth, that I remember that full well because that was the year I started teaching business law and consumer protection courses at Langara. It was a very important part of some of the courses that I developed and instructed.
I recall then that investigations under those two statutes were very thorough. There was a lot of publicity, and there were offices opened. I remember bulletins that came across my desk regularly; I got on a mailing list advising of compliances, prosecutions and other things under those statutes. Are those bulletins and other public information available these days? I haven't seen anything recently that would substantiate as thorough a review and as much publicity of Consumer Services as in the old days.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It has been particularly interesting for me to look at the history of this component of the ministry. While the member reflects on early legislation that was brought in quite proudly by our previous government and the legacy of consumer protection provided by the early NDP government, since that time -- particularly during the radical restraint years of the early eighties -- we have seen a two-thirds reduction in the staff support that this ministry had enjoyed in those early days. We now have a full-time-equivalent count of approximately 28 in the Consumer Services portion of the ministry. Our government increased those staff positions in the previous year's budget by an additional four; when we first came into government, there were 24 in that ministry. The actual prosecutions are up by a considerable amount over the number of prosecutions
[ Page 10159 ]
handled by those original 24. We have seen a significant increase in the productivity and in the effect the ministry has had in bringing fairness and equity to the marketplace. But we recognize that our goals in providing additional information are somewhat encumbered by the resources that we have to bring to the task. In developing a strategy to deal with that lack of resources, we have not only focused on communication, but we've also spoken to community organizations like the Consumers' Association of Canada in trying to identify ways we can better support the work they do in getting the information out.
Again, we're looking at ways of partnering not only with community organizations like the Consumers' Association of Canada but also with the Better Business Bureau. We meet with them on a regular basis to ensure that we are using, to the best of our ability, all the resources we have to put information in the hands of consumers, recognizing that an informed consumer is a better protected consumer and is better than a more litigated response.
J. Dalton: That's a perfect lead-in to my next line of questioning about informed consumers. Recently I've had some correspondence from a consumer in Port Alberni with a question about the purchase of a vacuum cleaner -- and maybe that has a ring to it. So I started searching through the phone directory to see what sort of assistance might be available to consumers and where they would seek government help and information. Obviously, the Vancouver phone directory doesn't help the consumer in Port Alberni. But I thought I would look in the listings in the blue pages in the Vancouver directory first, and I found an investigations branch in Burnaby listed under Consumer Services, which would be the logical place to start. There's also the residential tenancy branch in the same building in Burnaby. That listing is fine, and the consumer is happy.
I then went to the Victoria directory for 1994 -- and I do appreciate the ministry has been restructured since this directory was published -- but there is nothing under consumer services or consumer protection -- zero. So right away, the poor consumer in the Victoria area is dead in the water, I guess. Then I thought: well, I happen to know that we're dealing with a new ministry, Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. So I thought: I'll go to Housing; perhaps they've leaped ahead of us and put it there. What do I find under Housing? The Victoria telephone book, in the blue pages, under Government of British Columbia, says: "Housing -- see listings under Municipal Affairs." There's nothing under Housing. Then I go to Municipal Affairs, and I don't find anything under Municipal Affairs that would be of help to a consumer, even in the other areas of your ministry. Certainly the poor, unfortunate consumer, such as my friend in Port Alberni, would be totally frustrated at that point. Perhaps the minister could clarify it for us, and then I can spread the word to British Columbia, that there may be a way to get out of this rather tangled mess that we seem to be in.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to answer the member's question in a number of different ways. First of all, I want to give the member some information around where our investigating officers are located. There are ten investigating officers in six different locations in the province: Victoria, Abbotsford, Cranbrook, Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George.
While the member readily acknowledged that he was likely looking at telephone books that had been printed prior to the change in our ministry's responsibilities, we're also quick to recognize that we do not have the resources to ensure the presence of the Ministry of Housing or of Consumer Services in all communities throughout the province. That's one of the reasons that government agencies use government agents in communities, and many communities are well aware of the role of government agents and value that role. In most telephone books -- I would venture to say all telephone books -- there is an Enquiry B.C. number that helps people access the relevant ministries and the resources that they need from government.
We're looking, through this budget, not only at consolidating the services that are provided by our ministry but also at issues of access to those services around the province. That's one of the reasons that you see increases in the budget this year for some areas, like the residential tenancy branch.
J. Dalton: Perhaps the minister and her staff can assist me, because I did actually find the phone number for Vancouver Island where this consumer in Port Alberni and every other consumer on the Island could turn. I'm told there's only one phone number for all of Vancouver Island, and I presume that means the office is headquartered in Victoria. I wrote down the number but cannot find it. Perhaps the minister can help me, because I do want to contact this person right afterward and say that this is the number to call.
The Chair: Enquiry B.C. will no doubt give you the number, too.
J. Dalton: But there is an office phone number.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I will give you not only a number but a name. Your constituent might call investigation services, either John McDonald at 387-9086 or Barrie Marsh at 356-7379.
J. Dalton: Thank you, I've got the number noted. That's great. It's very timely that I am now able to send it on.
Perhaps there is just one follow-up to that on what difficulty a consumer in Port Hardy or the Cape Scott area might have, as many British Columbians know, in dealing with Victoria for many government items. It might be extremely difficult for someone who needs on-site consumer protection -- and I will refer in a moment to this actual example, if I may. Are there not some difficulties? I appreciate the minister's remark about budgets, and we're all very mindful of budgets. That's why we are here -- to watchdog these things. But I think, with something as important as consumer services, that it might be more satisfying to consumers in other parts of Vancouver Island if perhaps there could be a branch office in Nanaimo. Turning to a government agent is not necessarily going to be fully satisfactory, because government agents cannot be conversant in all areas and issues.
D. Schreck: I'd like to compliment the minister on what she is able to do under obviously difficult budget circumstances, where we are constantly balancing the recognition from the public of bringing the deficit under control and, at the same time, the demand from the public for meeting so many services. In my constituency office, I have found that Enquiry B.C. is always a superb resource to use. I am very impressed by the fact that anyone from anywhere in the province can reach any government department by simply picking up the phone and dialling
[ Page 10160 ]
Enquiry B.C. As the only government MLA on the North Shore, being next to West Vancouver-Capilano and North Vancouver-Seymour, I find that half of my constituency work comes from the opposition constituencies. And as much as I try to refer them back to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, they frequently insist on dealing with me. But I'm happy to provide that assistance in addition to the services they can get themselves through Enquiry B.C.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member, for your contribution.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for his intervention and his compliments in recognition of the good work that is done by ministry staff.
[11:30]
Let me provide some additional information for the member. Our consumer operations investigations service received some 42,000 phone calls last year. I identified for the member the actual locations of the hard-working investigators that we have on staff. Those investigators, while they may be based in those six locations, travel when necessary to help consumers where there are problems that need on-the-ground involvement by the investigators.
In addition to Enquiry B.C., the government agent offices are well used in many communities around the province. When a consumer may have a question for one of the investigators or for the ministry, they're able to access the ministry free of charge through the government agent office.
J. Dalton: I guess it's my turn again, is it? I was amused by the interlude with my colleague next door in North Vancouver-Lonsdale that was obviously somewhat irrelevant to our discussion -- but that's fine. I could even perhaps make a comment about Westview, but of course, I won't.
Of course I will pass on the phone number and these people. I thank the minister for actual names; it's always refreshing to a consumer to actually have a name and a phone number. And I must compliment the ministry. When I phoned the Burnaby office directly to get the office number in Nanaimo or wherever -- actually, I went through the B.C. government directory; I had a sneaky way, of course, of approaching it that no consumer will have -- a real voice answered the telephone. I didn't even have to go through a switchboard. So that was good, but of course, the consumer doesn't have that advantage. I appreciate the concept of Enquiry B.C., and that's fine.
I will be advising this person that his problem.... It seems to me to be a real problem, from what I've seen. He ended up paying something like $2,500 for a vacuum cleaner, and he's claiming it is not even the one that was delivered to his daughter's home, whom he was buying it for. But that's something the investigating officer will have to deal with, so we don't need any further comment on that right now.
I just want to ask a couple questions about the residential tenancy branch. The minister, of course, has told us the budget of $7.6 million for the upcoming year. Is there any real discussion -- there are certainly rumours out there and probably some committee work going on -- about what, if anything, has been considered about rent review?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm a little perplexed by the question, as I would have expected the opposition critic to be well aware of the consultation process that has been underway in the province. Our ministry staff has travelled the length and breadth of the province, talking to community groups, both landlords and tenants and the other interested parties, around the issue of consumer protection for rent. The culmination of that consultation process is currently in the hands of legislative drafters. As we announced when we embarked on that process, we are hopeful that we will soon be introducing changes in the Legislature.
J. Dalton: Of course I was aware of the review process, and I'm just happy to hear it. That's really what I was going to get at, so you've provided it for me -- that the process is now in the legislation-drafting stage. Of course, that's the culmination of all the discussion and research.
I have just one other thing. I remember back to the good old days when the rentalsman's office was formed, and quite frankly, I think it did an excellent job in the area. The minister will be fully aware of the real problems of both landlords and tenants. Residential tenancy laws over the years have naturally taken swings, depending on the government of the day. I recall some of the swings from the left to the right, given the polarity of B.C. politics since the rentalsman's office was brought in, and some of the legislation before and since. Is there any thought of reactivating the rentalsman in any way, shape or form? For example, I think you could take some of the pressure off the courts and the investigators.
The minister told us of the volume -- I don't have the figures right here -- and she knows of cases and complaints. I was dealing with some of this when I was both practising and instructing law, and I recall the number of people who were totally frustrated with even something as simple as getting back a deposit. Landlords would do sneaky things like bring in a pet deposit. One time they sort of snuck a $50 pet deposit into the standard agreement. Some unfortunate person would try to bring in a budgie, a cat or a goldfish, and the landlord would produce this rather farcical document and say: "By the way, there's a $50 pet deposit here, and you've violated it because of your goldfish." I say that not in amusement, hon. Chair. There was a B.C. case that went to the Court of Appeal. I don't know whether it involved a goldfish or a cat. I think it was actually a cat, but the court made passing reference to whether goldfish were pets. The irony of that case is that the cat in question had actually died before the case went to the Court of Appeal. But I'm off on a tangent.
If the minister has any thoughts on if further authority.... This is my question; it will probably be the last one. I wonder whether we might consider giving far more authority to the residential tenancy branch so that it can do the real things that both landlords and tenants expect of it. That's it for me.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm hopeful that my comments aren't going to encourage the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to jump to his feet.
I'm going to have to ask for a bit of clarification from the member around his comments. I would have hoped that the critic would be more familiar with the Residential Tenancy Act. The residential tenancy branch is governed by the Residential Tenancy Act, and there are a number of provisions in that legislation that deal with the issues he has identified. We have very clearly made the decision not to reinstitute the rentalsman. If the member is referencing rent controls, I can assure him that by choosing the model of consumer protection we have chosen, there will be no rent controls, no rent caps. But we will enhance the ability of the residential tenancy branch to be more proactive, more supportive and more involved in information sharing, both with tenants and with landlords. As the member may be
[ Page 10161 ]
aware, the act currently does not have any provision to deal with rent protection issues, although last year there was a change brought to residential tenancy that dealt specifically with security deposits.
The Chair: There being no further questions at this moment.... We're near adjournment time.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the ministry is doing to increase the availability of rental housing in the single-family residential area?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have a number of initiatives. I think I'll start a bit further back and give you a broader picture of the work. I understand that the member was not here in the introductory comments.
With our budget this year we will see enhancements through B.C. 21 of approximately $20 million for new construction. It is too early to talk specifically about those programs, but they will significantly impact the provision of family housing. The strategy we are developing of a built-in-B.C. housing policy deals not only with the supply side but also with the consumer protection side, in recognition of the fact that since the rentalsman's office was in place...ironically, we have seen a real diminishment in the provision of rental housing in the province. The only rental housing that we see coming on the rental market is condominiums and secondary suites. We have a committee of both experts looking at standards and policy-makers looking at the issue of secondary suites, in recognition of the fact that secondary suites provide a considerable number of affordable housing units for families. If the member has a more specific question, I'd be happy to answer.
K. Jones: I think the minister has indicated that there is a serious problem, where there's a reduction in the incentives for people to provide single-family residential rentals. Single-family residential rentals are probably one of the most-needed types of housing in our communities, because they provide a family upbringing location appropriate to most people's needs. Condos and secondary suites are totally inadequate for family upbringing. Unfortunately, they are the only things available today. In many cases they are substandard or very old facilities that have been converted from condos to rentals. There is a very serious problem in this area, and I don't see what the ministry is doing to address it.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The problem is a very complex one. We've looked at a number of studies that indicate that the most significant impact on the production of rental stock has to do with the price of land; therefore we are involved directly not only with Crown land policy at the provincial level, but also with municipalities in trying to provide them opportunities to make land more accessible, and the possibility of underwriting costs for affordable, non-market housing.
In addition to the cost of land, which is driving up the cost of housing, obviously the issues around borrowing money have been significant in impeding the development of rental housing. The recent reduction of mortgage rates is one reason we've seen an increase in the development of housing. Unfortunately, the market is still such that there is a marked difference between producing rental housing and the amount that people can pay for rent. When we're talking about the condominium market, one of the reasons that particular market has significantly skewed the vacancy in the rental housing field is that many of those condominiums have come onto the market for higher rates than the average family can afford.
As I said to the member, it is complex. The strategy that we have in place will impact a number of those issues I have mentioned, as well as many more. I understand the Chair is getting anxious.
K. Jones: You don't want to carry on?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would be more than happy to go through lunch, actually, but....
The Chair: Hon. members, we have agreed in the past that, in fact, we normally rise at 11:30. It is now 11:45. I extended it because of the nature of the discussion.
[11:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]