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)

FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9825

Environmental Protection Act (Bill M209). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9825

Private Members' Statements

Environmental protection. Mr. Cashore –– 9826

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Disposable diapers. Mr. Loenen –– 9828

Mr. Clark

Preserving the urban environment. Ms. Cull –– 9830

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Role of private members. Mr. Serwa –– 9833

Mrs. Boone

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9836

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9836

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Bruce

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. GABELMANN :

I would like the House to welcome 30 students and their teachers from

Port McNeill who are here this morning in the gallery. These students

attend North Island Secondary School in Port McNeill. I've so far seen

Rod Bain and Pat Parker with them, and I'd like the House to welcome

both the students and the teachers.

MRS. McCARTHY : I

have two introductions to make today. The first one I would like the

House to welcome is Mr. Bill McEwen of West Vancouver. I want to tell

you a little about Mr. McEwen. He's an outstanding British Columbian, a

resident of West Vancouver, and therefore a constituent of West

Vancouver–Howe Sound. He has been national secretary of the Liberal

Party of Canada since 1985. He is president of the Council for Canadian

Unity for British Columbia, a member of the British Columbia advisory

council of the Federal Business Development Bank, a member of the

Commonwealth Games Association of Canada, a past president of the

Sports Federation of Canada, a governor of Hockey Canada, a member of

the Canadian Olympic Association, honorary president of Canadian Parks

and Recreation Association, director of Northwest Sports Enterprises

Ltd. and honorary governor and past president of the B.C. Lions

football club. These are among many other accomplishments and honours

that Mr. McEwen has received over the years.

I'm pleased to

tell you that he is accompanied by his wife Irene. Mr. and Mrs. McEwen

have brought to the House today a Labour Party Member of Parliament for

the mother parliament in Britain, the Rt. Hon. Denis Howell. Between

'64 and '69 Denis Howell served as Undersecretary of State for

Education and Science and Minister of State for Housing and Local

Government. Between 1974 and 1979 he was Minister of State for the

Environment. He has many distinguished awards, including the Olympic

Order for 1981. In his career he was responsible for drought, floods

and even earthquakes, and that earned him the title of Mr. Rainmaker.

He is accompanied by his wife Brenda, and I would like to ask the House

to give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It's in my role as MLA for West Vancouver–Howe Sound that I would like

to rise and welcome one of my famous constituents, Bill McEwen and his

wife Irene. Bill is a very well-respected person not only in my

constituency but throughout British Columbia. It's nice to see him here

enjoying the day's sitting on a Friday morning.

MS. CULL : I'd like to ask the House to welcome two friends of mine

in the gallery today: Daniel Mildenberger and Jocelyn Jenkins, who is also my

constituency assistant.

Introduction of Bills

WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT

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

MR. CASHORE :

This bill provides protection for workers who report pollution

violations by their employers. It also gives workers the right to

refuse to work in situations involving pollution violations. A worker

is protected from being dismissed, disciplined, penalized, coerced or

intimidated for complying with or seeking enforcement of environmental

legislation or giving information to the Ministry of Environment or

other appropriate ministry. Where a worker refuses to carry out work

due to pollution violations, a complaint and investigation procedure is

set out. The burden of proof that an employer did not dismiss,

discipline, penalize or intimidate an employee who reports a pollution

violation or refuses to work is on the employer.

Bill M208

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Environmental Protection Act.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill will replace present inadequate environmental

guidelines with a single and effective environmental protection law.

The major project review process is not mandated by law. It contains

large loopholes and does not require independent panels to conduct

reviews.

This bill requires that all major projects, both

public and private, undergo independent public environmental review.

These include fish-farms, dams, dredging projects, river-diversion

wharves, major public and forest roads, railways, airports, oil and gas

pipelines, power stations and major power lines, pulp mills, oil

refineries, ferro-alloy plants, aluminium smelters, etc.

major development shall be permitted to proceed until it has undergone

a public environmental review process and has met environmental

protection standards. This process will ensure that all methods of

mitigating negative impacts on the environment are identified and

addressed prior to development taking place. All public costs and

infrastructure requirements necessary to protect the environment will

be identified before a development is allowed to proceed. Intervener

funding will be provided in order to provide fair and meaningful

participation in the review process.

[ Page 9826 ]

Bill

M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Private Members' Statements

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, for too long the British Columbia environment has been a

victim of pollution. We all know that we have one of the most beautiful

areas of the world to protect, and it is not being protected. I guess

you'd call this the bad news and the good news. The good news is that

there is a growing movement of girls and boys, men and women, who want

to be a part of the solution. They want to see recycling work. They

want to see auto emissions dealt with. They want to see a reduction in

the toxic effluent that's being released into our environment.

Mr.

Speaker, there's one industry that is not being effectively dealt with

by this government, and that's the pulp and paper industry — a major

polluter that causes extreme ramifications with regard to other aspects

of the life in our province. We cannot simply continue to stand by and

allow the degradation of our rivers and oceans, our air and land. Year

after year continuous Social Credit governments have simply contributed

to the problem by their benign neglect They've failed to enforce their

own weak laws They've participated in deals that have allowed permit

violations. They've cut back on enforcement staff.

This has

caused a severe morale problem among some very fine people working in

the Ministry of Environment, who've been put in an impossible situation

in trying to fulfil their mandate. We've had the situation of Mr. Doug

Sandberg, an expert on air emissions, leaving the ministry in disgust

because the mandate he felt he had to fulfil simply was not enabled

under the political interference of this government. Recently we've had

Mr. Doug Adolph, a conservation officer of 20 years, who left the

ministry just a few weeks ago in disgust because of the inability to

fulfil his mandate.

There simply are not the people to be

able to follow up on the multitudinous matters that need to be dealt

with by our conservation officer staff. The fact is that this staff was

decimated by cuts during the so-called restraint era and has never

caught up These people, these excellent workers in the ministry, are

having to take the flak for the political mistakes made by previous

governments and this present Social Credit government.

The

citizens of British Columbia are simply disgusted to see that people

who make their livelihood in the industry of fishing crab and shrimp in

the areas of Howe Sound and Prince Rupert are losing their livelihood.

The pulp workers are disgusted that they have to participate in an

industry that causes that kind of problem.

Mr. Speaker, the

people of British Columbia are disgusted that the native people, who

rely on a traditional food fishery downstream of pulp mills in the

interior, had to receive warnings from the federal government and from

the Minister of Health that they should exercise caution because of the

presence of dioxins in the fish in their waters.

The

potential economic damage to tourism is incredible, as the word gets

around that this government is failing to enforce environmental law.

Another

economic factor in our province is the sport fishing industry. Again,

that is impacted by the negative aspect of the benign neglect and the

failure of this government to come to terms with the pollution problems.

recognize that we will be accused of this being simply a political

statement, I quote the words of an independent judge in this province,

Justice Thomas Dohm. It was reported in the Vancouver Sun

on May 18. The provincial government's failure to enforce pollution

permits "just makes the whole system ridiculous." Justice Thomas Dohm

said that in the B.C. Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, it's

ridiculous; it certainly is. What we have here is ineffective

monitoring and ineffective enforcement. We have pulp companies that are

given a $200 ticket for a pollution offence; these companies are, in

some instances, receiving profits of more than half a million dollars a

day — a $200 ticket.

The average British Columbian knows

that the effect of a traffic fine is a $60 ticket. It hurts them in the

pocketbook. But this isn't hurting these companies.

doesn't have to be this way, and we're going to change it. The bills

that we have presented in this House during this past week indicate to

the House and to the public that we're going to change it. That's going

to be good for the environment because it will be a cleanup. It's going

to be good for the public because it will be a healthier environment.

It's going to be good for workers because workers are environmentalists

in this province.

[10:15]

It's going to be good for industry because industry is capable of

being good corporate citizens. This will set the guidelines. They will

know the rules of the game, and they'll adhere to those rules because

we're going to enforce them. We're going to improve the morale in the

Ministry of Environment. We're going to enable those good people who

work there to do the job and not have to suffer continued political

interference.

These bills will empower courts to issue

fines of up to $1 million a day. For wilful neglect and wilful damage

the fine will be up to $5 million. There will be prison terms covered

in this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please,

hon. member. You are now dealing with a matter of legislation which you

have introduced to the House but has not yet been called for second

reading.

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

[ Page

9827 ]

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

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

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It's not regretful that his time has expired, because I love to hear

him get up there and keep on making statements. He can't even do his

research.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

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

The

member said that this government participated in deals. That's

absolutely false. This government does not participate in deals. That's

what the justice said in the court case. The member said: "Judge Tom

Dohm said." I would just like to inform him that Justice Tom Dohm

resigned from the Supreme Court months and months ago or years ago. It

was his brother, Patrick Dohm, who handled the case That's just a minor

detail for these NDPers. They get the wrong judge, the wrong quote.

They seem to like to quote what the judges say when they think it's on

their side. If it's not on their side, they don't like what the judges

say.

I would like to tell you that when it comes to pulp

mills, this government has done a better job than any other government

in Canada or the world. We lead the world in our technology. This

member — the critic on the other side — talks about going to Sweden and

seeing all their great processes. Sweden doesn't have the regulations

we're proposing to bring in in this session of the Legislature. That's

a fact.

I would like to suggest to the critic on the other

side that Justice Dohm found there was no agreement. The company is

trying to get this case thrown out, using everything under their legal

right to do so, but the judge found there were no agreements with this

government, because this government does not make agreements behind the

scenes with pulp mills in this province. The judge ruled against the

company, and their case will be going to court.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the financial critic for the NDP to

apologize. I heard him yell across the floor: how much did the pulp

mills give to my campaign? Is he suggesting that something is wrong

with people donating to the Social Credit Party? I remember being in

the offices downtown when Murray Pezim donated money to the NDP. You

guys don't like to brag about that, do you — the big corporate

companies' $5,000 and $10,000 donations that you're not supposed to

take?

MR. LOVICK : Why are you so defensive?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I'm not defensive at all. I'm pleased with every penny I get from

everybody in this province, and they're happy to give it to us.

want to make sure it's on the record that they said that. And I want to

make sure the province knows that they received donations well over

their $1,000 limit from all across this province. They hide them

through lawyers like Mr. Simpson downtown. So don't play innocent with

me across here; I'll give you more than you can handle.

The

critic for the NDP talked about pulp workers and how they're disgusted

with this government. Let me tell him that I've been meeting with pulp

workers around this province, and they are disgusted with the NDP for

the false information they're putting out about the pulp mills where

they work and that they're proud of.

I met with the pulp

workers in Crofton, with all the unions there. They told the press: "We

don't need whistle-blowing legislation in this province. Our unions

will protect any member who wants to stand up and tell the truth about

what's happening in our mills." They said that in front of the media,

and the member from Cowichan was there. They also said their mill was

working hard to improve and bring itself up to standards and was

working successfully.

The pulp workers at Howe Sound said

the same thing. They are sick and tired of listening to the diatribe

from the NDP; listening to their candidates in Powell River who want to

close down the pulp mill and put all the people out of work; listening

to the critic for the NDP who has gone into the school in Howe Sound

and said he'd close the mill and put them out of work; listening to the

candidate who has defeated one of the best members sitting in this

House on the other side, who wants to close the pulp mill down in his

constituency. That's not the policy of this government. This government

has a fair but tough policy.

Let me close by saying that

last year our fines had a 46 percent increase. The number of charges

was a 67 percent increase over the year before. So far this year there

are 300 investigations going on.

Mr. Speaker, I will defend

my staff. As much as the critic likes to stand up and knock the

staff.... The member he talked about who resigned happened to run for

the NDP in the last election. Whether that had anything to do with his

resignation or not I don't know, but I'm sure it did.

MR. SPEAKER :

Prior to hearing from the member, I must ask the second member for

Vancouver East to advise the House that he was not imputing any

improper motive. If the member would stand and do so, we will have

dispensed with that minor matter.

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

[ Page 9828 ]

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

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

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

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, one thing we agree on is that we're all glad it's on the

record. The minister said he's glad it's on the record; we're glad what

he said is on the record, and we're glad that what our member said is

on the record.

The minister brags about a 400 percent

increase and a 67 percent increase as though somehow that's going to

change things. What is a percentage increase of boom-all? That's what

we've got in this province. I mean, $35,000 was the average for fines

in the entire province under the Waste Management Act for the last

three years. You could increase that by any percentage the minister

wants to come up with and it's still not a deterrent. You have to have

a fine system that is a deterrent, such as we put in place on traffic

violators.

The minister said that he has done a better job.

The people of British Columbia don't fall for that. This government

stands condemned on its environmental record alone. That's the simple

fact of the case, and that's why the people of this province are going

to defeat this government. This minister says that he has done a better

job. You tell that to the crab and shrimp fishermen who have lost their

livelihood. You tell that to them. You tell that to them and see if it

brings any comfort to them for you to tell them these vacant words —

that you have done a better job You have not done a better job.

You

cannot manage the environment by public relations. If you're going to

bring about effective environmental improvement, you don't do it by PR.

I know this minister has a background in public relations, but you've

got to get out there, Mr. Minister, and you have to change things. You

have to enforce the laws. By talking about improving the laws.... If

you haven't shown the political will that you know how to enforce your

weak laws, how are the people going to believe you when you say you are

going to enforce slightly stronger laws? It simply is not going to

work. The public knows that. The public sees through it, and no amount

of rhetoric and no amount of avoiding dealing with the issues by this

ministry is going to change that.

The minister is fond of

suggesting that I am critical of his staff. I have never criticized his

staff. He has an excellent staff. His staff has been impacted by

political interference, and that has rendered those people almost

incapable of fulfilling their mandate because they're short-staffed,

there's political interference and they know when they do their work

there are things going on behind the scenes that don't enable that work

to come to fruition. That's a horrible thing. That's detrimental to our

environment. It's detrimental to the health of the province.

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

DISPOSABLE DIAPERS

MR. LOENEN :

I want to talk about something important. I want to talk about diapers.

I want to talk not about pulp mills but about things we can all do in

our own homes. The environment is of primary importance to all of us —

to us, to our children. But in addition to the big questions, there are

things we can do in our own homes, in our own kitchens, in our places

of work and in our communities. I'd just like to call on the people of

this province to think seriously about what we do when we buy

disposable diapers.

I'm certainly not the first one to

bring to the attention of the public the fact that there is a

horrendous waste involved when we use disposable diapers. But I was not

aware of the extent of the problem until our research staff prepared

some facts and figures. When you start to look at it, the magnitude of

the problem is shocking. It is staggering; it is outstanding; it is

horrendous. There are problems associated with using disposable diapers

that affect the environment, our health and our economy.

the U.S. we've seen ample studies to detail the data, but so far,

unfortunately, we've seen a lot of discussion but no action. It seems

that even though we grow increasingly aware of what we're doing to our

environment, it is convenience that overrides those environmental

concerns, and we continue to use a product that is so very detrimental

to our environment.

It's for that reason that I'd like to

take a moment to suggest that we need some tough measures. Certainly

the deletion of the social services tax exemption on this product was a

step in the right direction, but it is only a very small step. What we

need are very tough measures.

There are three things that

I'd like to propose. First of all, I believe that there must be a very

stiff levy on the purchase of disposable diapers, much like what we

have now put in place for automobile batteries and tires. I believe it

is essential, because it would in some way bring to our attention the

true cost of using plastic products that take 500 years to dispose of

and to break down.

[10:30]

Secondly, I believe we have to look at what we do in our own

government institutions. I strongly believe that any government-funded

institution — any hospital or day care centre that gets any money out

of government — should not be allowed to use disposable diapers. We

should put our own house in order right there to start with and give an

example.

Finally, I believe we must provide financial

incentives to establish diaper services throughout the province,

particularly by using our regional seed capital program.

[ Page 9829 ]

I said, I believe we must act decisively for the following reasons.

There are primarily three problems with the use of disposable diapers.

First

of all, the environmental burden. Environmentally, this product has two

components. It fills up the landfill sites, because, as I said, plastic

does not decompose, as we all know. We have a tremendous problem there.

Secondly,

it also uses up natural resources in a most wasteful manner. Let's look

at that a little more closely. To begin with, the term "disposable"

really is a misnomer, because although you can throw them out, you

cannot really throw them away. Each day two million soiled disposable

diapers are tossed into Canadian garbage cans. That adds up to roughly

250,000 tonnes of unrecyclable garbage per year. If you break it down,

it means every child will contribute as much as a tonne and a half

during the first two and a half years of his or her life in the way of

these plastic-covered packages. That is a tonne and a half of soggy

waste to our overburdened landfill sites.

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

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

Currently

we see the "environmentally friendly" labels multiplying. But what that

means — and that, too, is misleading — is that those diapers are made

of paper without chlorine bleach. Certainly that's a positive step, but

it doesn't do anything to lessen the cost of disposing of these diapers.

Last

year the Task Force on Municipal Solid Waste Management reported that

60 percent of our disposal sites will be filled within a decade. We

have to reduce our consumption of throwaway products.

think a lot of people are not aware or don't understand that these

disposable diapers are an immense drain on our natural resources.

According to the Canadian Green Consumers' Guide, the process of making

the 1.7 billion diapers per year that our Canadian babies go through

requires chopping down 2.4 million trees and converting 77,000 cubic

metres of non-renewable natural gas into non-degradable plastic. So we

are taking non-renewable resources and turning them into non-degradable

plastic. It's a double whammy. It's an immense waste that we ought to

be aware of.

In Canada the manufacturing of disposable

diapers consumes approximately 65,000 tonnes of pulp, 8,800 tonnes of

plastic and 9,800 tonnes of packing material. We should also note that

disposables constitute the single largest non-recyclable component of

household garbage.

In addition to all that, there are

health concerns, because although parents are theoretically supposed to

empty the contents, we know that fewer than 5 percent actually do. Most

use the solid waste sites as a raw sewage dump, and that leads to all

kinds of concerns about the health of sanitary workers, the quality of

the water supply and how it affects wildlife.

Diapers can

make dumps a breeding-ground for disease. We know there are at least

100 different viruses, including polio and hepatitis, contained in

human excrement. We also ought to be aware of the fact that all of them

leach out into our soil and underground water supplies.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, there are monetary concerns. Even though the cost of

diapering using disposables seems not all that expensive and even

though we don't include the true costs — the costs that should be

calculated, mainly the costs of environmental damage — the cost of

using disposables is roughly $1,500 more than using cloth diapers.

Although the initial investment may be higher for cloth diapers, the

long-run costs are much lower.

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

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

Mr.

Speaker, I've been asked to respond to this by my colleagues to speak

on behalf of all new mothers and fathers in British Columbia. Let me

begin by confessing that I am guilty; from time to time I use

disposable diapers. But before I'm hung by my toes from the rafters of

this building, I want to talk a bit about this. I must confess that

although 95 percent of the time I use cloth diapers — and so do my

colleagues from Point Grey, my colleague from Trail and others on this

side of the House — my family does on occasion stoop to what appears to

be the lowest of all low environmental hazards in British Columbia. I'm

a polluter, Mr. Speaker; we do use disposable diapers from time to time.

is a serious problem. The use of disposable diapers has caused serious

environmental problems. But what is the Socred solution to this

problem? A 6 percent tax on Pampers. That's the solution to this

serious environmental problem; that's the Socred solution. How many

people will stop using disposable diapers because this government has

put a 6 percent tax on them? Well, maybe a few poor people or maybe a

few yuppies who can get a diaper service — because of a 6 percent tax

by this government on disposable diapers. But essentially no one will

stop using disposable diapers because of this government's so-called

solution to the problem.

I'm reminded and the member

admitted that publicly funded hospitals use disposable diapers, with

one exception in British Columbia — thousands and thousands of

disposable diapers. Well, he is a member of this government. Maybe he

has some influence or maybe he simply has to stand up in the House. I

think his running mate has a little influence on the government.

Perhaps they could use that influence to stop publicly funded

facilities like hospitals from using disposable diapers. But no, it's

not hospitals that are the problem; it's those new mothers and fathers

with little kids under two who are the

[ Page 9830 ]

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

Mr.

Speaker, the Socred solution is always to tax people. It's individuals

who are the problem; they're the polluters. What about corporate

polluters pumping thousands of tonnes of toxic waste into the

environment?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. It's

Friday, private members' statements: within the realm of the

discussion, bearing in mind in your case standing order 18 as well.

Please proceed.

MR. CLARK : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

taxes on corporate polluters. Always blame the individual. Well, my

view is that the system is to blame. Does this government look at the

corporations to produce environmentally friendly products? Does it say:

"Well, what about the corporations that produce Pampers and disposable

diapers? No, we don't look there; they're not the problem." Does the

government look at the tens of millions of dollars in advertising

disposable diapers? Millions and millions of dollars are spent in

corporation advertising to promote the use of disposable diapers. Are

they to blame? No, Mr. Speaker, it's those people who use them; they're

the problem. It's not the company that produces them. No, we have to

have a tax on disposable diapers. There's no tax on advertising, Mr.

Member. There's no tax on advertising disposable diapers.

There

was a study done by Hugh Curtis, the former Minister of Finance, that

showed about $50 million by taxing advertising promoting these kinds of

environmentally harmful products. But no, a 6 percent tax on disposable

diapers for people with young children in British Columbia. That is the

real enemy of the environment. They, the individuals, are the polluters.

It's

too easy. Disposable diapers are an environmental problem. They should

be dealt with. But it's not good enough to simply put a little tax

which penalizes those who can least afford it, which penalizes

individuals in British Columbia and doesn't really deal with the

problem.

I agree with the member; it is a problem. I hope

he can exercise some influence. I hope he has the influence on his

colleague from Richmond, who might have a little influence on

government policy so that we can deal with real polluters in British

Columbia, not just families.

MR. LOENEN : Mr.

Speaker, I'd just like to inform the member that I cannot boast about

having children under two, but we brought up four kids. We brought them

up in cloth diapers, and they turned out well They did exceptionally

well. It didn't hurt them. And I'm proud of my kids. I used to work

with the old pins and stick the terrible things in my fingers and so

on. I have a lot of experience.

But I'd like the member and

the people of the province to know that there are a variety of

companies, including Babykins in my constituency, who have developed

new and modern methods by using Velcro and other ways. There's

absolutely no need for people to feel that it's somehow more convenient

to have disposables.

I washed them; I put them in the

toilets; I took them out; and sometimes I had to clean out the toilets

because of it. I know all of that. I'm proud of the experiences we went

through; I recommend it. It's a very humbling experience.

But

this is a very serious subject. We are proud of having established a

sustainable environment fund which is to address those long-term issues

and which is the vehicle by which we can do a lot more in combating

this particular issue.

I'd also like the people to know

that this government does not believe in adding taxes on taxes on

taxes, as we've just heard from the member opposite. In fact, we

believe in people. We believe that it's possible for people, through

their habits, through their customs, through the way they live, through

the way they operate in their homes and their own communities, to adopt

lifestyles that will be considerate and more responsible when they

think about environmental problems.

[10:45]

The disposable diapers do not really pamper the baby; in fact, when

we really think about it, they rob baby of a future that is

environmentally sound. We use disposable diapers not to pamper baby but

to pamper the parents. It is short-term gain for long-term pain. I do

believe that it is possible for us to address this. I know that through

the mechanisms our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has put

in place, we now are able to address those concerns. I want to assure

the members opposite that we are as concerned as they are about what we

do to our environment.

PRESERVING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about preserving our urban environment.

Greater Vancouver and greater Victoria are among the most livable urban

areas in North America. They have an incredibly attractive natural

environment, an attractive built environment and fair climates.

Unlike

many cities in North America, they still enjoy relatively clean

drinking water and clean air. They have vibrant downtowns. They have

easy access to rural areas and to the wilderness. Their traffic

congestion, while increasing, is certainly not in the league of Seattle

or Los Angeles.

In short, we enjoy a quality of life that's

envied by many. But this urban environment is fragile. Its

attractiveness can be the cause of its destruction. Last year 60,000

people moved to British Columbia, most of them to Vancouver and

Victoria. This growth is expected to continue. By the turn of the

century, greater Victoria will have another 50,000 people living in

this area, and greater Vancouver's population will be pushing two

million.

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

[ Page 9831 ]

greater

Vancouver and the southeast coast of Vancouver Island, we're going to

find that by the turn of the century, we'll have six million people

living in this area, possibly ten million in another 25 years. This

growth presents a challenge. Are we going to manage it, or is it going

to manage us? Without determined action now, Vancouver and Victoria

could go the way of other North American cities.

Let's

consider the environmental experience of some of these cities that have

experienced rapid growth in the last 20 years. Look at Phoenix, Houston

or Los Angeles. They are now reaping a bitter harvest of unmanaged

growth: air pollution, a desecrated physical environment, traffic

congestion and unmanageable infrastructure costs.

Closer to

home, in Seattle, a study there last year showed that Seattle could be

just like Los Angeles if the people in the governments of the Puget

Sound don't act now to prevent that from happening. Seattle has the

same attractions as Vancouver and Victoria, and it faces the same

threats. We can learn from what's going on there. It also shares the

same geographic location: this fragile urban environment, the Georgia

basin.

Air and water pollution don't know municipal or

national boundaries, so what happens in the greater Seattle area is

important to us. It's going to affect us. What happens in our area is

going to affect them. We need to look at the urban environment.

Why

don't we look at what's happening closer to home here? In greater

Victoria, since 1974, almost 1,500 hectares of agricultural land have

been removed from the ALR. We have a serious waste management problem

in this community; we're still dumping raw sewage into the ocean, our

landfills are filling up despite efforts to improve recycling, and

chemical pollution in greater Victoria is suspected to be more serious

than even the human sewage problem. That's in a community that isn't

very heavily industrialized.

In greater Vancouver the

larger population just magnifies these problems. We add to that growing

air pollution problems. Vancouver residents are now coming to

understand what the term gridlock means as their traffic congestion

grows and grows.

What we're faced with here then is a

deterioration of our urban environment unless we commit now to the

actions needed to protect it. We have to manage growth with the

preservation of our unique environment foremost in mind. We have to

find ways to reduce urban sprawl and so protect our farmland and our

forestland. To improve our air pollution situation, we have to find

ways for people to live closer to where they work and reduce the amount

of time they spend travelling, and we have to improve public transit.

We have to stop dumping sewage and toxic chemicals directly into the

marine environment. We have to reduce the amount of garbage we produce

every year and increase recycling drastically.

We know what

we have to do. But how are we going to go about doing it? To begin,

we're going to need a strategy, something that is worked out on a

regional scale. It's absolutely ludicrous to think we can solve these

growth-related problems one at a time without a regional approach.

Just

look at greater Victoria. Greater Victoria is the size of Surrey, but

we have 11 separate municipalities. In greater Vancouver in the lower

mainland there are 28 separate municipalities. We used to have regional

planning in this province. It wasn't perfect. But instead of trying to

improve it, the Social Credit government scrapped it in 1983. Now,

seven years later, in a period of intense growth pressure, the people

living in our urban areas are coming to realize what the Social Credit

government carelessly threw away. Even the Urban Development Institute

and the Real Estate Association are calling for a return to regional

growth management.

It's not good enough to say — as the

members on the other side do — that if municipalities want to do

this, if they want to get together, then let them. This is a case where

we need some provincial leadership. If the environment is a priority

with this government, as they say it is, then let that priority also

include the urban environment. As long as the provincial government

opposes regional planning and persists in dealing with urban

environmental issues one at a time — compartmentalized in different

branches of different ministries as if traffic congestion, preserving

farmland, water quality and waste management had nothing to do with one

another — we're not going to be able to tackle these difficult issues.

It's

a choice between a politically easy course of letting things go on as

they have been, and the politically difficult course that may cause

some short-term conflict but in the long term will ensure our urban

environment is protected and enhanced. Our neighbours to the south are

facing up to it. I think it's time this government faced up to it. I

think it's time they looked at what was happening and said: "We made a

mistake in 1983. It's time to return to a regional approach to growth

management."

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I want to thank the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for another speech. Again, I didn't hear

any real solutions. The member, since she's arrived in this House,

talks about serious waste management problems, serious landfill

problems and talks about Phoenix and Los Angeles. I can tell that

member that the cooperation between this government and regional

districts — and I can only speak for the time I've been Minister of

Environment — is very good. We've been meeting on a regular basis with

people from the Capital Regional District, discussing what we can do

with the landfills in the Capital Regional District, what we can do

with waste management in the Capital Regional District, what we can do

with sewage treatment.

All we get from the NDP is the

Leader of the Opposition going out to the beach and saying: "We'll

throw $4 billion at the problem." But he isn't being honest with the

people of British Columbia.

MR. PERRY : He didn't say that.

[ Page 9832 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

He did say that. They like to deny what they say, but they say

different things everywhere they go anyway, so it doesn't really

matter. It's one thing in Victoria and one thing in Vancouver.

But

we have solutions, and we're working towards solutions. And the Capital

Regional District.... In fact, I have a meeting again this morning with

Murray Coell and Frank Leonard to discuss some more issues. I will be

introducing in the House later a hazardous waste corporation bill

which....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I guess it upsets you that these gentlemen might be Socreds who are

elected officials in the local area, but they're the people we deal

with. They certainly are working in a positive manner to work at the

solution for the Capital Regional District. The little Miss Nimby over

there, who doesn't want it in her back yard and who wants to make the

statements about everywhere else but not in my back yard, doesn't want

to come across and tell us what her solution would be.

will have a hazardous waste corporation in this province in the very

near future, and it will give a facility that will solve the problems.

It's like when we announced the household hazardous waste

cleanup day, plus an industrial cleanup day, in this province. The

member across the hall said: "Oh, it's too late, too late." Only then

did we see a press release come out from the Capital Regional District

the next day saying she was wrong again. This is a program that is

working right across this province, that's going to clean up hazardous

waste. And it's going to work extremely well.

I get all the

letters. I got one from the mayor of Victoria. They want us to clean up

hazardous waste too, but they don't recommend we put it in their back

yard. Nobody wants it in their back yard in this province. They want to

create the problem. And then you get the airy-fairy speeches about how

we'll put it all in the blue box. As everybody knows, the blue box at

the best of times will give us maybe 20 percent The Capital Regional

District probably has the best blue-box system in the world — 100

percent of the homes. It's getting around. But it's still not

collecting all the products we would like to collect.

We're

working with corporations to make sure that we've got a de-tinning

plant in British Columbia, a de-inking plant in British Columbia,

and of course the NDP don't like the de-inking plant now either They

want it recycled, but they don't want the product here: "Build it

somewhere else. Put it in somebody else's state."

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

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

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It's like everything else in this province, to the critic of the NDP.

When we do it, we do it well. And that's why this province is doing so

well. I hate to remind you there's a good reason why we've been in

government for 37 out of 40 years — we do things extremely well. And

we'll continue to do them well.

Right after the next

election, I look forward to coming back here — some of you won't be

here. That's why I like looking at little Miss Nimby across there,

because she won't be here after the next election. She'll be gone, as

will some others I can see across there. I remember the member for

Victoria, whom I had the fortunate — or unfortunate — time to sit

beside for a while. He'd make that same speech every day: "Wait till

the next election. Wait till the next election." Seven years now —

seven long years of listening to it: "Wait till next time. Wait till

next time." I look forward to the next time more than anybody else.

We're going to be across here, saying the same things to them again

that we do a good job in this province, we plan well, we work with the

municipalities, we work with the regional districts.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I wouldn't even insult the Toronto Maple Leafs that much — Toronto

Maple Leafs or politics or the NDP. They do a lot of talking over there

about the environment, but they do very little.

MS. CULL :

I'm really surprised at the Minister of Environment's response to my

statement. He seems to think that the whole thing is a joke. He's not

taking any of the comments that I made seriously. In fact, that's the

problem that we have with urban policy in this province. The members on

the other side can't seem to see that it's anything that they should

turn their attention to.

The minister mentioned solutions.

I can tell him that local governments have been looking to the

provincial government for solutions for many, many years. They're not

getting the kinds of solutions that they want. We have asked local

governments.... And members on this side have asked that the ministry's

toxic waste depot be opened. But it's not. We've asked that a serious

approach on solid-waste management be taken. And what do we get? We get

solutions like a resource recovery plant, which many local governments

are turning down for very sound environmental reasons. The minister

boasts about the recycling here. I think he should do a little research

about what's going on elsewhere in this country in communities like

Peterborough, where 50 percent of their garbage is being diverted from

the landfill through recycling.

But what he didn't mention

was regional planning, which is what I was trying to talk about as a

solution to many of these urban problems. The reason that he didn't

mention it — didn't even come back to talk about any of that aspect —

was that this government had an ideological blind spot that prevents it

from recognizing that growth has costs. And those costs are being borne

mostly by our environment.

[ Page 9833 ]

Those

are the costs that we're passing on to our children. Those children are

growing up, and they're going to look around at the mess that we've

handed them and wonder how it was we came to foul up such a beautiful

place.

Even the Premier, when he was still a local

politician and chair of GVRD planning committee in 1975, recognized the

desirability of growth control. He said the present non-control spelled

trouble for the future of the GVRD. But unfortunately he's forgotten

it, and now he and the rest of his colleagues on the government side of

the House ignore the urban areas almost entirely. In spite of the fact

that 50 percent of our population lives in urban areas, we don't have

an urban policy in this province. We don't have any vision for our

urban areas, and we show no leadership in ensuring that the

metropolitan communities of this province continue to be attractive.

[11:00]

You talk about solutions. Let me give you a few solutions. First of

all, we could be supporting greater Vancouver's livable region strategy

more than is happening at the present time, and we could be encouraging

and working with the greater Victoria communities to get such a

strategy happening here in this community. We could look at the report

from Seattle, which recommended, among other things, a regional

strategy to control growth, to build a super transportation system

based on the growth prosperity that we have in this region. We could

channel some of that growth outside of the metropolitan area so that we

would balance growth in this province, and we could put in place a

directly elected regional structure that would look at these problems.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On behalf of my colleague and deskmate the hon. Minister of Agriculture

and Fisheries, the first member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Savage), I take

pleasure in welcoming to the House today 35 grade 10 students from

Burnsville Junior Secondary School in Delta and their teacher, Mr. J.

Westlake, and several parents as chaperones. I wish the House would

make them especially welcome.

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

MR. SERWA :

I rise to discuss an issue which crosses party lines and, I believe,

rises above party rhetoric. I wish to discuss the issue of reform of

our roles as private members in the British Columbia Legislature.

The

role of the private member has three primary elements: that of a

legislator, that of a critic and that of a facilitator. Private members

have a three-way accountability: to constituents, to parties and to

conscience. Why should we discuss this issue? Because our constituents

demand it.

A public opinion poll conducted in 1986 for

Canadian legislatures noted that 75 percent of Canadians are convinced

that the Canadian parliamentary system is in need of major reform. Only

42 percent of Canadians believe their elected representatives are

honest and sincere, and 60 percent of Canada's youth is cynical towards

politicians. Moreover, the importance of the Legislature has declined

with the growth in government in terms of personnel and responsibility,

the growth of the welfare state and managed economy. In this context,

the power of the executive to formulate and initiate policy has been

increasingly centralized. This has occurred in all legislatures, not

just in British Columbia. As a result, the private member is viewed as

more and more irrelevant to governance and public policy.

Hon. members, the question we must address is: how can we make the institution

of the Legislative Assembly more creditable to our constituents and decrease

the cynicism of the general public toward legislators and the work that we do?

In many legislatures throughout this country and the Commonwealth there is an

intense debate about reform of the role of the private member. This debate centres

not only around reform of the structure of the House available to the private

member, for example the committee system, but also there is discussion with

regard to how the private member perceives himself or herself and how the private

member is perceived by his colleagues, the media and the public at large.

Ottawa the demand for parliamentary reform led to the creation of the

McGraw commission in 1984. The committee contained members from all

three parties, and its mandate was to find ways to improve the role of

the private member. Among other suggestions, the McGrath report

recommendations included increasing the activity and independence of

standing committees; the creation of a committee of selection of

private members' business; that a government should be careful before

it declares or designates a vote as one of confidence and that it

should confine such declarations to measures central to its

administration.

In a parliament with a government in

command of the majority, the matter of confidence has really already

been settled by the electorate. The government and other parties should

therefore have the wisdom to permit members to decide many matters in

their own deliberate judgment.

Today I wish to concentrate

on two points, two closely related issues: "free votes," and the

so-called breaking with party lines on issues of individual conscience.

First

of all, free votes can be an important forum for institutionalizing

private members' individual responsibility to their personal beliefs,

public statements and constituent commitments. What we need, hon.

members, is a change in attitude towards our individual political

efficacy as private members.

Secondly, cynicism in the

general public toward legislatures can be decreased if we promote more

latitude for individual action in the House. Dissention by individual

members in a caucus should not be

[ Page 9834 ]

capitalized

by MLAs from another political party in an attempt to score political

points against the dissenting member and his or her party.

AN HON. MEMBER : Why not?

MR. SERWA : Well, listen on.

all have strong convictions. Sometimes, for constituent or personal

reasons, it is difficult for us to compromise those convictions in the

interests of party solidarity. Individual actions by private members

should be viewed as personal initiatives by MLAs and not as an

indication of the breakup of party solidarity or a challenge to its

leadership. I would suggest it is a sign of strength and maturity.

Numerous votes at our mother parliament in London and in Ottawa have

been lost by governments because of a substantial number of private

members from all parties voting against the government. Despite these

so-called maverick activities, the governments of the day did not fall.

These were not confidence votes. What did happen, however, was that the

Legislature was able to effect substantial changes in government policy

without bringing down the government.

I am challenging the

members of this House to break down the barriers of the partisan siege

mentality. Do not always think of yourselves solely as members of the

Social Credit or NDP caucus. Dare to be different. Dare to dissent.

Dare to take the initiative to build bipartisan consensus.

are Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and not

merely representatives of political parties. General cynicism can only

be eradicated if we demonstrate our own unwillingness to be cynical

about our colleagues. It is our job as private members to respect and

endorse individual initiatives taken by our colleagues on behalf of

constituent demands or personal beliefs. It is our responsibility to

promote political efficacy among all members of the House. It is my

belief that these actions will go a long way toward improving our

constituents' respect for us and the work we do in this House.

In addition to free votes and individual initiatives, I

cannot overemphasize the importance of a strong and active committee

system as a fundamental aspect of parliamentary reform. An excellent

report on the committee system in this Legislature was produced by

George MacMinn's commission under the auspices of the Legislative

Procedure Review Act. MacMinn gave three particularly significant

proposals for committee reform. First of all in his report, the Deputy

Clerk argued for the creation of a smaller committee system which would

be more active and would permit the examination of legislation and

estimates in standing committees as opposed to a Committee of the Whole

House sitting for supply and legislation. MacMinn suggested a committee

day on Wednesday.

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

MRS. BOONE :

I can certainly understand the member from the Okanagan being concerned

and a little cynical about the system in itself too. If I was a

backbencher on that side, I certainly would be cynical about the

process as well. There's no doubt at all that we've seen an inability

of members over there to think for themselves. We seem to be taking a

little bit of time out; each member has midnight sessions on

desk-thumping and saying "Aye!" and clapping on cue to whatever the

ministers say or anything like that. I see ministers are now taking up

those things as well.

We've not seen any of those members

ever take a stand and vote against any legislation or even an amendment

to a bill even though that amendment makes very good sense. On this

side of the House we have had members who have voted independently. On

the Meech Lake accord members stood here and spoke against the accord.

We proposed amendments to that accord, yet there were no members on

that side who voted for those amendments — even the Senate reform

amendments. And there were no members on that side who stood and spoke

against it. We do have some latitude and some ability to express

ourselves on this side of the House. The frustration that must come

from the backbenchers over there from being constantly held down!

find it interesting that the member mentions a centralization of power.

This government claims to be regionalized and claims to be putting the

power back into the hands of its people, and its own member states that

there's a centralization of power. Certainly there's a centralization

of power here, and it rests with the member who isn't here — the first

member for Richmond, the Premier. He controls the pipe over there.

The

member talks about free votes, about breaking party lines. I feel very

strongly on this issue, because it's something that comes up not just

among the Socreds. At different times people have suggested that

perhaps we ought not to follow party lines. I can't accept that. As a

New Democrat, I was elected on a platform, as you were elected on a

platform for.... What was it? Change? It was thoughts, ideas or

something like that, but no platform, no ideas. Obviously your

constituents didn't have a clue as to what they were going to get, so

they had no expectations. However, the people who elected me did so

knowing we had a stand on abortion, medicare and social services;

knowing that some of these things were prime areas for us that we

wanted to see; knowing we were supporting a university for the north.

These were things that came up in the platform and were expressed. For

me to change around and change my opinion at some point would, I think,

be deceitful and not representative of the people who elected me. It is

my responsibility to uphold what I am elected on, to uphold what we

stand for. It is not my right as an individual to say: "I'm elected on

this basis; however, I'm going to vote differently when I get in the

Legislature." That is not appropriate at all.

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

[ Page 9835 ]

they're

never brought up. This government never brings them up. We have

motions. We never have an opportunity to debate any of those motions.

That opportunity should be taken today after members' statements. We

never debate those motions.

We never, or very rarely, have

committees that actually function. We have the standing committee on

forestry working right now, but the committee on health and human

services.... I mentioned it to the minister. Every year when the

Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was Minister of Health, he

used to say: "Well, perhaps it would be a good idea if we referred

something to the committee." But nothing was ever referred.

There

are opportunities within this Legislature, within the systems that

exist in this Legislature, for individuals to have their say, but they

are not being utilized by this government. This government is

neglecting to give individual members any opportunity to have a say.

And that is not a major reform. All you have to do is live up to the

expectations of this Legislature, and give individuals an opportunity

to speak.

MR. SERWA : Mr. Speaker, I don't know that

the remarks of the member for Prince George North did anything other

than confirm that politicians are frequently regarded as spineless,

self-serving, stupid or verbose.

MR. KEMPF : Or all of the above.

MR. SERWA : Or all of the above.

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

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Okanagan South knows

full well that he is playing fast and loose with the rules, attempting

to quote something into the record which was a direct attack on another

member of this House and using unparliamentary language. I ask that he

be asked to withdraw that statement. It's clearly out of order.

[11:15]

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

MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, that statement was not directed at that hon. member. That

statement is a perception that the public has. I said that that hon.

member did nothing to mitigate that particular statement.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, the same point of order. For the most part, the member's

statement was irrelevant, and we don't take issue with much of it. But

the point is that he deliberately tied that statement to the member for

Prince George North. He knows it; they know; you know it, Mr. Speaker.

I ask him to withdraw it. Let's not play games in this chamber.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first member for Okanagan South

clearly said that the remark was not intended to be directed at the

member for Prince George North, which in itself is a withdrawal of any

imputation of improper motive against another member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

I would accept the point of order made by the Minister of Advanced

Education, and I ask the member for Okanagan South to continue.

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

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

MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I take comfort from Winston

Churchill's famous quip: "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be

shot at without result." I'd hoped that members of the opposition would

keep this debate at a constructive, non-partisan level. I recognize

that parliamentary reforms have been implemented under both Social

Credit and New Democrat governments.

I'm going to continue

on with my statement because I think it is relevant and important.

MacMinn suggests a committee day on Wednesday whereby four different

committees would sit simultaneously to discuss estimates. Estimates

would then go back to the House for final approval.

Second,

standing committees that can summon civil servants would expand the

concept of responsible government to the bureaucracy, as well as to

government ministers.

Third, if bills were sent to

committee before second reading, which approves a bill in principle,

then standing committees would have the ability to propose substantial

amendments before a bill is voted on.

In Ottawa the McGrath

committee reforms have led to the creation of a Standing Committee on

Private Members' Business. This committee decides which private

members' bills will enter the House for a vote after receiving extended

debate and committee study. The process provides credibility to those

private members' bills selected by the committee as worthy of

consideration by the House. I believe this process would be useful in

British Columbia and help to rejuvenate private members' interest in

private members' bills.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, I am not

naively asking for an end to the adversarial nature of the party

system. What I am asking for, however, is that legislatures not feel

constrained about taking individual initiatives and lobbying for

parliamentary reform.

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

[ Page 9836 ]

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

Introduction of Bills

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION ACT

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

a bill intituled Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I am pleased today to introduce legislation to establish a Hazardous

Waste Management Corporation for British Columbia. The new Crown

corporation will implement a comprehensive hazardous waste management

system throughout the province. The Ministry of Environment will

continue as regulator and strict enforcer of the regulations.

This

government is committed to the long-term reduction of hazardous wastes

in British Columbia. Our priority is to encourage industry to reduce or

eliminate hazardous ingredients at source or to reuse and recycle

whenever possible. We also want to achieve a reduction in the hazardous

wastes generated in households by encouraging the public to use

non-toxic substances or to buy only those quantities of hazardous

materials that they need for household chores.

The ministry

and the new corporation will work with municipalities and regional

districts throughout British Columbia to establish management systems

for household and hazardous waste. The corporation will initiate a

process to establish environmentally secure treatment facilities to

deal with hazardous wastes, including those already in storage. There

will be full public involvement and consultation in the location of any

new hazardous waste treatment facilities in British Columbia.

Hazardous

wastes are those which require special treatment and disposal

techniques to keep them from affecting human health and the

environment. Substances such as used oil, solvents, acids, pesticides

and PCBs are examples of hazardous wastes. An important part of the

management system will be public education, which informs people on

safe handling of hazardous materials, particularly those in common use

in the home.

British Columbia already has stringent

hazardous waste regulations which allow few options for treatment and

disposal. Until treatment facilities are established in British

Columbia, generators must store their hazardous wastes or dispose of

them outside the province. To protect the health and safety of the

public, the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation will coordinate the

efforts of all involved parties to reduce the amount of hazardous waste

generated in British Columbia and to ensure the safe treatment and

disposal of what cannot be reused or recycled. Particular emphasis will

be placed on assisting households, small businesses and municipalities

in dealing with their hazardous wastes.

The management of

hazardous wastes offers opportunities for British Columbians to take

the lead in developing new technology for hazardous waste management,

and the corporation will support the necessary research and

development. This research will encourage industry to replace toxic

ingredients and introduce reduction, reuse, recovery and recycling

practices. The corporation will work with the private sector to ensure

safe treatment and disposal of the stored backlog of hazardous waste.

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

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

Bill

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MR. BLENCOE :

Yesterday we covered a number of issues. Principally we pointed out

quite correctly that the government's track record in social housing

and this last budget are nowhere near adequate to deal with the housing

problems facing British Columbians. Indeed, I note for the Minister of

Housing that this administration is spending just slightly in excess of

$35 million to construct affordable housing, yet — this is just a

comparison — has budgeted this year in excess of $30 million for

government advertising. Only $5 million more has been budgeted for

housing for construction — that's all — but $30 million for

advertising. Those are their priorities: nearly as much for government

propaganda as for housing British Columbians. I think it's really an

interesting correlation, an interesting comparison, and British

Columbians should know that. Indeed, that $30 million is $100,000 every

day for six days every week for 52 weeks a year. A hundred grand a day

is being spent by this administration on propaganda and misleading

advertising. It's nearly as much as they're spending on constructing

affordable housing in British Columbia.

That shows where

this government is on the construction of affordable housing in the

province. Why couldn't that $30 million, for instance, go towards

affordable housing? Their priorities are clearly on advertising, as we

have pointed out consistently in this session. It's misleading; it

distorts reality. They're spending just about as much money on

propaganda as they are on constructing affordable

[ Page 9837 ]

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

I'm

sure the minister won't want to comment on that, but I think it points

out once again that in two years the housing program introduced by this

administration has come nowhere close to what they've claimed in their

announcements, in their recycled news releases, in their TV and radio

and newspaper ads and everything. Indeed, I think it's a very sad

reflection. More and more, as we progress and make a close analysis of

the government's housing program, we really see that it is in tatters.

It has been an abject failure. The minister should go back to the

drawing-board and bring back real housing programs in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just move on to something the minister

consistently did yesterday and continues to do and which unfortunately

creates much concern: his continuing attack on local government.

This minister continues to bash local government, to attack

councils right across this province — bash, bash, bash — trying to find

a scapegoat for their lack of programs, as I've said today. Nearly as

much for affordable housing as they're spending on advertising. I don't

have to say any more about that, but as municipal affairs critic, I

have to stand here today and say something about his unfair, consistent

bashing of local government.

Local government in this province

is trying to do something about an affordable housing program, but they

are financially constrained. They would love to help to create

affordable housing, but they just don't have the dollars. They don't

have the mandate to do that. The level of government that has the

mandate is the provincial government. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I know

that local governments across this province are endorsing projects and

getting them through as quickly as possible; they're elected to do

that. But they also have a commitment to ensuring that those projects

fit within their community.

However, this minister takes

examples out of context, picks one here and there and by inference says

that local government is not doing its job in housing. I have to stand

here today and say that it's totally unfair and irresponsible of that

minister. Of course, I think it's consistent with this minister's modus

operandi: to find excuses and scapegoat anybody or any institution for

this government's lack of housing programs.

[11:30]

Vis--vis this minister's attacking local government, let's come

home and take a look at Crown provincial land that has been used for

affordable housing. We were promised over a year ago a policy on Crown

provincial and the use of Crown land for affordable housing — co-op,

non-profit, affordable housing. We're still waiting. As I said

yesterday, the minister said he was going to introduce our housing

program, which clearly stated that we would use certain portions of

Crown land provincial for the creation of affordable housing. We would

ensure that in our policy. If the minister has read our policy — I'm

sure he has, because he said he was going to introduce it, just about

section 7, under rental housing, provides public land to

increase housing as follows: "British Columbians don't want any more

Expo land deals. New Democrats would ensure a fair deal for B.C. in any

future Crown land sales, with a guarantee that a portion of our public

land will be used to build affordable housing." I have not seen on this

side of the House nor have the people of British Columbia seen what

this government promised: an affordable housing program or policy on

Crown land.

We have sold off major sections of Crown land

totally to the private sector and to the private development industry.

What has happened is that we have basically a condominiumization of our

Crown land. I note that 570 hectares in the Westwood Plateau in

Coquitlam sold in 1989 with no Crown land policy in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I would just like to remind the member that Crown land sales is not

part of this ministry. I believe it would be only proper to be relevant

to the vote that is before us.

MR. BLENCOE : I heed

your words, Mr. Chairman, but I think I am extremely relevant, because

the Crown provincial has at its disposal.... And this minister is

talking about local government not freeing up land and being difficult.

This government is totally hypocritical. This area has its own land

available, but it won't have a Crown land policy to ensure affordable

housing being constructed on it. It's hypocrisy of the worst sort.

I say, Westwood Plateau: 570 hectares. We did not have a Crown land

policy or an affordable housing policy in place to ensure that 25

percent or 30 percent of that land was used for affordable housing. You

can't attack local government for not doing its job when this

government has land at its own disposal that it hasn't got a policy for.

own community of Songhees over here was promised a Crown land policy

and that we'd see some affordable housing— such as co-op or non-profit

— being utilized on that land. We haven't seen it yet; we're

still waiting.

How dare you, Mr. Minister, attack local

government when you're not doing your job yourself? You're not ensuring

that your colleague — whoever is in charge of Crown lands; I believe

the former Minister of Forests.... You're not getting together and

saying; "If we're going to attack local government, we'd better make

sure we've got our own back yard in order, and that our land is

available for affordable housing or a component of it."

Songhees

is a prime example sitting right over here. We still haven't seen a

policy. Where is the government? Twenty hectares for the Jericho Hill

School for the Deaf site. We haven't got an announcement yet, but we

would like to see some policy on that.

The Expo lands: we

all know that fiasco. What has to happen there, of course, is that

we're going to have to buy back at inflated prices. If we're going to

use any social housing, we have to buy back land from

[ Page 9838 ]

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

This

minister and other ministers have the audacity to attack local

government. One of the biggest landowners in the province of British

Columbia is the Crown itself. I would say to the minister: "Check your

own back yard and get off the backs of local government." They are

doing a fine job in this province, and they're doing their best, I

might add, with very limited tools in terms of housing: $35 million —

0.27 percent of the entire province budget for affordable housing in

the province. You spend nearly as much on misleading advertising.

The

point I'm making is that local government will do what it can. It does,

and it will. There will be certain projects that local government wants

to check on and may say no to — because of their elected position —

which they believe is not quite correct, doesn't fit, doesn't have the

zoning or whatever. That's going to happen. But go back and check with

local government on how many they have passed in the last year and how

many proposals have got through advisory planning commissions and

councils. Go back and check.

The minister incorrectly

attacked Victoria city council for a project on Shelbourne not going

through, but it has gone through. The minister didn't check his facts.

It has gone through; it has passed. It's going ahead. He was so

desperate to attack my council and other councils in this province. Go

back and do your own work on your own Crown land. You've got thousands

of hectares of Crown land you're selling off at fire-sale prices — some

of them — to the private sector, insiders and friends of the

government, and you're not ensuring that Crown land is used for

affordable housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I think I must

again remind the member that Crown land is not the issue within this

vote. I would ask the member again to be relevant to the vote that is

before us.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I think Crown

land is an important issue to affordable housing in the province of

British Columbia. The biggest landowner in the province of British

Columbia is the Crown. We've had a history of sales and not a policy in

place to ensure that a component of that land is used for affordable

housing. The point I want to make is that this minister should stop

attacking local governments and take care of his own back yard.

Let's have a policy. We were promised it a year ago. It's clearly stated

in our policy what we would do; the private sector may play a major role on

Crown land, but there would also be a role for the non-profit, the affordable

and the co-op sector. I don't see that from the government. There's

a way we could build thousands of units in the province of British Columbia

for affordable housing. But of course the government won't do that, I suspect,

because they're prepared to commit only $35 million — 0.27 percent of the

provincial budget — for affordable housing in the province of British Columbia.

want to ask the minister: is he aware or can he say...? The former

Minister of Social Services and Housing announced a year ago that there

would be a Crown land policy, and that it was coming forth for

affordable housing. Can the minister tell us today if that promise is

about to happen? Can we expect it soon? There is a way we could find

the land for affordable housing in the province of British Columbia.

Could the minister tell us that?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Chairman, talk about taking things out of context! That member is

certainly taking things out of context when he speaks about the very

issue we talked about yesterday, the housing dollars we have in place.

That was talking about the anticipated growth in various areas. That

was talking about the municipal governments' role and about the role of

both sides of the House, of every individual that goes through a public

hearing. It was not bashing. When we talk about Crown land having to go

through zoning, it all goes through the same process. When I talk about

the length of time it takes, that is not bashing; that is stating

facts. It takes a lot of time to go through a process, and that's my

concern.

Just yesterday, or in this morning's paper, on one

project there was a lot of delay; some of it was highways. Now it's

been delayed again; instead of a June public hearing it's July. There's

nothing the municipality can do there. Their reason is so that all

members will be present. But it takes time.

That member

accuses this government again and again of not getting housing on the

market, but neglects to take into consideration that it takes time. The

process is such that it cannot come on the market any more quickly.

want to reiterate for the record what I said yesterday. This will be

the last time that I will. From now on I will just refer to the Blues.

He can look at it and quote from it if he wishes. We have $1 billion in

the housing strategy program this year. If you want me to go into

detail again and eat up time, I can do that. I think it's all on the

record, and I don't think I have to at this time.

We have

social housing. Since 1986, in that new program where we participated

with the federal government on a very good housing plan, we've built

1,886 units every year, our full allotment of social housing. We were

cut back this year by 15 percent. I'm desperately trying to get that 15

percent back and, furthermore, get a better share for British Columbia.

have an allocation of $80 million for the rental supply program. Again,

it is not us that's holding it back. It could be that the developer

can't get his zoning in place. It could be that they cannot get their

finances in place. There are many reasons. But the point I'm trying to

make is that it's not held up by this minister or by this ministry.

We've got the full 8,000 units to go ahead as quickly and as soon as

they can.

[ Page 9839 ]

There

were roughly 40,000 housing unit starts last year. We had a net

inmigration of 60,000 people into this province, most from Ontario.

It's all in the record. But obviously the member wants to go through it

again.

I did not bash the municipal governments. I was

saying the process takes too long. Those are facts. He has served on

municipal council, Mr. Chairman, and he should know that.

I'm

not saying that some housing units were not turned down for good

reason. That happens and will happen. What I'm saying is that when we

have a crisis we have to look at it very carefully. We cannot take the

attitude of the "not in my back yard" syndrome. That's being done all

over the province.

There is another syndrome that's alive

and well right now. It's "not in my term of office" — the NIMTOO

syndrome. It's alive and well. I would like to have the syndrome "yes

in my back yard, " because we're talking about people. We're talking

about people who need a place to live.

That member knows

very well that we have programs in place that say: "Go ahead, private

sector. Go ahead, societies. We've got the money. Go to it as fast as

you can." But there are delays. I can show you all kinds of delays.

When

did I announce 8,000 units? So far, they're trickling in quite slowly.

By the end of the year, I hope to have about 2,000 where people can

move in, and it looks like we can meet that.

Crown lands.

We have a policy. I mentioned it yesterday. Of course, again the member

didn't listen, but that's not unusual. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to

call that member a Blencoe blockhead, because that wouldn't be

parliamentary, but that's just about as thick as that member is on that

side. He doesn't listen.

We had a task force that looked at

the total area of Crown lands and how we could approach it to make it

available for affordable housing, for rental housing That task force

was chaired by an assistant deputy, and a member on that side of the

House was a member of that particular task force. Some of the ideas

that were brought forward by the critic may well come from that member,

and some of the ideas aren't bad at all, so I commend the member for

passing that information on to the critic.

The review was

to review the provincial lands that could be used for market and

affordable multiple dwelling and for rental housing. The target area,

of course, would be those areas most affected by the low vacancy rate,

and that was the Vancouver and Victoria areas.

I have had a

number of meetings with the federal Minister of Housing to review

federal lands as well, and they have now indicated they will release

some lands.

We have identified all the Crown land in the

province that is suitable for housing. We have two properties: the

Songhees and the Alder Lodge property will be used for.... A proposal

call will be sent out to use those lands for housing. We've got other

properties that we will ask people to make proposals on, to use them

for social housing and rental housing.

As I mentioned, the

review of federal lands will also be implemented, and that is, of

course, with the cooperation of the federal government.

[11:45]

The key point of the land acquisition program is that a proposal

call be issued, and that is to lease the land long-term rather than

sell it, which I think is a very appropriate way to go about it.

Projects will be market and affordable rental housing, with priority

being given to family housing, which I think is where the pressure is

at this time.

Municipalities will be encouraged to

fast-zone. As a matter of fact, we have a program in place that gives

incentive grants to municipalities to increase density and to

fast-zone. The take-up on that has been very, very slow. It has not

been too well received.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK : Right now.

AN HON. MEMBER : How many years?

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm not blaming government. I'm talking about the time it takes to get

it through. Mr. Chairman, that member was a municipal alderman, and he

knows very well that it takes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm blaming no one except the system. It takes a long time. It always

takes a long time. Where are our holdups on the rental supply program?

Tell me: what would you do?

Interjection.

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

But

what would you do if the authority had been given to build 8,000 rental

units but they were not happening because of delays? What would you

say? Blame the ministry for it? Blame that member?

MS. CULL : Maybe you should find out why.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK : I did.

Interjection.

[ Page 9840 ]

HON. MR. DUECK :

I will. I will work with anyone willing to help. That's why I gave the

invitation yesterday to both sides of the House: let's work together;

let's get on with it; help us; don't criticize, but help us, because

there's a need out there. But all that's happening is criticism. They

haven't got any answers but criticism — negative, negative, negative.

We want some action. That's where it's at. We have programs in place,

and for the member to say that this government only has X number of

dollars in the Housing portfolio is utter nonsense. I am not going to

go through this charade again. I'm just going to let him read the Blues

and then come back on Monday.

MR. BLENCOE : Well, we

continue to get the same old hack-and-slash at local government that

this minister has become well known for. In terms of the policy we laid

out, we have been quite clear what we would do in housing. The minister

even said it was virtually identical to what he was going to put on the

cabinet table, but of course it never happened.

I would

refer the minister to our clear, comprehensive strategy, which has been

well received. It's there; it's doable; it's efficient. Instead of

bashing local government, this minister should decide to spend some

time taking a look at what's happening in housing in other

jurisdictions.

How long do you need? I've already pointed

out that in my own community, Songhees has been on the go for a couple

of years. The development plan written by your government....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, here we go. We have 170 acres on Songhees. This publication was put

out in 1984 — five years ago. You keep bashing local government, but

this has been a five-year program. How long does it take you to get

some affordable housing? The development guidelines specifically say:

"Songhees is intended to incorporate a range of income groups, age

levels and household types. An objective will be to avoid some of the

past extremes of urban housing which have inadequately mixed income

levels."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what we've got

over there on Songhees because of this government — and you've had five

years to do it.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, you weren't around to do it Okay, pass the buck, which you always

do — all of you. This was your document, your provincial government,

the government you're a member of. You've had five years to get on with

some social housing, some affordable housing, on Songhees. Yet you bash

local government because they may take an extra few days to look at

something closely. You've had five years to do something in my

community with this plan.

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

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

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Today visiting the galleries from the beautiful west coast community of

Ucluelet — the whale-watching capital of Canada — is a group of 28

grade 5 students and their teacher, Miss St. Cyr. The are visiting us

from Ucluelet Elementary School. I wish the House to make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister and his government have had five years to do something on

Songhees. All I'm saying is that they cannot continue to bash local

government. They get it through as fast as they can and as responsibly

to their electorate as possible. You've had five years for Songhees,

and you've had as much time on other Crown land proposals. So let's

stop blaming everybody else. Again I say, take a look at your own back

yard.

I want to move on to this great rental supply program

that the minister keeps defending, saying that local government is

being slow in introducing the units or won't allow the units to go

ahead. This is an important issue that I want to cover.

First,

I want to ask if the minister has set a target for what he considers to

be a decent vacancy rate in British Columbia and whether his ministry

has done studies to show what impact the rental supply program will

have on the lower mainland vacancy rates. I want to know if they've

done any studies to see what impact it will have on the very bad

vacancy rates there.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I

think I've exhausted all the avenues of reply. It's on the record over

and over again. The rental supply program is applicable in areas where

the vacancy rate is 2 percent or less.

I just want to

reiterate that I was not bashing anyone. I'm talking about the slow

process. I will repeat it again and again: $80 million is available in

the rental supply program to proceed as quickly as the developer can

and the zoning can take place. It is there. What more does that member

want me to do? He blames me, yet I'm saying it's available; it's there;

take advantage of it. Even the member for Vancouver East can take

part

in that program. He's in development. Why doesn't he go ahead and build

some units as he's done in the past — evicting people, demolishing and

then putting in condominiums?

The area of housing has been

explored in all detail, and we have worked very closely with

municipalities. We've had meetings with mayors, with consumer affairs,

with municipal governments and with mayors of the regional district,

discussing the whole housing program and the seriousness of it in some

areas. They're cooperating as best they can, but the process is very

slow. It is in many areas, but it is slow. We're trying to get it on

track as fast as possible. The moneys and programs are there, and

[ Page 9841 ]

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

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister unfortunately continues to get into personalities. Maybe

he will listen carefully and ask his staff to see if they have some

answers. You're building all these units, predominantly in the lower

mainland. I want to know, Mr. Minister, what studies you have done to

measure the impact on the vacancy rate of these units after they're

completed.

The reason I'm asking is that I think it's

important. Our research staff have done some analysis, and I'm going to

present that. But this minister has all the staff available to him.

They keep talking about the rental supply program as the saviour for

helping the vacancy rate. I want to know what studies they've done to

show the impact on the vacancy rate. I hope they've done some studies,

because this supposedly is their saving grace for improving the housing

situation in the lower mainland. Has the minister got the studies? Can

you show some evidence that it's going to have the impact you think

it's going to have?

HON. MR. DUECK : The B.C. Housing

Management Commission and CMHC have done a number of studies. I haven't

got them with me, but I could get them to you when they're available.

MR. BLENCOE :

Then I will go through our analysis of the impact of the rental supply

program on the lower mainland in terms of what it's going to do for the

vacancy rates. We conclude that the vacancy rate will not increase, but

will decline even when the rental supply program is complete.

Let

me just go through this. Staff will have to take some notes and

comments, because it's fairly complicated. I think it's very important

because this administration is basing its entire housing program on

$1,000-a-month units. They are saying that is their way to create

housing in the province of British Columbia.

Let me go

through this, Mr. Chairman, and get the minister's response. As far as

I know, the current status of the program in phase one is that 2,225

units have been approved. As of April 6, 1990, which is the last

information I had — the minister can perhaps update this — just 62 were

complete and 111 were under construction. I'm sure we've probably got a

more updated note. I'm probably being fair to the minister, but I'm

saying that perhaps half of those 2,225 units will be under

construction by June. That's phase one.

Phase two: 2,879

units were approved. My understanding is that most builders have not

yet signed financing agreements with their banks for phase two. If I

stand to be corrected, then I can be corrected obviously.

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

Let

me go through that. Phase one: 2,225 units; phase two: 2,879 units; and

phase three: proposal call for 3,000 units in progress.

Now,

Mr. Chairman, let me take a look at estimating the impact of the rental

supply program on the greater Vancouver vacancy rate. This is our

estimation.

In phase one, 1,682 units were assigned to

greater Vancouver; that's 75.6 percent from a possible 2,225 units. I

think I'm correct there. Let's look at some of what I think are

reasonable assumptions. First, the same proportion of units will be

built in Vancouver for phases two and three as happened in phase one. I

think that would be a reasonable assumption. It's having the greatest

problem, and you've assigned 75 percent of the units in phase one to

Vancouver. It may be higher; I don't know. But I'm assuming it's going

to be the same pro-rated percentage — 75 percent.

Let's

assume, Mr. Chairman — this is faster than you say local governments

are doing it — that all units are available for occupancy by October

1992. That's for phases two and three: October 1992.

[2:00]

In the next part of this formula, by the forecast of the Ministry of

Finance, the population in the lower mainland will increase at the same

rate as the province as a whole and will rent or buy homes in the same

proportion as they do now. So the Ministry of Finance has forecast that

the population as a whole will increase the same as it is now, and the

population will rent or buy homes in the same proportion as they do

now. The minister hopefully is following me.

Also the

rental housing stock is lost to demolition at the same rate in 1992 as

it was in 1987-89, and we have no indication that the rate is going to

go down. Indeed, it looks like it's going up, but with the same

demolition rate.

We are giving the benefit of the doubt

that no rental stock is lost to condominiums; that's a major

assumption. That's benefiting the rental supply program by assuming

that no rental stock will be lost to condominiums. It's highly

optimistic, Mr. Chairman, because the average loss in 1981-1988 was 231

units per year.

Another part of the formula is that

privately owned rental housing stock will continue to be added at the

same rate as in July to September of 1989.

Under these

parameters, giving a lot to the rental supply program and allowing for

things to move faster than they probably have now, 6,126 units will be

delivered in greater Vancouver by the program by October 1992. That's

based on what you're doing now, using the same allocation and the

various things that I've suggested — which I think are being very fair

to you actually, Mr. Minister — and using the Ministry of Finance's

forecasts. Using the ministry's forecasts, 18,500 more families will be

looking for housing, of which 6,780 will want to rent. Based on the

forecast by the ministry, 3,839 units of privately owned rental stock

will come onto the market. I think that's probably being fairly

generous.

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

[ Page 9842 ]

ing

over '87-89. But we say that if that rate continues, we will lose in

excess of 3,000 units to demolition in the province and in Vancouver.

Putting all that together and being very conservative — I think being

overly fair to the ministry in terms of its delivery time — there were

675 vacancies in greater Vancouver in October 1989. Adding all this

together, by 1992 there will be a net gain of 6,255 units but 6,780

families wanting to rent them.

The forecast vacancy rate in

October 1992 will be 0.3 percent, compared to the October 1989 rate of

0.4 percent. I know that there are some assumptions in here, but a lot

of the figures being used are forecast by the ministry. We don't have

the minister.... He says he may have some studies. By this working-out

and careful analysis, the minister's program will not have the impact

he says it will on the vacancy rate in greater Vancouver.

We're

being very fair in terms of the allocations, the population and the

rental housing being lost to demolition. By 1992, by our analysis,

there will be a net gain of 6,255 units but 6,780 families looking to

rent.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : So what?

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

is an important point, and the member from South Peace River says it

doesn't make any difference. Maybe it doesn't in his area, but I can

say that in the lower mainland, where they're going through the worst

housing crisis in this country, it's very important. This government is

basing its entire housing program on the rental supply program.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

We believe in analysis, and this analysis is fairer to the government

than could be, I can assure you. By our analysis, by October 1992 in

the lower mainland, in Vancouver, you'll have a vacancy rate of 0.3

percent. Your rental supply program may very well not do the thing you

say it will do. You're claiming all these wonderful things it will do

and at the same time, of course, bashing local government. I wonder if

the minister wants to comment on these figures.

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

Leave granted.

MR. JONES :

Joining us today is a very large group of young people, who I am sure

are very interested in the housing problems that we face in British

Columbia right now. They will probably be among first-time homebuyers

in ten to 15 years. These are a group of some 80 grade 6 or 7 students

from a very time-honoured school in Burnaby, a school that's been

serving the young people of Burnaby for something like 70 years. This

is a group from Rosser Elementary School, and they are accompanied by

their teacher Mr. Bennest. I'd ask both sides of the House to give the

students and teachers from Rosser Elementary School a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK :

The member very conveniently neglects to say that there's also a

private sector at work that builds a lot of houses. He also neglects to

say that a lot of people will buy rather than rent. He also neglects to

quote the social housing we produce: 1,886 a year. Furthermore, you can

make figures do anything you want. So if that's his analysis, that's

fine.

I've made our point very clear — what we're doing in

the housing market. I have to reiterate that we have done more than any

government in the past in the area of housing.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister is wrong; we have factored it in. Privately owned housing

starts are in the formula. Actually, it's based on the rate of July

through September 1989, a high building period. I suspect again that

I'm being fairer to the minister in terms of what's happening today in

construction.... I think you'll find, Mr. Minister, that our study is

actually fairly conservative. We have probably given you a lot more

leeway than is actually happening in private sector starts.

I'm

quite prepared to make this available to the minister, because I think

it's important. We on this side think it's important to do analysis

wherever possible, using figures created by the government itself

wherever possible, to give an indication of what the government is

claiming will happen with its programs.

I would like to see

the government's analysis of its own programs. I'm told that the

minister says they are available. We'd be glad to get it. I'm

interested in working this thing out. If we have been unfair in our

analysis, we'd like to hear about it; but I think we've been overly

fair to the government program. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, on private

housing starts, which are factored in, I think you'll find that we're

not going to get them. You know what's happening in the development

industry today.

[ Page 9843 ]

Again

we are predicting — unless the minister can make it otherwise — that

with this wonderful program they're talking about on TV just about

every night, telling everybody it's going to solve the problem, there

will be a net gain of 6,255 units. But the vacancy rate in October 1992

will be 0.3 percent.

Maybe the minister has some studies

now — perhaps a variation on our analysis. On our side of the House,

our budget is limited in terms of being able to.... The government has

far more tools at its disposal, and research and analysis. It can pay

for those things to be done; we can't do that. So if the minister has

something at his fingertips — and I hope he does — that can show that

their program is going to have a dramatic effect on the vacancy rates

in the lower mainland, I'd be very glad to read it and hear about it

now, because the assumption or presumption by his announcements is that

it will.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to introduce — and I know the member for

Victoria will be pleased too — the great chairman of the Capital

Regional District, Murray Coell, who's in the House today.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I won't get political and answer those questions, but

it's so nice to know that the people of Victoria have the smarts to

elect a good Socred to some of these important positions. Also in the

House is Frank Leonard, the environmental chairman of the Capital

Regional District and a Saanich alderman. Both are good Socreds; both

are good environmentalists.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Does the minister wish to respond?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I don't wish to, but I will. I have part of a

summary of the Canada

Mortgage and Housing study, and I'll quote what they say about the

rental and housing market in British Columbia. It says: "Rental

construction was doubled in 1990 over 1989's level." Listen to this:

"Private rental starts" — that's what you omitted or skipped over very

loosely — "including index-linked mortgages and co-ops, are forecast to

rise to 5,050 units from 2,559 units in 1989 This increase is mainly

because of the province's rental supply plan" — which lowers mortgage

interest rates to a certain percentage.

"Another factor is

the creation of the Vancouver Land Corp. of the city of Vancouver" —

which is the private sector in cooperation with the city. "Assisted

rental construction is expected to increase, and more provincial

funding for non-profit units . . . ."

"The housing market was very active during 1989, with starts, sales and

prices exhibiting large increases. The total housing starts in 1989

reached the second-highest level of the decade. Starts rose to 38,000

from 30,000 in '88, a 28 percent increase." And again for 1990 a very large increase is expected.

[2:15]

Crown lands. I've got some more information here for that member's

information. Songhees. Three parcels were purchased by the B.C. Housing

Management Commission, one parcel in West Vancouver and another one in

Prince George. These are Crown land parcels we're purchasing for this

purpose.

The rental supply program. We believe we can

increase the 8,000 if everything goes well and according to plan.

According to our analysis, by 1992, when the last ones will come on

stream, we will probably have 9,900 units for the same dollar. That

means in Victoria there will be 1,897 units for this area. These are

forecasts, of course. The rest of the Island, 750; the lower mainland,

6,389; the rest of the province, 866; making a total of 9,902.

These

are some of the positive things that are happening in the province.

It's not all doom and gloom. But of course, when you're sitting in the

opposition and you don't have to perform, all you thrive on is gloom

and doom, and you keep repeating yourself.

The programs we

have in place — including the rental supply program, the social housing

program, the $1 billion in the housing strategy — are excellent. They

are performing. They are doing what they set out to do. We're quite

happy with that, and we'll do everything we can to expedite the units

being produced.

MR. BLENCOE : If that's the best the

minister can do with the Ministry of Housing, to cite a CMHC flyer and

some general forecasts from CMHC, which they do regularly, but nothing

from his own ministry in terms of analysis or study.... Our staff, who

work very hard.... If the minister disagrees, that's fine. But we don't

even have any studies from the government to back up their claims. Even

their own studies, analysis and forecasts of their own program.... All

he can do is cite a CMHC

summary report. I don't even know what the

date is on that

summary report. I suspect it may be a little old.

gather there is no detailed analysis, solid report or studies of your

own program's impact on the vacancy rate and what it's going to do for

the province. You're spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money—

$30 million on the television to tell people it's going to solve all

their problems, and you don't have the evidence to show how it's going

to do that.

Again, we've driven a truck right through this

government's housing program. They're spending $30 million, nearly as

much as they're spending on social housing, and they don't have

anything to back up their claims. They've got all the staff in the

world. They've got all the ability to do that. They're going out there

and saying that we're doing all these units,

[ Page 9844 ]

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

Well,

well, well! That's where we are in housing in the province of British

Columbia. We took the time, with our limited resources, to make a very

fair analysis, giving the benefit of the doubt to the government and

its program in many areas. All the minister can come up with is a flyer

from CMHC. No study. Their own study for their own staff, their own

ministry.... This government is consistently spending millions of

taxpayers' dollars to tell them they're doing something about housing,

but they haven't got the studies or the analysis to back up that it's

going to deal with the problem satisfactorily.

I have today

taken the opportunity, and our staff have taken the time, to go through

it and do the analysis with our limited resources on the opposition

side. This minister has a ministry behind him — a full ministry

and the B.C. Housing Management Commission and all those people — and

he cites a CMHC report. No wonder your program is in tatters. No wonder

you can't deliver housing. No wonder tenants are on the street. No

wonder gouging is happening in the province of British Columbia. No

wonder people don't believe you and your advertising. No wonder when

you say it's $1 billion for housing we find out through the books it's

$35 million — 0.27 percent of the budget.

Their program is

in tatters, and they don't have the studies to back up their own

analysis and their own announcements. That's where housing is in the

province of British Columbia.

MR. BRUCE : I've been

sitting here listening to this debate, and I find it somewhat

repetitious. However, it is something that the NDP and the opposition

critic here....

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

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

The

critic for housing goes on about the fact of a study. The opposition

has been known for years and years for having to do a study before

doing anything, and then when you get that study, you have another

study. What do you need a study for?

Let's just put it

together. You've had a net increase, if I'm correct — Mr. Minister, you

might be able to help me out if I'm not — in in-migration to this

province of 60,000 people. Now to me that means that more people have

moved here, and some of us are having children — I heard a great debate

here earlier about diapers and so on. There's an increase in the

population in this province, 60,000 in-migration, which would mean — in

my mind, anyway — that you need more housing.

The next

thing I would do — very practically; I don't think I need a study — is

drive through my community. Without even going to the municipal hall or

the regional district or the city hall, I would drive through my

community and see whether there is actually any development. Are there

any houses being built on the lots that have been graded over time? And

do you know what you would find in my community? You would find a fair

number of new houses and new developments taking place.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

It's not that there's no problem; I'm glad the member from Burnaby

mentioned that. There is a problem; there is a concern. You know why

there's a concern? Because people like to live in British Columbia. I

don't want to go on and on about it, but the reason they like to live

in British Columbia is that it's a good place to live, and it's a good

place to live because there's good government here. When the time comes

that we get to an election again, sometime in the near future, I think

the people of British Columbia will understand that there has been good

government, and they will return good government to power in this

province — the Social Credit Party.

I think it's wonderful

that the opposition has had another study. I think it's wonderful that

the housing critic can stand up and ask the minister: "What studies

have you done?"

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

Well, I'll tell you, the analysis is quite simple. There are more

housing starts today in the province of British Columbia than we've

seen in years and years and years.

MR. BLENCOE : What happened to the vacancy rate?

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

MR. BLENCOE : Blame somebody else.

MR. BRUCE :

The only thing I can blame is the fact that the province of British

Columbia is a wonderful and great place to live in. The only thing I

can deduce is that people want to move here. They like to live here,

and when people like to live in an area and they start to come together

in a community, there will be problems for people to find housing. What

will happen is that more and more of those lots that have been created

will be developed upon.

Housing starts around the province

are on a phenomenal increase, but they don't seem to count. It seems to

me the only thing I can deduce from your comments, Mr. Critic, is that

unless the government is out there actually with a hammer and saw....

And, Mr. Minister, have you been out with your hammer and saw lately?

Have you been out there actually building? Why are you sitting here in

the House? Perhaps this member will let these particular estimates go

through, and you can get your carpenter's apron on and get out there

and start building some housing.

[ Page 9845 ]

MR. BLENCOE : It would be an improvement.

MR. BRUCE :

That's all I hear him saying. He wants us to go back to the road to

Bratislava. He wants us to go back to eastern bloc countries. He wants

to go back to the socialistic philosophy, and he wants to build rows

and rows and rows of blencoeblocks — all of those housing units

identical; all the same; no type of individual spirit to them; nothing

there that people can grow in and feel proud of.

Well, Mr.

Member, I've got news for you. There's been a change in eastern Europe.

You know what? They don't like the socialistic philosophies. They want

the enterprise, they want the individuality, and they understand that

there are going to be some significant problems faced in moving into a

free market system. But they are sick and tired of the so-called

planned market economy that you in the socialist field talk about.

Nothing exemplifies that more than your comments dealing with housing.

Blencoeblocks, blencoeblocks, blencoeblocks, all over the province of

British Columbia — nothing individual, nothing creative, nothing where

people can feel they actually own a part of the province.

have a boom, with people moving into the province and people having

families. Yes, there's a problem in trying to find accommodation. The

minister has acknowledged that. The minister is telling you what the

ministry is doing. But with what the ministry and the government as a

whole are doing, there have also been phenomenal increases in the

private sector in the development of homes.

I am glad to

hear that the opposition, the NDP, the socialists of this province,

have undertaken another study. I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you must feel

very confident, knowing that the opposition has undertaken one more

study. What do we need a study for? We know what the problem is. We

have people who have moved to this province to live, and they need

housing. You're trying to satisfy that demand with the private sector,

and they're trying to satisfy that demand.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

The vacancy rate? It is very tight. We know it, you know it, the

minister knows it and everybody knows it. What are we going to do — run

out there and have all these blencoeblocks constructed, and it will all

be owned by the government, and you'll be able to rent from the

government? You can have one block after the other, all the same, and

they can be owned by the government. Oh, wonderful! That's just

absolutely wonderful!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, the

Chair appreciates your enthusiasm but notes a word that has come

forward in your dissertation a number of times Is "blencoeblocks" one

word or is it two?

MR. BRUCE : Mr. Chairman, if I

could just explain, it's one word, and it's a form of construction

that's found in Czechoslovakia, in a little community called Bratislava.

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

[2:30]

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Minister, I'm very concerned, because we hear, I think, very

tedious, repetitious comment from the opposition. I don't want the

people of British Columbia to have to rent their homes from the

government; I want people to be able to own their own homes. All I hear

from the opposition is about this development of blocks and blocks of

apartments, blencoeblocks, similar to what's found in Bratislava, and

you can rent from the government. That's not what the people of this

province are all about. This is an enterprising, individual type of

province where people want to own a piece of the rock, so to speak. You

should understand that.

Certainly, Mr. Minister, there are

things for this House to get on with, to deal with. We're out in front.

It's a beautiful place. The lights are burning. I remember that old

line of a while back when the opposition were in government: would the

last person out of the province turn out the lights. Well, we know the

lights are burning brightly here in the province of British Columbia

and they'll continue to burn brightly.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I really must commend the member for Cowichan for his enthusiasm. It

gave me a bit of a breather. Every word he said is true. Even the

opposition agreed and nodded their heads and said: "Just sit down; we

believe every word of it."

I have to put something on the

record that I think needs to be said. My housing critic keeps saying

certain things that appear on the record as though I had said them. He

said that we had no planning in place, and he said that I said I was

quoting from a flyer. You can twist words and make it sound like

something else, something I've said which in fact is not so. I said we

do planning and I said we have got all kinds of data.

wouldn't be surprised if the figures that that member got were in fact

from the B.C. Housing Management Commission, because they have all that

data. I'm sure that's where he got the information, and that's how he

made up his analysis. I want him to know that we do....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Oh, we haven't got.... I said very clearly for the record that I did

not have the documentation here. We have a department and the B.C.

Housing....

Interjections.

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

[ Page 9846 ]

would also like to state that we have a planning department in the B.C.

Housing Management Commission completely separate from the rest of it.

It does nothing but analyze the situation in the province as to

vacancies and housing units built. We also work very closely with CMHC,

through which we are in partnership with the federal government. Why

reinvent the wheel? A lot of that information comes from them. We don't

go and do the whole thing over again, because it is provided in

partnership with them on the social housing portfolio. We also have

HIFE as another organization that provides an awful lot of data. The

B.C. Housing Management....

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

It's coming. The B.C. Housing Management Commission participates with

the Canadian Home Buil