1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9795 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sound Public Spending by Government

(Bill M205). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9795

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

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9796

An Act to Enforce Pollution Offences and Create an Environmental

Protection Fund (Bill M206). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9796

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

Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9796

Oral Questions

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

Severance payments. Mr. Clark –– 9797

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

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

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

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

Tabling Documents –– 9799

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9799

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Bruce

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Many of us in the House have had the privilege of meeting last evening

or today with His Excellency Brian Fall, the newly appointed High

Commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada. Mr. Fall is in the

Legislature with us at the moment, and I'd like the House to welcome

him and his wife, Delmar Fall, and also Mr. Tony Joy, the

consul-general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver.

MR. ROSE :

On behalf of the loyal opposition, I would like to echo the welcome to

British Columbia expressed by the Minister of Finance. We had a meeting

this morning and also a very enjoyable lunch. I'm sorry the Minister of

Finance wasn't able to be there for it, but he probably had other more

important things to do. We enjoyed our luncheon, and we enjoyed meeting

these distinguished Britons. We hope their stay in Canada will be

enjoyable, and that they go to Salmon Arm by way of the Okanagan.

MR. DE JONG :

I am pleased to ask you to welcome several raspberry growers from

Central Fraser Valley who are here today visiting several members of

the Social Credit caucus. Together with the first member for Central

Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck), I would like to introduce them to the

House at this point. Their names are as follows: Jatinder Sidhu, Hardev

Bath, Gurpal Gosal, Norm Sangha, Nurmal Sivia, Avtar Mann, Chiminder

Malli and Steve Thompson from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who

is accompanying them. I would ask the House to give them a pleasant

welcome.

MR. BARLEE : I would also like to echo the

greetings by the second member for Central Fraser Valley to the

hard-working raspberry growers from the Fraser Valley. We're glad

you're here.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery are two very good friends of mine, residents of Aldergrove.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Cheryl Strongitharm and

Rich Coleman to the precincts.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr.

Speaker, I won't repeat all the names of the raspberry growers, but

many of them are prominent members of the Indo-Canadian community, and

I'd just like to welcome them with a warm "sas ri akal."

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, we have some very special guests in the gallery

today visiting us from the city of Morioka in Japan. Morioka has a twin in its

Victoria sister city. The distinguished guests are the Hon. Diazo Ohta, the

mayor of Morioka, Mr. Ito, chairman of the municipal assembly in that city,

Mr. Anbo, director of general affairs for the municipal assembly, and Mr. Kawamata,

principal secretary to the mayor. Accompanying the delegation is Ald. Janet

Baird from the city of Victoria and Mr. Jay Rangel, chairman of the Victoria

sister city advisory and liaison committee.

This

is a very special visit. Our friends from Japan, in a cultural

exchange, have brought artisans with them and will be having a number

of meetings in our beautiful city. I would like both sides of the House

to welcome our friends from Morioka.

MR. PERRY : Mr.

Speaker, with your indulgence I'd also like to welcome the raspberry

growers, because albeit an amateur I'm also a raspberry grower, and my

father is one of the most accomplished raspberry growers in my riding,

so I'm glad to see them here. I share many of their interests.

MR. GUNO :

I don't get an opportunity very much to introduce anyone from Atlin,

but I'm pleased to introduce to the House a special guest of mine, my

son Norman, who is visiting from Terrace. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming him.

MR. ROSE : I won't take very long with

this, Mr. Speaker. A venerable member of the press gallery, Hubert

Beyer, had a quadruple-bypass heart operation yesterday down in

Seattle. Apparently he's sore all over after the surgery, but it's a

piece of cake compared to the aftermath. He's apparently doing very

well and expects to be on his feet today. I wondered if perhaps we

could have unanimous consent to send him a telegram at the University

of Washington Medical Center.

You'd be interested to know

that one of the wags in the press gallery had this appended to the

update on Hubert Beyer: "Hubert, you're lucky the Highways ministry

didn't do your bypass. There's no telling how much it would have cost

and/or where the gravel could have ended up."

MR. SPEAKER :

If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will send the appropriate

message on behalf of all members. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye.

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair will look after that.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTALLY

SOUND PUBLIC SPENDING BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sound Public Spending by Government.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, government and Crown corporations spend millions of tax

dollars on paper products each year. This bill provides incentives for

the B.C. pulp industry to move quickly to sharply reduce the levels of

toxic chemicals in their

[ Page 9796 ]

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

does so by requiring the B.C. government to encourage the production of

environmentally sound products as follows. It requires that government,

after 1992 or such earlier time as they become available, purchase only

products made by pulp mills that meet the stiff standards for pulp

pollution proposed in the Pulp Pollution Prevention Act. Secondly, it

requires that prior to 1992, the government purchase recycled paper

with a high post-consumer content. Thirdly, It establishes a public

spending advisory group to review products commonly used by government,

to set environmentally sound standards and to require that government

purchase only products that meet those standards.

Bill M205

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce today the Financial Institutions

Statutes Amendment Act, 1990. This bill amends the Financial

Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act, which were

passed in the 1989 session of the Legislature. The Financial

Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act establish a

modem, balanced regulatory framework to govern financial institutions

in this province.

This bill amends oversights, corrects

errors and clarifies uncertainties in the Financial Institutions Act

and the Credit Union Incorporation Act which have come to light during

continued consultation with the affected industry and the public over

the past year. I commend this bill for your consideration, and I move

the bill be introduced and read for the first time now

Bill

32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO ENFORCE POLLUTION OFFENCES

AND CREATE AN ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION FUND

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Enforce Pollution Offences and Create an Environmental Protection Fund.

MR. CASHORE :

This bill gives courts far greater enforcement powers and strengthens

the deterrent effect of fines for environmental offences. Environmental

offenders will encounter a greatly strengthened court system enabled to

act swiftly and effectively. Courts will be able to require polluters

to publicize the offence, post bonds, pay for preventive action and

cleanup costs, perform community service, fund research into ecological

effects, and disclose financial records. The court may order the

polluter to pay compensation to persons injured by the pollution. Where

it appears that the polluter is about to commit an offence, the court

is given power to issue a restraining order.

The bill also

sets penalties for pollution offences at up to $1 million. Where a

polluter has wilfully committed an offence, a maximum fine of $5

million and a jail term of five years may be imposed. Under this bill,

all fines collected from polluters are to be paid into an environmental

protection fund, to be used for environmental enhancement projects,

preventive environmental action, research and development, and

environmental cleanup.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PREVENT THE

CONTAMINATION OF LAND AND WATER

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Prevent the Contamination of Land and Water.

MR. CASHORE :

This bill prevents the contamination of land and inland and coastal

waters in British Columbia by prohibiting the dumping of toxic,

hazardous and dangerous wastes, and by creating a mechanism for cleanup

of contaminated sites. A B.C. polluter-pay fund is created, funded by

industrial contributors to hazardous wastes. It shall be used for the

cleanup of dumping-grounds and orphan sites, and to accelerate research

and development into environmentally sound methods of hazardous waste

disposal.

It further enables cleanup costs to be recovered

from present and past owners and other responsible parties by cutting

through legal red tape, to ensure that cleanup takes place and costs

are recovered wherever possible. Owners of land used for industrial

purposes or as dumping-grounds must test for the presence of toxic

substances prior to redevelopment of the land. Sellers of land known to

be contaminated are required to disclose such information to any

prospective buyer.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

RENTAL AND SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY

MR. BLENCOE :

I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Despite what your

government's glossy TV ads claim, it's clear that your housing

programs, are not working and that they are an abject failure.

[ Page 9797 ]

Figures

released by CMHC show that we have the lowest rate in Canada — a zero

vacancy rate in key parts of the province — and no indication that

things will improve. Has the minister decided to increase his

ministry's creation of affordable housing to help B.C. renters find a

home? Has he decided to live up to the TV ads that he is putting on

television every night?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker,

I would like to begin by asking that member whether he is so concerned

about housing that he would go to Esquimalt council and ask why they

turned down a social housing project just the other day. That is just

one example that I face in trying to get housing on the market. It is

not just the provincial government; it is also the municipal

government. It is also up to the individuals on that side of the House

and on this side of the House to phone their aldermen and their mayors

and ask that these housing units proceed as they ought to in a time of

crisis.

Secondly, I would like to say.... I wish the member

would be quiet. A question was asked; please be kind enough to listen

while I answer it. I would also like to say that when we announce

housing projects or announce that we have moneys available to build —

whether it's rental supply or social housing — we expect that the

developer and the municipalities will cooperate. Other than that, all I

can do is say that the money is available and that so many units have

the green light to go ahead. Don't shake your head, member.

Mr.

Speaker, to ask a question and shake his head.... How would he produce

a house? It isn't done by talking and yapping; it's done by building a

house. We've got the green light to go ahead.

Interjections.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister should check his budget. For the entire province, 0.27

percent of the budget is to be spent on social housing — $35 million

That's the problem. Blame local government and everybody else for your

problems.

Supplementary to the minister. Last Wednesday,

the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) said that the

housing situation is slowly going away. Yet renters all over the

province, including the Fraser Valley, are phoning crisis line after

crisis line trying to find a place to live. A question to the minister:

what steps has the Minister of Social Services and Housing decided to

take to help find affordable housing for renters, or is he prepared to

leave them on the street until the market somehow miraculously provides

a home for the people in need of housing in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK :

The member is asking about social housing; he's asking about rental

housing in general. We don't really get involved with the private

sector developing housing starts. There were 40,000 housing starts in

the private sector last year. That's all rental housing or housing for

someone by the private sector.

We came in with social

housing. We take our full allotment that we can get from the federal

government under the social housing program, which until this year has

been roughly 1,886 units per year since 1985. That is a good program.

They've cut us back by 15 percent.

I had an appointment to

meet with Mr. Redway last Monday and Tuesday. About an hour before we

were getting ready to leave, we got notice that the meeting was

cancelled because one of the provinces would not agree to a fair share

of allocation for social housing. Perhaps again the member who is

responsible in the federal government — which is the MP of their own

kind — might take that message back to Ottawa to try and get a larger

allotment.

As far as the rental supply program is

concerned, by the end of the year we should have another 1,200 units

completed. To date, there are roughly 800 complete and under

construction.

So the program is working well, but I can't

move these people fast enough to get the zoning, to get their okays,

their green light, from the municipal governments — and the member

should know that very well, because he used to serve in municipal

government. Since he left that office, he somehow no longer has a

connection and feels it is up to me to go hammer and nails in hand and

build a house. It doesn't work that way.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

MR. CLARK :

A question for the Minister of Government Management Services. Can the

minister confirm that over the last five years the government has paid

out over $30 million in severance payments to non-bargaining-unit

employees?

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

MR. CLARK :

Has the minister decided to table in the House the severance formula

used to award this incredible amount of government largesse?

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

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, the minister can give cute answers. The questions are

simple. Can she confirm or will she undertake to confirm in this House

that the government has spent over $30 million in severance payments to

non-bargaining-unit employees, and will she tell the House what the

formula was for arriving at this phenomenal amount of public money

being given to former employees of this administration?

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

[ Page 9798 ]

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

MR. CLARK :

Thank you. A new question to the minister. While she's reviewing the

question — bringing it back as a question on notice — will the minister

finally come clean and inform the House how much of this $30 million

went specifically to David Poole and table in the House his full

severance package?

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS

FOR INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

MR. SIHOTA :

The independent trucking industry is virtually on the verge of chaos.

Independent truckers are denied the ability to organize and affect

their working conditions, a right that is available under the Canada

labour relations act but not under B.C. legislation. My question is to

the Minister of Labour. Does the minister not agree with the need to

provide full collective bargaining rights to independent truckers?

Interjections.

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

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The Chair and all members would have been assisted if,

when the member stood, he had advised the House and everyone listening

to which minister the question was addressed.

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

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. You can read the Blues and read what the member had to

say in the fullness of time. The question was addressed to the Minister

of Labour. The Minister of Labour may wish to respond.

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

MR. SIHOTA :

For the benefit of the minister, the minister knows that the

independent trucking industry does not have the ability to form a trade

union or to engage in collective bargaining, by prohibitions under

provincial legislation. Does the minister not agree, given the state of

that industry now, that there exists a need to provide full collective

bargaining rights to independent truckers?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I think the question would require a great deal of discussion and a

great deal of thought. It is not something I would be prepared to give

an answer to at this particular time.

PAYMENT TO FORMER NDP EMPLOYEE

MR. VANT :

I have a very succinct question for the Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations. Respecting the Jim Hayes affair, will the minister

advise the House how this $125,000 settlement was reached? Was Mr.

Hayes fired, and if so, who fired him, who negotiated the secret deal

and who asked for the expenditure of public funds?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm having some difficulty getting to the root of this secret deal,

insofar as the Leader of the Opposition is absent from the House yet

another day. Obviously, he's a key player in such a discussion. I have

determined, at least, that there were two years involved. Apparently,

for some reason I can't fathom, these sums are hidden in the accounts

of two successive years. In any event, I can't bring any further

clarification to the House on this secret deal until the Leader of the

Opposition returns once more so he might throw some light on this

mysterious event.

CANDIDATE'S ADVERTISING CLAIM

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Attorney-General. Diane Hartwick is a Social Credit

candidate in West Vancouver. She recently placed an ad that stated,

"Money alone cannot buy a clean candidate," obviously referring to the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). This ad has cast a cloud

of suspicion over the Minister of Environment. Has the

Attorney-General's staff interviewed Ms. Hartwick to determine if she

has any evidence to back up her advertising claim?

HON. MR. SMITH :

The premise to the question is so outrageously false, silly,

presumptuous and indecent that until and unless the premise is

withdrawn, I would be ill-advised to dignify it with an answer.

SILVICULTURE AND ANNUAL ALLOWABLE CUT

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Minister of Forests. Two weeks ago in the House the

minister, in response to my question, said that the ministry is

practising intensive silviculture and that that would allow an increase

in the annual allowable cut within the next few years. Last Thursday,

ministry staff indicated to the Forest Resources Commission that less

than 10 percent of the silviculture budget is being used for intensive

silviculture. Would the minister now agree that the statement he made

about an increase in the AAC in the next few years is simply not true?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

No. The answer I gave is still valid; it's still quite true. We are

practising intensive silviculture. We intend to get more and more into

it, especially if we can strike a deal with the federal government.

It's been impossible to date to

[ Page 9799 ]

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

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

MR. MILLER :

Supplementary to the Minister of Forests. The Ministry of Forests staff

advised the Forest Resources Commission last Thursday that the Queen

Charlotte Islands timber supply area faces "an imminent falldown." Mr.

Minister, this is one of the best growing sites in British Columbia.

Why are they facing an imminent falldown in their timber supply if, in

fact, you're practising intensive silviculture?

[2:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer to the member's question is that while

it's probably the finest growing site for softwood lumber anywhere in

the world, it does take a few years to grow a tree, even on the Queen

Charlotte Islands. I think the member should know that.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled a

summary of the borrowing amounts for the purpose

of government operations for the '89-90 fiscal year, in accordance with

section 43(2) of the Financial Administration Act; a report summarizing

amounts borrowed by the government in currency other than Canadian or

U.S. dollars for the '89-90 fiscal year, in accordance with

section

45(3) of the Financial Administration Act; and a set of statements

regarding borrowings, loans to government bodies and payments out of a

special fund for the 1989-90 fiscal year, in accordance with

section

41(6) of the Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, I want to do some housing discussion this afternoon. There

will be others of my colleagues who want to join the debate on this

very important topic, because the evidence is now in from various

recording agencies that the current government's housing program is in

tatters. We have shown that it is extremely thin and, indeed, the

latest vacancy rate announcements by CMHC show that this government has

not done what it's claiming to do in its TV advertising and in the

millions of dollars it spends to convince the people of British

Columbia that it has a housing program.

I want to ask the

Minister of Social Services and Housing right off the bat: what

happened to two years of announcements? What happened to recycled news

releases? What happened to all those promises in the last budget of an

action plan on housing and supposedly this budget — a billion dollars

for housing? Why this dismal showing now in our vacancy rate?

Spiralling rent increases and all sorts of demolitions, evictions and

people in crisis in terms of housing....

What happened to

this government's program, and when is it going to finally recognize

that it has to do a real housing program in British Columbia? Could we

get the minister to tell us what happened?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, the question is asked: what happened? Another statement

was made about recycled housing announcements, and on both counts he's

very wrong. Much has happened in this period of time.

announced a billion dollar housing strategy program, and that

particular program — which the member well knows — is not just housing

construction but anything related to housing, whether it is shelter

relief, rental supply or social housing.

I can go over

this, and perhaps I should. A billion dollars was increased from last

year — a $120 million increase — to help British Columbians meet market

determined prices for housing, to increase the supply of rental

housing, to help British Columbians buy and maintain their homes and to

maximize the participation of the private sector in the meeting of

housing needs.

The program is divided into three areas: the

rental supply assistance program, the rental assistance and the home

ownership. In the rental assistance program, we had social housing.

Yes, the budget was $35.7 million, or it will be in 1991. Since 1986 we

have filled the total allotment that was given to us and fought hard at

every turn to have that increased.

This year I have

announced in various media and here in the House that we've been cut

back 15 percent, which is a large amount of housing when there is such

a crucial need, particularly in British Columbia at this time.

should also mention at this time that we have just under 60,000

subsidized housing units in British Columbia. The member also knows

that. He knows everything I'm going to say, but he keeps twisting and

turning and doesn't want to know the facts. He just wants to ask

questions and doesn't want answers. He says he wants answers, but

really he doesn't.

We also have to realize that in 1989 we

had a net in-migration to this province of approximately 60,000 people.

It's easy to shrug that off and say: "What does it matter? An extra

60,000 people really has no impact." But we only have three million

people in

[ Page 9800 ]

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

That

member knows very well — at least he should know — that you can't

provide housing overnight; it takes a long time. There is no miracle

fix for putting up housing; it takes a long time. Therefore we have the

programs in place that will alleviate — and have already begun to

alleviate — a lot of that pressure.

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

have the program for independence; that's the shelter allowance under

the GAIN program. That is also housing, where we provide moneys for

people from age 19 to 64 who have a problem paying their rent. The

maximum shelter allowance will be increased this year, as I mentioned

yesterday in the House. These are reviewed every year. We have the

shelter aid for seniors, SAFER, and there will be an announcement made

very soon on the increase of that this year.

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

HON. MR. VEITCH : How much?

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

The

shelter — that's the SAFER program — total budget for '90-91 is $14.7

million. We lowered the age from 65 to 60, so people 60 years and up

can apply for the shelter allowance. It is then reviewed, and if

they're eligible they will receive that.

In '89-90, under

the SAFER program, we assisted 9,130 senior citizens in one year. The

member can sit on that side, mock the programs and say: "Where is the

billion dollars?" I can tell him that it is made up of various pieces

of very large expenditures.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I wouldn't think that if you told a senior citizen who is getting

SAFER.... If you asked any one of those 9,130 senior citizens whether

their senior cheque, which was doubled last year, is smoke and

mirrors....

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

The

renters' tax deduction: $24 million is allocated this year for rental

tax deduction. That is not a small piece of change. This program has

been enhanced from 1990 due to the shortage of affordable rental

housing, and it was increased from $200 to $225.

For

example, a family of four with a net income of $30,000, who would have

received a tax deduction of $289, this year will have a tax deduction

of a greater amount. An additional 40,000 individuals and families who

rent will be eligible for the expanded program, bringing a total number

of beneficiaries to 120,000 this year.

That is not smoke

and mirrors. How can a member say that's smoke and mirrors, when we're

talking about assisting 120,000 people under this portion of the

program alone? How can that be smoke and mirrors?

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

No, I'm going to put it on the record. The residential tenancy branch

extension of services, which comes under the Ministry of Labour and

Consumer Services, is $2.3 million. In the rental supply program this

year we will only spend $6.9 million, because we only spend that

portion that is due this year under the construction that becomes

available. But listen, I've got $80 million of this; houses can be

built this year. I have an allocation of $80 million that can be spent

at this time. Eighty million dollars isn't smoke and mirrors, and this

is just the enhancement or the subsidization of some interest for the

development of this housing.

Business immigration program.

It appears now that we will be able to use a good chunk of that money

for social housing, for affordable housing, and I am very pleased. We

haven't got the final approval yet from the federal minister, but it

appears that this money will be coming through.

Start-up

grants for non-profit senior citizens — we have $20,000 per project for

development. If senior citizens want to put up a housing project, we

will advance some money to get it off the ground, because they may not

have the wherewithal or the knowledge to do that.

For the

homeowner grant program there is $418 million for '90-91, and that was

increased $50 in '89 to $430. For seniors, persons with disabilities

and others entitled to the supplementary grant, it was increased by $70

to $700.

I am putting this in for the record — not that I'm

trying to answer the individual's question, because he knows all this.

He has all this information. And he can also receive any other

information that he may desire if he just asks for it.

With

the land tax deferment program, homeowners who are 60 years of age or

older can defer their taxes, and it will be added to their property

taxes at the time when they wish to sell or move, or when the estate

may want to get rid of it. At present we have 3,700 people who

have taken advantage of the tax deferment program. And that was a

budget of $3 million.

[2:45]

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

[ Page 9801 ]

$150,000

or less. And for those people who are eligible because of their low

down payment, that has now been increased to $200,000. An additional —

we believe — 5,000 homeowners in '90-91 will cost approximately an

extra $4 million.

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

can go on and on about housing. When the individual mentions about

regurgitating announcements, that is absolutely false. He knows that. I

don't have to repeat it; I have said it many times in this House. We

announced there are 8,000 units available to be built under the

subsidization of interest — as fast as they can be built and as long as

they meet the criteria. The biggest roadblocks we have to date are two

things: one is the zoning; and secondly, of course, the requirement

that financing be arranged through a financial institution — which

sometimes takes a while to do.

So when we talk about

housing, I think there has never been in history a government that has

done as much for housing as we have done this last year and a half. But

it takes a long time to get housing on the market. I have been in this

business; I know what it takes. I have been through many of the hoops

that he is speaking about, and he knows it very well himself.

just wish the people on that side of the House would help me when it

comes to their particular community — to go out there and say, '"Why

are you not zoning these particular properties? The pressure is on.

There are people in the community who have no place to live, and we

want to help them." Rather than criticizing and rather than talking

smoke and mirrors — and that's all he's doing — he would serve the

public much better by helping me, as the minister in this portfolio,

and see if we could get some housing on the road quickly.

MR. BLENCOE :

I just wish every British Columbian in need of housing today — every

one of the million tenants in the province today who is subject to any

rent increase, every young British Columbian who wants to buy a first

home, every British Columbian who is about to face a demolition or an

eviction because of condominium conversion.... I'd like them to hear

you talk about your marvellous housing program.

Here is the

reality of what this government is doing: great big TV ads — millions

of dollars expended on misleading advertising. "A billion dollars for

the construction of affordable housing. We're going to house you; we're

going to help you."

When we take a look at the numbers, do

you know how much this government increased the affordable housing

construction program this year? It was $5.6 million. That's all you

increased that budget by. And yet they are saying they are spending a

billion dollars on housing.

We have the worst housing

crisis in the country, the worst vacancy rate, the worst rent increases

and the worst gouging. We lack rent review and the rentalsman. And this

minister had the audacity to say they are doing all these wonderful

things for the people of British Columbia. At the same time, what does

he do? He makes excuse after excuse after excuse for the abject failure

of their programs.

HON. MR. DUECK : A point of order.

He said: "The worst gouging." He mentioned in turn the ministry and the

minister on many items, and one was "the worst gouging." I certainly

haven't gouged anybody, for gosh sakes. So if that's the case — if I

heard him correctly — I certainly would ask him to withdraw.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

No. Indeed not, Mr. Chairman. I was talking about — as I have tabled in

this House and brought up in question period — massive rent increases,

clear gouging by owners who are taking advantage of the tight market.

Most

landlords are fair and reasonable. But some landlords, some owners, are

taking advantage, and this minister knows that. Yet this government is

prepared — and there's the other minister responsible for residential

tenancy in British Columbia. They sit on the sidelines and allow our

one million tenants and their families to be put into a position where

any rent increase is permitted in the province.

I want to

get back to what I consider to be smoke and mirrors, to what I consider

to, be misleading, to what I consider to be misrepresentation of the

real facts in terms of what's happening in housing in the province

vis--vis this government. First, they are saying $1 billion for

housing, giving the impression that $1 billion is going to be spent on

creating housing. That is not accurate. Take a look at the budget. Take

a look at the figures, and you can see where the money is coming from.

It's coming from existing programs, existing ministries. It's not for

housing construction. Indeed, there is $5 million extra for affordable

housing construction.

A miserable, paltry sum of $35.7

million for affordable housing in British Columbia. That's all. This

government, through its property purchase tax, is taking the money out

from young British Columbians who are buying their first home, and this

government is going to make in excess of $330 million on that property

purchase tax. They can only give back $35 million to create affordable

housing. Nearly $340 million is estimated in property purchase tax for

that awful tax on young people buying their first home, and all they

can return to create affordable housing is $35.7 million, an increase

of just over $5 million over last year.

Those are the

facts, and that's the reality. This government should go on television

with their ads and say: "What we're doing in affordable housing

construction is not what we've been telling you for the last month."

What they're doing in affordable housing is spending 0.27 percent of

the provincial budget for housing — not a billion dollars. It's totally

misleading, a total misrepresentation of the facts, and it's time this

government.... We've asked other

[ Page 9802 ]

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

Can

you imagine a tenant in British Columbia facing huge rent increases

with nowhere to go? This government's answer in the past has been: "If

you've got a huge rent increase, you can always move." That's this

minister's current attitude, I'm sure: "Oh well, they can always move."

Where do they go? Where do they move to? There's nowhere to go. There's

certainly hardly any affordable housing being built by the provincial

government. A paltry $35 million. Heavens, the property purchase tax is

taking $340 million a year out of young British Columbians. They can't

even return a fraction of that horrible, obnoxious tax back into

affordable housing. A total of 0.27 percent of this provincial Socred

budget is for affordable housing. It's scandalous.

Every

night we see the minister or whoever coming on television telling the

people: "We're spending a billion dollars to create housing. We're

going to help you and those young British Columbians to get all the

housing you want." Take a look at the reality. Take a look at the real

facts.

Let me add, and I'll get to this in more detail in a

minute, that the other so-called affordable housing component is the

rental supply program, but the minister won't dare call that

affordable. He knows the rental supply program that's subsidizing the

developer will rent at between $800 and $1,000 a month. He dare not

call that affordable.

HON. MR. DUECK : We never did.

MR. BLENCOE :

That was going to be your answer to affordable housing, Mr. Minister.

Now we have it. They never called the housing programs affordable, and

that's the truth. That's the reality coming out today. They never

intended to create affordable housing.

Mr. Chairman, $35

million is $5 million more than last year for social housing. We have

the worst housing track record in the province, the worst vacancy rate,

the worst kind of gouging we've ever seen in the history of this

province. We see senior citizens.... A minute ago the minister said he

knows more about seniors. I'll tell you, I've got the highest

proportion of senior citizens in the country per capita in my riding. I

deal with seniors every day. It's the highest proportion per capita in

the country in my riding. Every day they're coming to me and saying:

"Why doesn't that Minister of Housing, why doesn't that residential

tenancy minister, why don't those two ministers at least have a rent

review procedure? Why don't they allow that?"

Let me ask a

question. There are a number of things I want to get to this afternoon,

but let me ask a question of the minister. He's talking about senior

citizens. I've got a question to the Minister of Housing, who's so

concerned about senior citizens. I want him to talk to my tenants — his

tenants, his constituents, your constituents — who are facing say a 40

or 50 percent rent increase in their homes. It's clearly taking

advantage of the market, clearly a gouge, clearly unfair. I have them;

I've documented them; I will provide them to the minister. He knows

about them.

If a senior citizen, or a group of seniors in a

building, come to the minister and say they can prove that their rent

increase of 30 or 40 or 50 percent — and we have them that high; I have

one, and I will use it again today, of $310 to $610 a month — is

unfair, why won't you have a mechanism to review that rent increase?

Why won't you have a democratic system of review of these unfair rent

increases?

So far, Mr. Chairman, this government has

refused to introduce a democratic system of rent review between

landlord and tenant. They just refuse. They say I'm talking rent

control.

HON. MR. SMITH : Sure you are.

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

the minister has a senior citizen come to him and say: "Mr. Minister,

I've got a huge rent increase; it's clearly unfair; I can show every

evidence that it's unjustified," how does the minister say no to that

senior who is paying 70 to 80 percent of his income now for housing?

How can he say he shouldn't have a review of that increase?

Does

he tell him to go look elsewhere? There's nowhere else to go. Does he

tell him to go find an apartment that only takes 60 percent of his

income? Is that what he says?

How does he face those senior

citizens who are getting massive rent increases that are eating up

their incomes? Some of them are 60 to 70 percent. How does he face

them? Does he say: "Well, I'm sorry, senior citizen; we believe in the

market. We believe in everything they do to you because that's the

market. We don't believe in a review and a fair system for our seniors."

The

minister might even agree privately that it's unfair. Heaven forbid, we

had this minister over here go quietly to a Social Credit landlord and

concoct a rent review behind the scenes and roll it back, to turn it

into a political game show, to try and get to us; a political game show

with tenants in Oak Bay riding. He did an unofficial rent review, Mr.

Chairman.

When he was asked by me and asked by the fourth

estate if he had done a rent review.... And the question I had put to

him through the media was: "If you do it for one group, why can't you

do it for all?" You know what he said? He said rent review was

dangerous, but that he'd do it behind the scenes with his Socred

landlord friends, and play a political game with it.

They

don't have the guts or the determination to do what they did quietly

with insiders in backroom deals in a public fashion for all the people

of the province. They don't have the ability or the determination to do

that.

[3:00]

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

[ Page 9803 ]

home,

for 15 to 20 years and who is facing a 40, 50 or 60 percent rent

increase. And we've got them; I've got them; I can show you lots of

them. I'm sure he's got them in his riding.

As a matter of

fact, in his part of the world now they have a crisis line, and they're

shutting the crisis lines down because they can't deal with the

requests anymore. They've been told a billion dollars is being spent on

housing, but we now find that the reality is that only $5 million more

is being spent for affordable housing. How does he face those seniors

and say they can't have rent review?

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

It's

interesting in this place how the adversarial system in our parliament

works. We have here today a situation of a very sensible and

experienced minister, who is himself a senior citizen, talking about

issues relating to seniors. On the other side of the House, we have a

noisy, vibrant, unctuous, jittery young chap who takes a scatter-gun

approach to the issue, but who discloses by the way he does it that he

really doesn't have the maturity and, I say with respect, the common

sense that the minister has.

But the question I have for

the minister is this. First of all, I'm wondering if the minister could

advise the House — because I know that the first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) is very interested in this matter;

she raised it earlier today — on the limitations that will be placed on

the provincial budget with respect to CAP.

I'd be curious

to know what impact, if any, that will have on your ministry, through

you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, not so much in terms of the social

services side, but in terms of the shelter side — particularly, I

suppose, the shelter allowance, and maybe even other programs that

would impact you.

So that is the one matter that I think is

important that we get out on the table, because it relates to the

second half of my question, which is this. You alluded to meetings that

you have arranged with your federal counterpart, Mr. Redway, in

relation to developing an agreement for housing, and you indicated that

agreement had not been reached yet. I'm wondering if you could share

with the House how long those negotiations have been going on, and what

in your view is the stumbling block to agreement.

This is

not a partisan issue, when we go to make agreement with Canada; it is a

British Columbia issue, and it's important for citizens to know who

speaks on behalf of British Columbians. I'm wondering if you could

advise the House what assistance in negotiating, supporting or

furthering British Columbia's cause in Ottawa you have received from

John Brewin, David Barrett and Lynn Hunter, as representatives of the

people in Ottawa from this greater Victoria area.

dealing with matters that go on in Ottawa and in relation to

federal-provincial issues, one of the things that I have always had

much admiration for with respect to Quebec on these contracts is that

when a member goes to Ottawa from Quebec, he or she speaks to the

interests of Quebec first and foremost, and to partisan considerations

second.

I think that we have not served ourselves well from

British Columbia in our nation's capital by frequently having people go

down there who speak to partisan interests first and to British

Columbia interests second. I know that there are a number of members,

who now are elected, who have expressed a desire to change that

phenomenon.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could

share with the House, in terms of this agreement he's trying to

negotiate, what assistance he has received from those members from this

area, where the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has said

there's a problem — MPs John Brewin, David Barrett and Lynn Hunter —

and what information they have sought from him so that they could

further the interests of the senior citizens living in this area in

Ottawa.

HON. MR. DUECK : The CAP program, of course,

will affect my ministry quite a bit, depending on how the economy grows

and whether we have a downturn and more money is required in various

areas. As far as the housing in particular is concerned, CAP will

affect, for example, the shelter allowance. We heard from the federal

government in a recent announcement that the CAP program would be held

at a baseline of last year plus no more than 5 percent for the next two

years — 5 percent for each year for the next two years.

That

doesn't sound like an awful lot, but we have to take it in context,

because last year our baseline was very low. If they had taken a

baseline some years ago and said 5 percent, we would have been in good

shape. But we had a very low caseload. It was dropping, and it's still

dropping. So to use that as the baseline and say you cannot have any

more than 5 percent is very harmful to my ministry, and it's going to

have a great impact.

I also want to say that the agreement

itself.... I think the Attorney-General probably knows better than I do

that the agreement we signed many years ago was an agreement that

should not be altered. We should be given one year's notice, I

understand, and any alterations would be by agreement. As everyone

knows, we have taken that to the courts. Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta,

ourselves and the native community have joined in a protest to....

Pardon me?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK : A reference. Okay.

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

Yes,

it will have a great impact, and perhaps the impact will be a lot

greater if the economy should turn and we have an increase in clients

and the caseload. Yes, we will be in trouble.

As far as the

impact on the social housing end of it.... I think the federal Housing

minister is a very sincere person, and I think he would like to do

everything he can. There was an agreement signed —

[ Page 9804 ]

believe In 1986 — which was called the Regina Accord. This particular

agreement was signed by British Columbia, and the reason we entered

into this particular agreement was that we couldn't get unanimity from

all the provinces to get on with it and not be stalemated. We agreed —

provided they would open it up within a year and look at that issue

again to give us the fair share of the housing market. That was agreed

upon by every province at that meeting.

We've tried for

four years. I've been at a number of these meetings, and we seem to

come to an agreement until we get together as ministers. There's one

province in particular that vetoes it every time, and away it goes

again. We can't come to an agreement, so not only did we lose the fair

share that we should have, but they have now decreased it by 15 percent.

MR. BLENCOE : More excuses.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, a question was asked exactly on housing, and I wish that

he would pay attention. If he doesn't want to, I can sit down. That

doesn't bother me.

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

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

same issues.

MR. BLENCOE : No, no, no.

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

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

Anyway, as I said before, it is not smoke and mirrors. We have $80

million. I've got authority to spend $80 million. If that can be spent

in the next two months, that's fine. The money is allocated. It may not

show up in the budget, because houses can't be built that quickly. If

someone could show me that they can put 8,000 units up....

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

I said that they weren't social housing. They were market rents, and

for the working people to create vacancies so that in fact people have

a place to live. Your same question was: where will these people go?

You weren't talking just about seniors or poor people; you were talking

about rental in general. You change your tune every time it comes to a

certain question. Then you say: "Oh no, that was social housing." Then

we talk about something else. Then it's suddenly market rents — not

affordable. So make up your mind. Which one do you want to talk about?

Do you want to talk about social housing? Do you want to talk about

rental in the area for everyone? Or do you want to talk about housing

at all?

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

That's another question that I would very much like.... I offered the

invitation, and I mean this very sincerely. Housing shouldn't be

something that we play football with, which we're doing right now. That

member knows. He's been on municipal council, and he knows how many

times he's turned down projects. He knows that. I've been on city

council. I've been in the development business. I know. I've taken

projects forward. I know how the whole process works and how long it

takes, and when I hear again just a few days ago that we had some

housing projects turned down again by Esquimalt, it makes me sick. It

literally makes me sick to think that we have a crisis, and that that

member who's speaking from the greater Victoria area.... His own

communities have turned them down again and again and again. Then he

has the audacity to get up and say: "What are you doing about housing?"

It takes all of us, every one of us.

He was talking about

rental price reviews, which is not my ministry, but I would just like

to put this on record again: an independent survey was done in Ontario,

where they have rent control. To begin with it was supposed to cost

somewhere between $5 million and $7 million total to put in a rent

control system. Last year they spent $40 million in administration on

rent control alone. So they did a survey, and they said: "Let's just

find out what the atmosphere is out there and what people are saying

about rent control. How is it affecting the market? Is it affecting

rentals? Is it affecting construction? Is it affecting people who need

a place to live?" This is what they found: "New apartments needed, but

rent controls interfere"; "Survey shows Ontarians worse off today than

four years ago under rent control"; "New survey finds control unfair to

low income tenants"; "Tenants want right to purchase their apartments —

rent control does not offer this."

[3:15]

Mr. Chairman, the Rental Housing Protection Act will accelerate

urban decay, and they're finding that buildings, because of the rent

control, are going down in maintenance. They are deteriorating and no

one is willing to do anything because there are controls in place, and

no one is willing to gamble and fix up the buildings. Tenants — now

listen to this — see rent controls as hurting apartment availability.

That member has the audacity to say that he wants to put in rent

controls. It's really foolish.

He was talking about

senior citizens. When they have a problem and they have to pay more

than 30 percent of their income for rent, we have a program called

SAFER. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: $14.7 million

was spent last year under the SAFER program. We reduced it to the age

of 60 last year, and last year's average cheque under SAFER doubled.

It's not smoke and mirrors when you double

[ Page 9805 ]

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

Last

year 9,130 senior citizens took advantage of the SAFER program. I've

got a whole file of letters, where seniors have written to me and said:

"If it wasn't for the SAFER program, we would have a hard time. Thank

you for having the SAFER program in place so that we can take advantage

of it and lower our rent in these times of crisis."

I never

said that $1 billion was for the creation of rentals; I have never said

that. I said that it was part of the housing strategy. We're spending

$1 billion in that area.

Here's a letter: "Dear Sir. I

would like to let you know that I received my new SAFER cheque in the

mail this morning. What a big help it is to me with my rent. Mr. Dueck,

the amount was most generous. Thank you so very, very much for this

help. Without it, I could not manage." That's just one of them.

we want to play games, you talk about one senior who's unhappy and I'll

talk about one who's happy; we'll go back and forth and accomplish

absolutely nothing. I'm saying that the SAFER program is working. The

shelter program for those who are unfortunate is working. In general

the programs are working well. I wish the people who represent us in

Ottawa would do their part to help us look after housing and put some

pressure on the federal government so we can get an increase in our

allotment.

MR. BLENCOE : That was very interesting.

I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) got up to be the

minister of defence and allow us to hear his wonderful questions —

non-partisan questions, I might add; very mature questions, unlike a

few days ago, I recall, when we had some name-calling from that same

Attorney-General, the chief law enforcement officer of the land. But

today we had mature, non-partisan questions. Very good — a great

improvement over Friday.

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

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

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

MR. BLENCOE :

If we ever needed a new government, boy, it's being shown today when we

do the Housing estimates. It's time for change in the province. This

minister and the Attorney-General can get up and do all of their

little defence mechanisms, all of their little smoke and mirrors and

dances....

MR. RABBITT : Order!

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

Interjections.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

If you would perhaps call to order those baying hounds, Mr. Chairman, I

could get to the serious business of dealing with housing for the

people of the province.

As I was saying, all of the

defence, the TV ads, the announcements and the news releases can't

cover up the fact that only 0.27 percent of the provincial budget is

going to affordable housing and that this government only spent $5

million more on affordable housing. This government is taking an

estimated $339 million in property purchase taxes out of many young

British Columbians who are trying to get into a home, and they can't

return a small fraction of it to create proper, affordable housing.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

Yes, I am repeating it, because it has to be repeated. Do you know why?

Because this government is spending millions of dollars on misleading

advertising on television. The people of the province are paying for

that. The only answer we have is to indicate in this chamber, and hope

that it will be picked up by the honourable fourth estate and others,

that what they have, in terms of announcing $1 billion for housing

programs, is only $35 million for affordable housing.

still have a question for the Minister of Housing. I want to go back to

rent review. I want to go back to that question, because the

Attorney-General said....

Interjection.

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

This

senior citizen — the Attorney-General told me the minister was a senior

citizen — is not prepared to answer on behalf of senior citizens who

are facing a 50 to 60 percent rent increase. He's not prepared to give

an answer to all those thousands of older British Columbians who are in

their last few years — the Chairman is exempt from my comments, I might

add — and are trying to have a decent lifestyle and have enough money

to enjoy their retirement, and are dealing, in some circumstances, with

very unfair landlords. The minister is saying that rent review doesn't

work, and we'll get to that in a minute.

I want to know how

the minister responds to a senior citizen who's facing a massive rent

increase, clearly unfair, clearly taking advantage and can be

documented. But somehow we can't have rent review. We can't have

somebody fairly take a look at that — as the minister did, I might add,

on one massive rent increase in Victoria. He did it because that

landlord, I guess, was Social Credit and had a direct line to the

minister. They concocted a little deal behind closed doors and said:

"We'll get that member for Victoria; we'll announce a rollback." But he

didn't

[ Page 9806 ]

think:

"I did it for one; perhaps I should look at others." No, he says it's

dangerous for others. He's prepared to do it behind closed doors, a

little inside deal with a Social Credit landlord here in Victoria, but

it's dangerous for others.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : A point

of order, Mr. Chairman. I know that that member does very little

thinking before he speaks, but I think these accusations of a private

little deal behind closed doors are a little much to take. I think he

should withdraw.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

Would I do that, Mr. Chairman? Absolutely not. I would not impugn that

minister. I assume the door was closed and the phone....

MR. CHAIRMAN : A satisfactory answer.

MR. BLENCOE :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The door was closed when he made an agreement

between this Social Credit landlord and himself to roll back the rent

increases. But when asked by me and by the media: "If you're doing it

for that 38 percent rent increase for those senior citizens...." He

said it was fair and reasonable in those circumstances for that

particular building. He announced it here in the Legislature, trying to

score a political point. But when asked if he would have such a rent

review procedure for all British Columbians, the minister said it was

dangerous.

AN HON. MEMBER : Relevancy.

MR. BLENCOE :

It's very relevant, Mr. Chairman, because vacancies are negligible and

rents are skyrocketing. One million seniors and young British

Columbians living in tenancies have no protection.

I want

to ask the senior citizen Minister of Housing today what he thinks

about a senior citizen who gets a 38 percent rent increase — in this

circumstance — or 40 percent or 50 percent, as I can show the

minister... What does he think when he says: "That's very unfair, but I

won't have an official system of review. As the Minister of Housing, I

can't endorse that, because I believe in the marketplace." On the other

hand, he has a colleague who did it unofficially behind.... Sorry, I

don't know if the doors were closed. But they made an arrangemen.t How

does he answer that as the Minister of Housing responsible for tenants

in terms of their housing situation? I know this minister is not

responsible for the actual residential tenancy law, but I assume this

Minister of Housing has some responsibility to those one million

tenants, in terms of their housing accommodation. The Attorney-General

said he was a senior citizen. How do you answer those tenants?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, that last comment, "He claims to be a senior citizen" — I

can show him my birth certificate and prove that I am, if that's what

you want to know. But for every year that I gain a year, he does too.

Some of us live longer and some of us live less long, if we want to go

on that tack.

How do we respond to senior citizens? I would

like to tell the member — and I guess I can repeat it — that in '88-89

the average monthly amount in SAFER to a senior citizen was $59.98.

MR. BLENCOE : Go ahead.

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

The

average cheque last year for a senior citizen aged 65 or over was

$59.98. We changed that to 60 or over, and the average cheque last year

was $95.20. So not only did we change the age, but we changed the

amount. That will be reviewed again — and I hope to make an

announcement very soon — to increase SAFER again for senior citizens,

which should help immensely.

If you find someone.... The

member mentioned earlier that there were senior citizens who paid 75

percent of their income in rent. I would like to offer a suggestion to

the member: my office is always open. When someone pays 75 percent of

their total income for rent, then perhaps we should sit down and help

that individual. I think we can, unless they have other income or live

in an apartment of their choice that perhaps is higher in rent than it

would be if they lived in something more in keeping with their income.

[3:30]

In no way am I going to stand here and.... You have been putting

words in my mouth, saying that I don't care: "It's smoke and mirrors.

This government doesn't care." That is just not the truth. Again, when

we talk about a billion dollars this year — an increase of $120 million

in the housing strategy — it is not smoke and mirrors; it is a fact.

Furthermore, we have increased the social housing stock by 1,886 units

— sometimes a little more or a little less — since 1986; that is

continuing. I am opting for a greater allocation, so how can that

member say that we're doing nothing and that this minister doesn't

care? It's just not the truth. It's not what we're doing, and he's not

speaking the truth in that area.

Over and above that, we

are, of course, going on this rental supply program. As far as the

rental supply program is concerned, we are asking developers and

municipalities to zone property, to get construction underway as fast

as they can. The authority is there to build, and I'm begging them.

I've said: "Please build these units." The member keeps asking: "Where

are they?" Have you gone to your municipality and asked: "Why did you

turn down those units? Why did you turn them down last month" — or the

month before? That's where it's at. That's where the roadblock is,

because it's not in my office.

You say we don't build

enough houses. The green light is there. We'll build all we can — 8,000

units — and by the end of the year we'll have roughly 2,000

[ Page 9807 ]

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Well, if you worked on municipal council and knew anything at all about

construction — which I doubt very much that you do, because by the

questions you ask, obviously you know very little about it — you would

know that from the time you get the okay to the time it is a turnkey

and someone can move in, a house takes a while. If you don't know that,

then perhaps you could check with your builder or real estate friends

and get that information.

Have you ever been in real estate

— through you, Mr. Chairman? Someone mentioned that he's been in real

estate once in a while, so perhaps he knows a little about loss and

profit. Some others on that side of the House have made a little profit

on flipping, on renovation, on asking people....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Others on that side of the House have evicted people to change to

condominiums. So it's not just this side; it's not just free

enterprise. It happens on both sides. When a dollar can be made, they

suddenly forget they're socialists.

MR. BLENCOE :

Yes, I have been in real estate — because I own a house and I live in

it. And I do have real estate friends and developer friends — private

sector and public sector.

Interjection.

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

get down to serious business, I have a question for the minister. He is

obviously not going to answer the rent review question. It just

occurred to me — an important question. He was talking about SAFER, and

he just said to me: "Well, if you've got huge rent increases for senior

citizens, you should send them to see me." I just thought of a very

important point, and I want the minister to answer this question.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm not saying you are. But I'll ask the minister: would he rather have

a rent review procedure that rolled back those unfair rent increases,

or would he prefer to see the taxpayer pay for the gouge and the unfair

rent increase? That's what you're saying today, Mr. Minister. The

taxpayer is going to pay for your landlord friends who are passing on

unfair rent increases, and you just said to send them to see you so the

taxpayer can pay those increases. Does the minister want an unfair rent

increase to be dealt with in a proper review procedure and rolled back

so the taxpayer doesn't pay all that money in SAFER, or would he prefer

to see the taxpayer pay those unfair rent increases?

think that's a legitimate question. You're saying that the taxpayer is

going to have one deep pocket for all those unfair rent increases. The

taxpayer is going to pay millions of dollars to unfair rent increases.

I don't think that's right. I want to protect the taxpayer. I want to

protect that pocket. What you want to do in your program is allow those

unfair rent increasers to come and see you, and you'll pay that unfair

rent increase. Is that your program? Is that your policy? Is that how

you are going to use taxpayers' money?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I find it very interesting that the member states that he has friends

in real estate and development, but when he talks about gougers,

they're suddenly my friends. This is ridiculous.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

He just mentioned he had a lot of real estate friends. He had developer

friends, but then he's talking about gouging and he says: "Your

landlord friends, the gougers." I am just as much opposed to a gouger

as anyone on that side. I am absolutely opposed to anyone who takes

advantage of anyone in society. I think anyone that takes advantage of

another individual is a person that I do not wish to support. Neither

would I, in any way, even lend credence to that kind of an individual.

That's

why I said from the beginning, when I got into this ministry, that

there is one way to control gougers, and that is to have an adequate

supply. That has been my aim from the beginning.

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

You tell your friends down the street to get on with it. With respect,

I would like every member in this chamber on that side or on this side

to go to their particular constituency and check with municipal

councils where there is a vacancy rate of less than 2 percent and put

the pressure on them and help them talk to real estate, talk to

builders — not what that member is indicating again and again, that

he's talked to builders and they say this and say that. They don't talk

that language. I know the builders and the realtors.

He's

dreaming it. There's only one way to do it, and that's to get supply in

the market. That's exactly what we're doing with this program. We're

trying to get the supply in the market.

The question

was.... I've forgotten the question. You yap so much, I don't know what

you're saying. Just before, he was talking about the baying hounds. I

can identify one baying hound in this House, and it isn't on this side.

[ Page 9808 ]

MS. MARZARI :

It's an interesting debate between values and ideologies, but it really

reflects a real absence of planning in government expenditures around

housing. Let me just point out a question put forward by the

Attorney-General a few minutes ago. He asked about Canada Assistance

Plan and whether or not any money that was allocated by the federal

government actually went into housing. The minister answered that yes,

GAIN and shelter aid were in fact cost-shared by Canada Assistance Plan.

also said the Canada Assistance Plan was capped in a particularly bad

year because the caseloads were down; therefore the baseline upon which

the 5 percent will be calculated is going to be a low baseline rather

than one we might have lived more comfortably with. Let me suggest one

area where appropriate planning might have been useful. In fact, if you

read the Canada Assistance Plan carefully, a plan that offers us 50

cents on every dollar we put into fighting poverty, we gain.

do nothing but gain. With that 50 cents we are basically buying

ourselves the ability to plan, deliver service, be innovative, even go

to the business of helping self-help groups in communities to plan

their way out of poverty and to work with governments and develop other

programs, whether they be employment related or even recreation

related. Canada Assistance Plan covers a myriad of services.

Why

did we allow the Canada Assistance Plan contribution a few years ago to

drop? When our caseloads went down, why didn't we say: "We're going to

maintain our level of investment so that our 50 cents will be matched

by the federal 50 cents so we can actually use that dip in caseloads to

do some long-range planning to eradicate poverty in this province." Why

weren't we working to hit at the roots of poverty? Why weren't we

setting up programs to prevent child abuse? Why weren't we investing in

women? Why, last year, when the welfare rates were down, weren't we

taking advantage of federal 50-cent dollars to plow that back into

groups in Vancouver and in this province that are planning for their

own housing and developing housing? There are groups around ready to

build — building societies, cooperative societies — that are themselves

poor. Many of them are women's groups. Why didn't we do that?

Let

me answer that question, since I have a few minutes here today with the

consent of my colleague the housing critic. Why? Because we don't plan.

The suggestion is made that our rental housing stock has been depleted,

and all the sins of the world revolve around the fact that we had rent

control in Ontario. The minister actually suggested that rent controls

themselves are the reason for a housing crisis.

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

MS. MARZARI :

Well, you implied. You read a report into the record that rent controls

in and of themselves added to the rental housing crisis we have in this

country, and you were pointing out Ontario, which has rent controls.

Let

me suggest that if this were reasonably thought through, with any kind

of planning at all, we would understand that the sins of the past have

been vested in the federal government, who, ten or 15 years ago,

invented numerous federal housing programs that sucked up provincial

dollars, basically investing taxpayers' money into a housing market

supposedly to shore up the rental housing stock.

What

happened with those MURBs and MERVs, and whatever we called them in

those days, is that the rental housing built with that money — our

money, taxpayers' dollars — has now come onto the market. It is no

longer rental housing or social housing or affordable housing. Those

rental units are now in the process of being converted into

condominiums.

Nowhere in this province is that pinch being

felt more than in my own riding, in Point Grey. And nowhere is the need

for proper planning for affordable housing more apparent than in Point

Grey, a riding that people would not consider to be in need because of

its affluence, because of the fact that it has a high per capita

income. In fact, the stress and the pressure on the market value of

land is so great in my riding that every day my office is receiving

phone calls very similar to those mentioned by other members of this

House, with rent increases varying between.... Well, we only hear about

them when they are over 25 percent. But the have received letters and

phone calls from people who are basically facing rent increases of up

to 100 percent. Now these are not just rent increases; these are

obvious attempts to remove tenants from their accommodation because the

apartment is going condominium.

We have, in Point Grey, a

lodge — Quilchena Lodge — which has 65 rental units renting for between

$365 and $400 a month. It is due for demolition. It's not strange that

many of the people that call us, or that I have visited, are women, and

elderly women at that. That is not strange to me — the fact that so

many women are affected by these evictions and by these rental

increases. I'll explain that later. But what we're going to replace

these 65 units with are 45 high-income condominiums.

[3:45]

The developer has offered to build 30 moderate income rental housing

units if the developer gets a density bonus. Once again, it's an

interesting offer by the developer, but it basically takes zoned land

in the city of Vancouver, in Kerrisdale, and suggests boosting the

density so that the developer can put in some medium-income housing.

Interesting because, first of all, the elderly people will be moved,

and they will not be able to avail themselves of the rental housing

units because it will be two or three years down the road. But more

interesting because the city of Vancouver has been racking its brains

to come up with ways in which social housing can be built for rental,

and the best deal that they can come up with is with the Vancouver Land

Corp., which is basically using the equity of $50 million worth of

Vancouver land and an innovative money-gathering scheme whereby they

are going to be able to finance, supposedly, 2,000

[ Page 9809 ]

units

per year. Even the Vancouver Land Corp., a partnership of public and

private investors and developers, can't come up with rental housing for

less than $800 a month for a two-bedroom unit. They are not able to

meet their 2,000-unit quota. They are finding it difficult to build,

even with a $50 million equity from the city in the form of rent, for

less than $1.25 a square foot.

This, in the city of

Vancouver, is deplorable. It's not something we can live with easily.

It's not something about which we can easily sit and hurl invective

back and forth across the House; it's a problem which has to be worked

on, because there are a lot of people suffering, either being forced to

move or, worse still, being totally disjointed in their lives. Elderly

people being moved is not the best route to go; the medical health

officer of Vancouver has suggested that. People do die in the process

of being wrested out of their home of ten, 15 or 20 years. It is a

concern.

What are the solutions? In Vancouver it's

difficult to know. Rather than tackling you on the absence of policy

and planning, let me put forward a few suggestions which we have

mentioned in this House before.

First, give the city of

Vancouver the power to install a temporary demolition moratorium so

that housing at least will have to go through some kind of city or

provincial tribunal — I would prefer municipal tribunal — in which

everybody's interests are considered before demolition permits are

granted.

My own neighbourhood in Kitsilano has formed an

association to try to slow down the demolition of affordable housing

units, and the test of that will be next Tuesday night, when the

council will vote on a plan that my neighbours have come up with. It's

a unique plan, because usually it's neighbourhoods defending their

single-family status. In this case, it's a neighbourhood defending its

multiple-family status, with affordable housing and rental units built

in.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

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

Third,

introduce a rent review program. This side of the House is not

recommending a rigid or usual rent control program; it's saying let's

look at the possibilities of a rent review mechanism in which people of

reasonable goodwill can come together and have high rents adjudicated

by an impartial rental review officer.

Fourth — and this particularly pertains to Point Grey, my own constituency,

and in fact my own neighbourhood — we need to make proper provision for the

proper planning of the 50 acres, which are now provincially owned, called the

Jericho lands; and that in Vancouver could go a long way to beginning (

a) a

neighbourhood plan for the development of potentially 100 acres when the defence

lands come available at Fourth and Alma; (

b) if properly handled, a model for

this province — certainly for the city — in terms of neighbourhood or city planning

to accommodate its own seniors and its low- and moderate-income families.

There

is a strong neighbourhood association and coalition of neighbourhood

groups that are ready to start planning now and to sit down and take

seriously non-market housing and moderate-income housing. It's not what

you might expect. The minister has constantly been talking about

municipalities not allowing social housing and preventing the building

of moderate-income housing. I'm saying that the city of Vancouver and

Point Grey are ready to start talking about planned neighbourhood

involvement in the creation of some hundreds of units of appropriate

housing for citizens of Vancouver.

The final recommendation

that I would ask the minister to comment on is the status of the

Jericho lands at this moment. We have been asking this question for two

sessions now, and those lands seems to have been bumped around between

Government Management Services, the department of Social Services and

Housing.... A few weeks ago it seemed to be back to Government

Management Services. I would be interested in knowing from the minister

where the Jericho lands actually sit right now in terms of any kind of

planning being done for them.

The final recommendation I

would make is to stop bashing municipalities. It does not help to stand

in this House and list those municipalities which, for one reason for

another, are listening to the citizens in their communities talk about

the pressures on those communities. I've been on city councils. On one

occasion that I can remember I've been in the position of voting

against social housing on a piece of land that was totally

inappropriate. That piece of land happened to be a piece of a land bank

on a very inappropriate site, removed from transportation facilities,

removed from schools. It simply was not appropriate. Don't bash the

municipalities. These people are your partners. These people are the

ones that we need to sit down with and discuss (

a) appropriate

land-banking....

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

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

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

MS. MARZARI :

The government side of this House has been taking advantage of this

issue to bash municipalities because municipalities have been making

decisions about social housing that don't seem to meet your 2,000 or

your 8,000 or your magic number of social housing units.

You

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

with the municipalities. You have to sit down with municipalities.

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

[ Page 9810 ]

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

MS. MARZARI :

We have to land-bank with them and plan with them, but more important —

and this is something that should perhaps be tested out with the

Jericho lands — it might be time for the provincial government not only

to get reinvolved with planning with municipalities and planning for

the servicing and land-banking with provincially owned land, but also

to work closely, with dollars attached, with neighbourhoods to help

them plan best for their communities. Because neighbourhoods very often

do not like change. They have to be helped. Very often neighbourhood

planning processes will increase government's ability to build

moderate-income and low-income and social housing in communities. It's

those incentives that could be provided with coordination with the

Municipal Affairs and the Housing ministries. The serious, tough stand

with the federal CMHC....

I think that's the route we have

to go, because you're going to get turned down. You cannot be the bad

guy and come in and foist housing on communities that are not ready to

take It. You have to look at education, availability for young

children, traffic patterns, and whether or not there are bus stops. Why

put a handicapped housing unit, for example, on the top of a hill and

with no bus?

There must be ways for the provincial

government to stop hammering municipalities, but rather to start

working closely with them. Then I think that, working with

neighbourhoods and municipalities, you'll find a very different answer

coming back to you when there is a joint housing plan that both

partners own. I shouldn't say both; I should say three partners own, if

the federal government can be pulled in.

I leave you with

those few thoughts, but the major question I want to leave the minister

with is the one about the Jericho lands. When can we expect to hear

about the disposition of those lands, since the Jericho Hill School is

about to be moved?

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

begin with, mention was made of 50-cent dollars, and had we spent more

we would have had a greater baseline. That's absolutely correct, but I

must tell you too that since 1977-78 we have increased the CAP

payments. The average annual increase in CAP payments to the province

since '77-78 has been 10.5 percent, so it's not that we've cut back.

The caseload has gone down, but we've increased it every year, so there

has been an improvement in that area. I'm sorry that our baseline isn't

greater. What can I say? Had I known this, perhaps I could have

squirrelled away a few dollars somewhere else.

You

mentioned also about the city of Vancouver and demolitions. I believe

you will have the opportunity to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. L. Hanson) about that legislation, because it comes under his

ministry. At that time it would certainly be in order to ask that

question. The demolition aspect of it doesn't come under my ministry.

You've

seen this too, but it's interesting to note a letter from Phillip Owen

to the editor, when he says: "What has been accomplished to address the

housing issue in Vancouver?" He asks the question because this is what

people are saying. "From 1983 to 1989, 8,400 housing units were

demolished." Fact. But in that same period, some 21,700 units were

built. So what he is saying is: "Yes, there have been some demolished,

but there have been a substantial number of units built."

1989, 588 multiple housing units were demolished in Vancouver, and

2,478 multiple units were built. In the past ten years, 2,393 units of

public and private non-profit subsidized rental housing have been built

in the central downtown and Strathcona areas alone. There are now more

than 18,000 social housing tenants in Vancouver, so you can paint two

pictures. You can say nothing has been done. On the other hand, I can

say quite a bit has been done. I don't necessarily agree with tearing

down a building that houses, say, 50 people — someone comes along and

demolishes it and puts up an expensive condominium that houses maybe

ten, 15 or 20. 1 don't agree with that, but you can ask those questions

when you come to the minister's estimates.

You also

mentioned that rental housing decreased because we had rent control.

That's not the case at all. You and I know very well that rental

housing pretty well stopped when the federal government discontinued

the personal tax deduction.

[4:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Oh yes. I know all of those people who were involved. At that point,

rental accommodation construction came to a complete halt. I have a lot

of doctor and lawyer friends, and know all kinds of people who were

building those units left and right. When that was taken away.... We

all know this; it is nothing new.

That member doesn't agree

with that, but he knows so little about housing that I'm surprised that

the Leader of the Opposition puts him in as housing critic. He is the

one who knows the least about housing in this whole chamber.

Talking

about bashing governments, I said very clearly that if both sides of

the House would assist me in speaking to municipal governments and in

putting up housing, not putting these roadblocks in the way.... It

wasn't a matter of bashing. I do that in my own community —

I phone city council and say: "Look, there's a housing project

coming forward. What are the objections? How can we get this through?"

It's very important in these times.

Since I am the Housing

minister, a lot of people on the opposite side criticize me for not

having enough housing units: "What are you going to do about it?" But

at the same time, we have to do our

part in these bad times to try and

convince people who have a stake in it to get on with it.

[ Page 9811 ]

It's

not a matter of bashing. It's easy to bash me; I'll take it. What the

heck — I've been bashed all my life. I go through it, and I'm

challenged on it. But you can't just bash one individual and not bash

others. You can't just bash me. You've got to bash the opposition,

municipal councils, the federal government, the builders, the

developers, the realtors, everyone. We all have our part to play.

That's what I'm trying to point out. Just because I'm the Minister of

Housing, it's easy to use me as a target and say: "It's you." Well,

it's not just me. It's also the responsibility of that member who's

yapping again. But he doesn't believe that he has any responsibility in

this issue except barking away like a hound dog.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

No, Jericho land belongs to BCBC, the Crown corporation. I understand

there's a review being done on that at this time, so hopefully there

will be some change in that. I'm certainly in favour of doing something

with that school at another location and using it for other purposes.

But that's not for me to say; that's under the ministry of government

management and women's issues.

You mentioned the Vancouver

Land Corp. You mentioned the city and the private sector. Don't forget

that the provincial government is also very much involved in that,

because they're doing a lot of the rental supply program for us. I'm

very pleased with the attitude of the Vancouver Land Corp., in

tremendous cooperation with the city. It's still taking a long time.

Here's

a perfect example. Here's the city of Vancouver — a partner with the

private sector in the Vancouver Land Corp. — and we come in with the

subsidy for the interest. Even the city of Vancouver, which is a

partner in this corporation, has a heck of a time getting through the

system to get it on the road to develop these houses. It's their own

company. They're partners in this company.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm not bashing them; I'm saying it takes a long time. But to stand

there and ask: "What are you going to do about it...?" That's the

system.

MR. BLENCOE : How many years do you need?

HON. MR. DUECK : Ask the city.

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, it's not four years. It was announced in last year's

budget speech It was then the proposals were made up, and I think they

went out in July. Then I believe it was in August that we accepted

those proposals. This year, of course, they're on stream, and they're

going ahead.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK :

If the member would just quiet down a bit, I could finish. Mr.

Chairman, I'm confused now as to which member asked the question. Would

you please help me? Is it the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey or

the first member for Victoria?

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

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

There's

another area of housing that would help a great deal, and that is in

the secondary suites. I would hope that the municipalities and cities

that have experienced below 2 percent vacancy would look at that very

seriously. The city of Vancouver has tried to come to grips with it. I

think that is an area where we could have a very quick fix to some of

the housing needs if they would designate certain areas and legalize

secondary suites. I lived in a secondary suite — a basement suite —

when we first got married.

Mr. Chairman, to the question

that was asked not through the chair. Illegal suites today are occupied

by thousands and thousands of people in the city. There is some

pressure coming to bear now to evict some of those people because they

haven't gone through the process and made them legal, and they're not

in an area where they've had a vote. Unfortunately, some of these

people are going to lose their homes. They won't have any place to go

unless they find other accommodation.

In these times of

very low vacancy it's hard to believe that any municipality would take

that action. I believe that secondary suites can provide good housing.

It's not very often adequate for a family, but singles and young

marrieds....

As I was saying before I was asked the

question not through the Chair, I lived in an illegal suite when we

first got married, and if I'd been any taller, I would have knocked off

the light bulb every time I went through the one room. But we were very

happy, and we lived there for approximately a year and a half to two

years. So I have no objection to living in a basement suite.

You

also mentioned a speculative tax. That's an interesting concept. Again,

I have to give you evidence of communities, cities and provinces that

have tried this. Again, the example is Ontario. They had it for a

number of years. Then they did an analysis. Guess what they found, Mr.

Chairman? It cost them $1 for every three cents they collected. Is that

what you want us to do? These are facts; I've got the evidence. It cost

a dollar to collect three cents.

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

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

[ Page 9812 ]

these

quick-fix answers. It's easy to say: "Why don't we do this?" It will

sound so good. "Hit the developer. Do this; do another thing."

But

you know, you can't do that. There is a certain process to go through.

It costs money to set up an agency. They found it cost a dollar to

collect three cents. Surely you wouldn't want this government to spend

that kind of money on something that's foolish. Surely you wouldn't

want us to do that.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before I recognize the next speaker, I would just like to comment that

we may all be very eager to participate in this debate. However, for

the most effective and expedient debate, I think it would be

appropriate to wait your turn and address your comments or questions

through the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Chairman, as I

sat and listened to the debate, I was wondering where we were going to

put the Christmas tree come Christmas time, because I'm sure at this

rate it's going to take at least that long to conclude the estimates

for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

The

chatting that goes on in some of the answers.... I'll have to admit I

was a little tempted to contribute my "just when I got married" story

too. But I don't think that is particularly going to help the people we

represent in this province, nor deal with their situations on an

individual basis. We're looking for system solutions. We're looking for

equity of treatment rather than individual treatment. We're looking for

recognition that those people are not suffering individually, but are a

group that needs a group answer.

The minister talks

repeatedly about the need for each and every member to go and talk to

their municipalities and "put the heat on," as he says; to pressure

these municipalities to do something to provide land, and get on with

the job of allowing the provincial government to forward its housing

plan. But the minister said that he himself often picks up the phone

and asks his municipality what he can do to help them get on with

developing rental or social housing in their area. The minister didn't

tell us what the answer was. I'd like to hear what the answer to your

question was.

I suspect the answer is the same answer that

many municipalities are giving this government: they need some

comprehensive assistance to deal with the pressures of growth. You

can't just insist on the municipalities opening the floodgates without

a recognition that they are up to their eyeballs already. You've

shifted the responsibility for growth onto them. You've abandoned the

field for social services. You've abandoned the field for health care.

You've abandoned the field for recreation, for schools and for

transportation. All you have to do is look at what's going on in the

suburbs now — the municipalities that have land for development — to

recognize that those municipalities are operating with the best

conscience they can, given the circumstances.

Take a

municipality like Surrey. We've got two beds for every 1,000 people,

compared to a provincial average of four beds per 1,000. We've got

municipalities that are totally clogged, where people can't drive out

of the municipality to get to work. We've got municipalities that

cannot provide recreational opportunities for the kids, where the

school fields are filled up with portables. And you ask why those

municipalities won't allow you to encourage more housing.

Again,

I think you are completely out of touch with the realities in this

province, and I hope that at some point you wake up and realize that

the only way these municipalities are going to become partners is if

you act as a responsible partner in your provincial capacity and start

recognizing the tremendous burdens and problems these municipalities

have to face. Until such time, I don't believe you are going to see

them opening their arms and embracing your plans.

I have a

couple of questions I'd like to ask of you, and this goes back to the

issue of equity and fair treatment. The minister talks about the SAFER

program for seniors, and there are a couple of inequities that I am

aware of. I'd like to refer to them and ask the minister to answer

specifically. One is that when seniors are paying rental on mobile-home

pads, they do not at this time qualify for SAFER — that's my

understanding. I'd like to ask the minister for the rationale behind

that and if he would reconsider that policy.

[4:15]

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

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Again on the issue of SAFER, a senior who is the recipient of GAIN for

Seniors does not qualify for SAFER. I'd ask the minister to explain

that.

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

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

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

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Is the minister also reviewing that? The reality is that seniors who

may have a pension equal to or, indeed, perhaps more than GAIN can

qualify for SAFER, recognizing that they cannot meet the rental market

that we talked about. I wonder what the justification is for not

extending that ability to obtain SAFER for these other people.

[ Page 9813 ]

HON. MR. DUECK :

Yes, that's a good question. I'm willing to look at it. I think we

should look at that a little more closely. As a matter of fact, I

should say that at this time we're reviewing programs constantly. I've

been in this ministry now for about six months, and I mentioned

yesterday and again today that we're reviewing also the GAIN increases,

the shelter allowance, the SAFER — all these programs that we have in

place. We're reviewing them to see whether we're equitable: where do we

stand with the rest of the provinces in Canada? We don't necessarily

want to be the first one up, neither do we want to be the worst one.

But if we can be an average and look after our citizens the best we

can, that's our aim, and we will continue to do so. In this particular

area, we will review it. Perhaps we are negligent in not looking at it

seriously and perhaps topping up.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I

thank the minister for making that commitment to review it, and I'd ask

him, once that review is finished, if he would advise me in writing of

his decision.

Thirdly, my question has to do with GVRD

housing — I understand the province is involved financially with the

GVRD housing program — and want to ask you about a policy of the GVRD

housing. This has to do with subsidizing rent for low-income people in

GVRD housing. At this point they have a policy that 30 percent of the

gross income will go to rent, so they top it up for people who are

asking for subsidized housing to ensure that no more than 30 percent of

their income does go to that rent. However, they differentiate between

recipients of their housing accommodations, in that a person on GAIN

cannot apply for that subsidy.

At this point, it's my

information that the GVRD takes the full shelter allowance for rent

from a GAIN recipient and does not take into consideration the costs of

hydro or telephone, which for co-op housing at least is taken into

consideration for that 30 percent. On several different occasions we

have intervened and ask the GVRD housing to reconsider; we've not been

successful. I'm wanting to know what the minister's opinion of that is,

and whether he will have some discussions with GVRD on two counts, one,

that the province is involved financially in supporting that housing;

and two, because it impacts GAIN recipients directly.

HON. MR. DUECK : I'm familiar with it. As a matter of fact, I've

talked to the federal minister on that very issue. When those agreements were

signed, they did not have an exit clause; therefore they've asked people

who earn certain numbers of dollars to perhaps make room for someone who qualifies

at this time. But they cannot force the people to vacate. I've asked the

minister to review that, because we're not involved in that particular area;

it's the GVRD and the federal government. However, for any units that we

have under our control, we have an exit clause, and it is 30 percent of their

income — no more than 30 percent of their income on housing. So if someone earns

$50,000, they will soon find housing less expensive somewhere else. So we have

a self-policing policy.

With

any of our units that we control and that we have moneys in —

especially since the 1986 program, the new program with the federal

government — this does not occur. I'm concerned about that, because in

times like this we don't want people earning $40,000, $50,000, $60,000

in these housing projects that were meant for people who want less

expensive accommodation. This is why we objected to some of the co-op

housing as well, because some of the co-op housing.... In fact, they

said there must be a mix of people earning more than others, so we have

a mix of people. But what happened, Mr. Chairman, was that so often the

rents did not increase to the market level; and here we had people with

big incomes living in homes that were subsidized by the federal

government. Although they paid a little more, it was not market rent,

which they could well afford to pay. So we object to that. But we do

subsidize individuals who live in some of these GVRD units. We have

clients living there who we subsidize under programs. But we have

nothing to do with the actual capital construction of the buildings.

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

These

are for people who are actually living in GVRD housing at this point in

time. They are on GAIN. Where the policy for that housing says that you

pay 30 percent of your income and they will subsidize the cost of the

rental unit over and above that 30 percent.... If the people are on

GAIN, they have to pay the full amount of their housing portion on

GAIN, and the housing is not subsidized.

What happens is

that if their shelter allowance is a certain amount, that's the amount

of the rent, and they end up having to pay hydro and telephone over and

above that. They end up paying their heat and light out of their food

money, though the intention of the shelter allowance was to deal with

hydro, telephone and rent.

What I'm asking is that the

policy for the GVRD housing be assessed and that we ask the GVRD to

take into account the full amount of the cost for shelter; in other

words, reduce the rent so that it includes both the hydro and

telephone, so those income assistance recipients don't have to take

their hydro out of their food money.

HON. MR. DUECK :

As I mentioned, these units are controlled by the GVRD. To break even,

they raised the rent. Our shelter allowance, as the member well knows,

is an amount for rent plus utilities, to a maximum. If they raise those

rents higher than that, there will be a problem with some people who

will not be able to pay — because they have raised the rent to meet the

deficiency or the payment part of that particular building. This is

unfortunate. In our units that we control this does not happen, because

we strictly stay with the 30 percent.

[ Page 9814 ]

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

understanding is that the province is a partner in that housing, and

that they contribute money to provide social housing through the GVRD

housing corporation.

I am assuming that we're not

communicating or that there's a lack of understanding. It could very

well be that the minister understands full well and has decided not to

deal with it, but we'll explore it a little further and see where we go.

this point in time this is subsidized housing. It is part of the

low-income housing to service the GVRD area, and people on low incomes

can apply for a subsidy so that they don't have to pay any more than 30

percent of their total income on the rent. However, there is a double

standard, and that double standard is that there are different rules

for people on GAIN. People on welfare have to pay the rent to the full

amount of their shelter, which makes them have to then pay for heat and

light out of their food money.

It would seem to me on two

counts — one, that the province is a partner in this housing; and two,

that we're talking about the GAIN recipient shelter allowance — that

you have an interest and indeed a responsibility to have some impact on

that policy.

Why is it that subsidized housing in the GVRD

can get away with having two policies: one policy for people who are

not on GAIN — for the working poor — that says they only have to pay 30

percent, yet people on GAIN have to pay more? How can you justify

supporting that?

If you understand the point I'm making,

the very best I'm looking for here is a commitment to look into it and

at least enter into some discussions with the GVRD around that policy.

I would hope that the province would not stand for this kind of

discrepancy and would speak very strongly on behalf of those recipients.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Prior to '86 — in '85 and before that — the provincial government had

no financial interest in the GVRD; it is the federal government and the

GVRD. When the Regina accord was signed — which I mentioned earlier to

the other member — we got into a program with the federal government,

which we're continuing now with 1,886 units a year. In those units no

one pays more than 30 percent of their total income. There is an exit

clause, and it keeps going up as they earn more money.

However,

for anyone living in the GVRD housing units who comes under the GAIN

and shelter allowance, that is made up of rent and utilities. If the

rent goes up, we have a maximum. True, there may be some who pay more

than what the shelter allowance will pay. It's unfortunate, but that's

a fact. It would also happen if they sought residence or shelter in a

privately owned building. They would get the shelter allowance, and if

they chose something where the rent was higher than that, it would come

out of other moneys that they had. I can't take responsibility for the

GVRD. That is the policy they have. I could perhaps inquire and make

sure that this is so, and I am willing to do that.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE :

Before my good colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms.

Smallwood) addresses some very important questions, I was asking the

minister — and I think it's a very important issue.... I think the

minister is quite clear in what he's saying in terms of subsidizing

substantial, unfair and unjustified rent increases.

The

minister is saying today that his government is prepared to see a deep

pocket for the taxpayer, because they have this ideological stance that

any amount of rent increase is allowable in British Columbia, even

though it can be shown that it's grossly unfair, unjustified and

clearly a gouge. The minister has admitted that he knows it's

happening. But this government is unprepared to have.... I'm not

talking rent control; I'm talking a fair system of rent review, where

these things can be reviewed.

MR. LOENEN : What's the difference?

MR. BLENCOE : There's a big difference.

MR. LOENEN : Tell us the difference.

MR. BLENCOE :

You should listen to this, Mr. Member, because I'm sure this concerns

you — about taxpayers' dollars. The minister is saying today that

they're so ideologically against any process of fair, democratic

dialogue between landlord and tenant, in terms of a review of these

massive rent increases that are clearly unfair and that we know are

happening, that he's prepared to see the taxpayer, through subsidy,

meet those unfair rent increases and be exposed to major increases in

taxes and exposure to the budget.

That's what the minister

is saying. They won't move; they're stuck in the past. They won't even

take a look at having a way of reviewing these things and telling

senior citizens, for instance, that: "We'll have someone take a look at

that, and if you can show that it's unfair, we'll roll it back." And

therefore the taxpayer wouldn't have to pay that massive rent increase

through a subsidy. But this minister is saying that the government of

British Columbia is prepared to expose the taxpayer to probably

millions of dollars because they're so stuck in the past that

[ Page 9815 ]

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

That

is what the minister is saying. He's exposing the taxpayer to huge

increases. We can't support that. Sure, we support a SAFER program when

you have landlords — as most landlords are — who are very reasonable

and understanding in their requests. Indeed, many of them are very

compassionate and understanding of the situation. But what the minister

is saying today is that any rent increase, even though it can be

shown....

We used to have a rentalsman in British Columbia

who would look at these situations and all the facts objectively, and

what clearly was unfair was rolled back. This minister is saying today

that the taxpayer is going to have to pay for those gouges, those

unfair rent increases. I think it should be known to the people of

British Columbia that with this government there is a deep pocket, an

unending pocket, in terms of money being spent by the taxpayer to

subsidize unfair, unjustified and gouging rent increases.

That's

what the minister is saying. What he's doing is using taxpayers' money

to benefit those owners and landlords financially. They are a minority

but are there, and they are using the market unfairly and unjustifiably

to increase their rents and therefore their profits.

That

is really an incredible indictment of the way this government

approaches this issue and taxpayers' money. They're saying: "The

taxpayer is going to have a deep pocket. We're blind. We won't see past

that old fifties rhetoric that you keep throwing out — rent review and

all these awful things." Yet we have another minister who was prepared

to do it quietly behind the scenes with a Social Credit landlord.

But

this Minister of Housing is saying to us today — because they're so

ideologically stuck that they cannot accept a review mechanism — that

the taxpayer is going to pay, in this case, for the senior citizens who

are facing these unfair hikes, which are clearly unjustified in some

circumstances. If we had review, they'd be rolled back. But this

minister is saying he will ignore that, and the taxpayers are going to

pick up the tab.

Mr. Chairman, that should be known to the

citizens of the province. This government won't introduce.... In many

other areas such as hydro rates, telephone rates and those kinds of

important public utilities, there is a mechanism to have rate increases

reviewed. In a civilized, progressive society we accept that kind of

review. But when it comes to a million people and their families and

their homes, their shelter, their roof, we can't accept that kind of

process.

MR. LOENEN : Big Brother.

MR. BLENCOE :

Not Big Brother, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about fairness. I'm talking

about decency and a dialogue and the democratic process. If they call

that Big Brother, so be it; that's what they want to call it. But I can

tell you, a million people — 40 percent of the people in the province —

know what I'm talking about. And the others know now that this minister

is saying he is prepared to subsidize those gouges, and the taxpayers

will pay for it in subsidy. They know, because this government cannot

see its way clear to having a process of review for that senior

citizen, as I gave the example. That's really an indictment.

This

government won't change; it's cast in the past. All it does is deal

with insiders and its friends. It has no way to change, no way to look

forward. It's time for change in the province of British Columbia,

because we won't expose the taxpayers like that. No, but this minister

is prepared to do it.

I want to ask the minister again: is

he prepared to see such a procedure? Clearly that's what is happening

now. It's a deep pocket. Then when you've got every evidence that some

landlords are taking advantage, you're prepared to close your eyes to

that and say: "Okay, we'll cover you by a subsidy, and we'll pay the

landlord his gouge." Is that what you're saying to this House and to

this province?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I did

not say that. I actually lower my level to his when I even speak the

same language. I shouldn't even respond to it, because it is such

nonsense. He makes such ridiculous comments.

MR. BLENCOE : That's what he said.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I did not say that, Mr. Chairman. I did not make that statement. I said

very clearly that I do not support gouges. I do not support anyone who

takes advantage of another individual. I said that very clearly, and I

repeated it again and again. You will have your opportunity to speak to

the minister in charge of rent controls when that time comes.

have programs in place. We have $1 billion of programs in place to help

people who have a difficult time in high-rental situations. Not only

that, but we know we have a crisis when we have 60,000 people come into

this province in one year alone. This is why I have repeatedly said

that in my opinion we must get a supply out there with the private

sector and also wherever we can help, so that the marketplace will even

out.

That will happen; it has happened in the past. It

happened in '81; it will happen again now. As a matter of fact, there

are signs. I just read an

article today about Vancouver — I haven't got

it here right now — where there is a little bit of easing taking place

in the rental market. It says: "Apartment vacancy rates increased in

most major cities between October 1989 and April, Canada Mortgage and

Housing Corporation states." It says Victoria is down slightly;

Vancouver from 0.4 to 0.9; and some of the other cities. It is a very

small amount, I grant you, but it is going in the right direction.

don't in any way wish that we go into a recession; not at all. Very

often that is connected with the easing of the market. However, I think

there is one way to cure this, and that is to get supply, supply,

[ Page 9816 ]

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

a matter of fact, when we had the private sector last year increase

housing starts to just under 40,000, and the prediction this year is

slightly over 40,000 plus the social housing that we're putting in

place.... Again and again the member is quoting and asking: what are

they doing for people who can't afford those rents? I have said it

repeatedly: since 1986 we have produced 1,886 social housing units per

year. We're trying to increase that. I have been to Ottawa; I have

spoken to the federal Minister of State for Housing on the telephone.

I've written numerous letters. I've met him in person in Vancouver and

in Ottawa and we talk about the same issue again and again. It is to my

great surprise that they even cut back another 15 percent of the unfair

allotment that we had in the past.

I have not given up. As

a matter of fact, at the conference that was called for last weekend —

which was cancelled at the last minute; I understand now we will be

meeting again in July — my main subject of discussion will be more

social housing allotment. I will press this very hard. We want more

money for social housing.

The rental supply program will

work well, inasmuch as people moving up into that area will relieve

some pressure, perhaps, on the lower-priced rental accommodation.

with the other programs. I don't want to repeat myself again and again.

The member has criticized our programs: $1 billion in housing, program

for independence, shelter allowance.... Shelter for the elderly — SAFER

— was doubled last year. It's not smoke and mirrors when you double the

amount to sen