British Columbia Hansard — MONDAY, MAY 28, 1990

34p 04s 900528p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

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)

MONDAY, MAY 28, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9849 ]

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9849

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

Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9849

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9850

Oral Questions

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 9850

Motor vehicle inspection. Mr. Miller –– 9850

Chilcotin forest industry. Mr. Vant –– 9851

Snug Cove destination resort. Ms. Pullinger –– 9851

Abortion services. Ms. Marzari –– 9852

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9853

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to the House His

Excellency Count Jean-Franois de Liedekerke, Ambassador of Belgium to

Canada, who is visiting us from Ottawa. Would the House please make him

welcome.

MR. CASHORE : Today visiting in the gallery

we have 38 grade 10 students from Pacific Academy in Coquitlam, along

with their teacher, Mr. Drisner, and some other adults. They're here to

learn about democracy. I'd like the House to join me in making them

welcome.

MR. DE JONG : It's my pleasure today to

introduce to the House our youngest daughter Valerie and her husband,

Gerald Veltkamp. They're from Lynden, Washington, and I ask the House

to give them a cordial welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr.

Speaker, visiting in the gallery today are 26 students from a grade 4

and 5 class at Richard McBride School in New Westminster with their

teacher, Miss Diane Holmen, and a number of adults who are accompanying

the children. They are very welcome in the House, and I know all of you

will join me in that welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Two constituents of mine and of the second member for Richmond (Mr.

Loenen) paid a small fortune at a Rotarian fund-raiser recently to

visit the Legislature and to have one of our fine lunches in the

legislative dining room with the second member for Richmond. This fine

couple represents Continental Explosives, an excellent Richmond-based

company that supplies our logging and mining industry throughout the

province. We're very pleased to have them here today, and I'll be

visiting with them briefly after this. I would ask the House to welcome

Jeff and Reggie Balabanov.

HON. MR. FRASER :

On your

behalf, Mr. Speaker, I introduce a group of students from King George

Secondary School together with their teacher, Patricia McGeer — a

very familiar name around here: Pat, but not Patricia. Would they all

please be made welcome by all members.

MR. CHALMERS : Today I have four special guests visiting from Kelowna

in the great riding of Okanagan South. I would like everybody to welcome Mr.

Jim Mills, who is a chartered accountant, one of B.C.'s leading tax specialists

with Rutherford Bazett and Co. in Kelowna; his wife Dorothy; Mr. Dave Borden

of Borden Insulation Services and his wife Elaine. Would you help me make them

welcome, please.

HON. MR. SMITH :

In our Legislature today are two individuals who are the winners of a

provincewide competition for grade 12 high school students sponsored by

the Canadian Bar Association in honour of Law Day 1990. They did a

speech and wrote an essay on the topic of law and the environment.

Would

the House join me in welcoming these winners to our assembly today.

They are Marcy Allan from Mission, British Columbia, who is the winner

of the Law Day essay competition; and Alison Carvallo from Richmond,

British Columbia, winner of the Barry Sullivan Law Cup for public

speaking.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO BAN THE USE OF CFCs

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Ban the Use of CFCs.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill bans the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other

ozone-depleting substances over a five-year period. The basis for this

ban is that the production of certain chemicals, including CFCs and

halons, is known to harm the ozone layer. Currently, about 20,000

tonnes of CFCs are produced in Canada annually, ending up in aerosol

sprays, rigid-foam food packaging, flexible foam used in seat cushions,

etc. The ozone layer is essential for protection of the earth from the

sun's harmful ultraviolet rays and is an essential part of a balanced

and healthy ecosystem.

Bill M210 introduced, read a first

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT APARTMENT

AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

an Act to Phase Out Apartment and Commercial Incinerators.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to phase out the use of

apartment and commercial incinerators over the next two years. These

incinerators are commonly used for trash disposal, but often burn at

very low efficiency, are outdated in design and lack emission-control

equipment. They typically produce high levels of smoke emissions,

odours and fly ash, and they contribute significantly to air pollution.

addition, the elimination of these types of incinerators will reduce

emissions of dangerous air pollutants such as CFCs, heavy metals,

dioxins and other cancer-causing toxins.

Bill M211

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

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

[ Page 9850 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA RECYCLING ACT

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

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill takes new steps to reduce garbage incineration

and waste landfills threatening our environment by establishing a

provincewide recycling program. A B.C. recycling agency will be

established to provide financial and technical support for curbside

recycling in all B.C. communities. The agency will also take action to

minimize garbage from non-biodegradable materials including styrofoam,

plastic packaging and problematic wastes such as tires, construction

materials, motor oils and batteries. It will encourage new B.C. markets

for recyclable materials and encourage the research and development of

environmentally sound packaging, products and recycling technologies.

Bill

M212 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Oral Questions

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister

received a comptroller-general's report last week. Will the minister

confirm that Mr. Stan Dubas was fired in part because of expense

irregularities concerning a 1988 trip to Amsterdam, Stockholm,

Erlangen, Munich and London?

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

MR. CLARK :

Will the minister confirm that Mr. Dubas was accompanied on this trip

by his wife and the then Minister of Health and his wife? Will the

minister confirm that the Minister of Health's expenses associated with

this trip were also the subject of a Ministry of Finance audit?

Another

question to the Minister of Finance. Does the government have a policy

with respect to private companies that supply equipment to the

government paying for expenses of cabinet ministers and deputies op

official government travel?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr.

Speaker, the government takes very seriously its responsibilities in

protecting the interests of its citizens and the proprieties that

accompany the longstanding rule of common law that there be

sensitivities to the issues being addressed. For that reason, as I've

said earlier, it is inappropriate at this particular time to discuss

the details of any such confidential report.

MR. CLARK :

It's rather interesting that the minister chose to answer that way when

I asked about policy with respect to suppliers paying for travel costs.

new question. Will the minister confirm that Siemens Electric, a

supplier of equipment to the Ministry of Health, paid the hotel bills

for Mr. Dubas, his wife, the former Minister of Health and his wife

while they were in Stockholm, Erlangen and Munich?

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

MR. CLARK :

Will the minister make public the financial audits of the former

Minister of Health and Mr. Dubas so that the public can see exactly how

taxpayers' dollars are spent on these trips around the world?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, the House and the second member for Vancouver East are

well aware of the process by which examination of public accounts is

conducted. It has been a longstanding principle of this Legislature

that an all-party committee of the House examine the public accounts.

Indeed, members in the opposition traditionally look forward to that

exercise with great relish. I suspect that this longstanding tradition

is still held sacrosanct and respected by all members of the House.

I have said earlier, it is not appropriate at this time to discuss the

specifics of any particular confidential document presently received by

government.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER :

To the Solicitor-General, Mr. Speaker. Your director of inspections and

carrier safety testified under oath in the coroner's court that almost

half the trucks inspected at roadside failed and that about 15 percent

were pulled off the road. Has the minister reviewed the privatization

of vehicle inspections that was introduced by this government, to

determine whether it is adequately protecting the public?

[2:15]

HON. MR. FRASER :

The government of British Columbia takes safety on the roads very

seriously, whether on highways or streets or gravel roads, and

accordingly it has addressed a very significant effort to the safety of

vehicles, whether commercial trucks, tandems, taxicabs or automobiles.

This

jurisdiction, incidentally, is the toughest in the Pacific Northwest.

We have agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Washington,

Oregon and others to ensure that the standards of vehicle safety on

highways are met.

CHILCOTIN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. VANT :

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. This past weekend over

1,000 truckers, loggers and millworkers attended a rally in Williams

Lake in my constituency because they are worried about their jobs and

the potential for violence if a blockade is imposed as promised by

native groups against future logging in the Chilcotin. Native land

claims disputes must not be allowed....

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

MR. VANT :

What assurance can the minister give my constituents in the Cariboo

that this government will protect the jobs and personal security of

people working in the forest industry, using the full force of the law

if necessary?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We are very

concerned about the potential loss of jobs in the Williams Lake area

because a very few militant native Indians have chosen to draw an area

on a map the size of many European countries and proclaim it as theirs.

For the time being, we have struck a committee that is working with

them to try to get them involved economically in the forest industry.

I personally flew out to their reserve at Alexis Creek two weeks ago and had a meeting with them — as

far as the meeting went. But it was very obvious after the first five

minutes that the only thing on the mind of Chief Francis Laceese was

the claim that he lays to a large area of the Chilcotin.

is unfortunate, because we are endeavouring to do everything to involve

the native Indians in the economic side of the forest industry. A

senior ADM in the ministry is working with the local people and the

industry. I have done everything possible, so we can only hope that

they will come to the table, and maybe we can get them involved in the

forest industry. However, if they choose to blockade roads that do not

go through their reserves, then we can only ask that the RCMP make

every effort to uphold the law and to protect jobs in the Williams Lake

area.

SNUG COVE DESTINATION RESORT

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. Just before midnight on

Friday, the minister announced a $330,000 loan for an international

destination resort at Snug Cove on Bowen Island. Can the minister tell

the House why the local Islands Trust government was not informed that

an international destination resort project loan was being considered

for Snug Cove?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : First of all, the

member is incorrect that the Islands Trust was not consulted. Indeed,

there is a very long process in which several bodies are consulted and

asked for submissions on projects such as this. In this case all of the

preliminary approvals were indeed done. There was consultation with all

bodies involved in any way, shape or form.

The member also

states that the release was issued just before midnight. She must have

got that from Vancouver Province reporter Tom Watt, and I want to say

that that is inaccurate, as is the part of the statement by Tom Watt,

staff reporter, which reads as follows:

"A press release issued just before midnight Friday quoted

B.C. Tourism Minister Cliff Michael as saying: 'What we are doing with the

Snug Cove marina on Bowen island is providing funding for its infrastructure,

which will spur on other private sector development and again make Bowen Island

a popular destination resort. This is the approach we took with Whistler, and

it has obviously been successful.'"

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

MS. PULLINGER :

I'd just like to point out that this loan follows a $1 million loan

given to the Bedwell Harbour resort on Pender Island, also for an

international destination development and also over the objections of

local government and local resi-

[ Page 9852 ]

dents.

Has the minister decided to ignore his government's commitment to help

the Islands Trust protect the quality of life in the Gulf Islands and

push the Snug Cove development through despite the wishes of the

island's residents?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : The only

correct part of that statement has to do with the fact that there was

some low-interest money provided for the developments on both Pender

and Bowen Islands. The rest of the information that the member has is

incorrect. I would ask that the member do her homework, perhaps do a

bit more research, contact her research staff in caucus and get hold of

the evidence of public hearings — there are transcripts available. If

she would do that, I'm sure she would be assured that indeed there was

proper consultation and communication with all parties involved.

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. MARZARI :

A question to the Minister of Health. Has the minister decided to use

the powers given to him in

section 32 of the Hospital Act to ensure

universal access to abortion services throughout the province?

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

MS. MARZARI :

Tomorrow the federal Parliament is going to vote on a bill which in

effect removes choice from women but which permits abortion under

limited circumstances; yet there are dozens of hospitals here in B.C.

which will not permit abortions under any circumstances. Richmond,

Delta, Langley, Chilliwack, Vernon, Tofino, Kitimat and Burns Lake are

just a few of them. Has this government decided to continue to permit

hospital boards to deny access to legal abortions based on the moral

judgment of board members?

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

MR. ROSE :

I rise on a point of order or a point of information, whichever you

prefer, Mr. Speaker. Our Premier has just returned from a visit to

central Canada and the Prime Minister, and there has been much ballyhoo

about the Premier's appearance on television tonight. I'd like to ask

the Premier whether, on this important matter....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair cannot rule on a decision or a

request from a member, whether it be on a point of order or a point of

privilege, unless the Chair has the opportunity to hear the member's

request. So if I'm given that opportunity, I'll make a decision.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, since this House has already passed the Meech resolution,

I'd like to ask the Premier whether he intends to inform this duly

constituted body — which I think is his first priority — before he

goes to the public on a matter of such grave importance to all

Canadians. I hope that he would offer a ministerial statement to this

House immediately, if he's able to do so, because we'd all be

fascinated by it.

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

the Premier or any minister wishes to stand and make a ministerial

statement at any time when the House is meeting as the House — or

even, for that matter, when the House is meeting in committee —

he's free to do so. A member of the executive council may merely rise

and get the attention of the Chair.

The

Chair has no idea and has not been advised of the progress of business,

nor has the Chair been advised of any advance statements. The member

asked a question which could have been put in question period, but

there's nothing in our standing orders which requires the Chair to hear

any more of what the member brings forward. If the member wishes to

continue....

MR. ROSE : I don't want to argue the

case too vociferously, Mr. Speaker, but it has to do with House

business. As the opposition House Leader, I think I'm entitled to

request of the Premier, since it's already in the can.... The program

has been prerecorded, therefore it can't affect the outcome. So I would

ask the Premier if he can address the House on this subject, and we'd

all be grateful.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker,

with due respect to the Chair, I point out that it is not a point of

order. I should also point out, so that the members in this House and

the people in British Columbia know, that the opposition leader was

offered equal time to talk to them tonight, and he refused.

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

MR. HARCOURT :

On a point of order, the government House Leader is inaccurate. I was

not offered equal time. He should tell the truth in this House when he

makes statements like that.

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

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER :

I believe the Chair would like to proceed to the next order of

business, having heard several points of order that were not points of

order.

[ Page 9853 ]

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MR. BLENCOE :

On Friday, Mr. Chairman, I presented to the minister and his staff some

analysis of the rental supply program. I made it quite clear that it

was our analysis, although we were using CMHC, Urban Development

Institute, StatsCan and the B.C. Ministry of Finance figures — but

there were some assumptions in that analysis, obviously. We don't have

available to us all the information of the government's program.

After this announcement of the supply program, we concluded — unless the minister can show otherwise — that

by 1992 we would have a reduction in the vacancy rate in the lower

mainland, despite the claims being made by the government in their

program.

Also, at the end of the session on Friday, I indicated to the minister — and

I wasn't quite sure.... Earlier in the debate he said he thought there

were some studies. We were told that the B.C. Housing Management

Commission has not done any studies or analysis of the rental supply

program to back up their claims that this will heal our housing

problems.

So I am wondering if the minister or his staff,

over the weekend, has come up with some analysis by the government to

deal with what I presented. I indicated to the minister that it was an

open-ended request; if the minister had information that would be

useful to both sides of the Legislature, it would be very useful.

am wondering if the minister today has anything new to report on the

rental supply program in terms of analysis of the impact on the vacancy

rate.

HON. MR. DUECK : I alluded to some of the

planning processes that we do. Some are in joint partnership with the

CMHC and HIFE, and we also have a small department in the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. I also mentioned that we don't necessarily

invent the wheel again, because there is certain information available.

We use that, plus our own planning department of four that provides

policy analysis and evaluation, housing predictions, and research in an

effective and efficient manner. The federal government, of course, is

the senior partner on the issue of housing, and so B.C. Housing works

jointly with CMHC. As you can understand, they have a very large

bureaucracy for getting this information to us.

partnership with the CMHC, B.C. Housing annually produces a plan for

new social housing activity around the province. This plan takes into

account many factors: the current housing market; economic conditions;

expected migration to the province, which was a bit skewed because we

didn't expect that many people coming in; the distribution and demand

of social housing; the costs of social housing; production, relative

needs and priority in client groups, like seniors and older people

versus families and disabled.

The plan also tells us the

allocation that should be provided for these various groups in the

various areas of the province. This is done annually with a three-year

projection. My staff has a variety of information in the development of

this plan, including material provided by CMHC, Statistics Canada and

the Ministry of Finance. For example, the information we have includes

household income, facilities and equipment survey — the HIFE program with the federal government —

special CMHC and B.C. Housing computer run on core housing needs and

database, which is taken from HIFE; information from the labour force

survey; and information from the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing regarding client needs. B.C. Housing is engaged in a joint

study with CMHC on the rental housing market across Canada, with

emphasis on Vancouver and Montreal, where the greatest pressure has

been, at least in the last couple of years; a joint study with the

Ministry of Health for support of Housing; a major audit of the rent

supplement program is currently underway; a major audit of the

non-profit program was completed, and the B.C. program was noted as

being very positive; and a conference on seniors' housing for the 1990s

is being planned by CMHC and B.C. Housing, which will be held later on

in June, I believe.

These are just a few examples of the

information we use to develop and evaluate our housing programs. The

important thing is not where the information comes from, as you can

well understand, but whether it is used and we get it. It would be very

ineffective for B.C. Housing to receive this information already being

produced by other agencies and then not use it at all. Surely you would

have to agree with that. We wouldn't want to squander money if we could

use information from other sources such as those I've mentioned.

With

CMHC, B.C. Housing participates in an annual review of social housing

activities to determine if the planning goals are being met and to

account for discrepancies. They also monitor the costs of new social

housing production against the availability of our current budget to

enable as many clients as possible to be serviced in the areas where

the need is the greatest.

B.C. Housing participates

extensively in negotiations between the federal government and the

provinces to ensure that we get our fair share. I think I covered that

subject in detail in the last couple of days.

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

[ Page 9854 ]

gage-backed

securities, in order to reduce the interest costs for projects

committed under the social housing program. The five-year saving for

the 1987 program was estimated at $1.5 million, and then $6.2 million

for the following year. Ten million dollars will be saved over the next

five years. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to use

this method, but others are now adopting it.

Furthermore,

as part of the process of developing the B.C. rental supply program,

rental market conditions in various areas were carefully analyzed by

B.C. Housing. The result of that analysis is a very successful program

which received great reports from developers, advocates for housing in

various areas and governments across the nation. As a matter of fact,

they've come here and asked about our program — how they can

institute it in their province. It deals with the problem of limited

rental supply in a very effective manner.

summary, it is B.C. Housing's responsibility to plan social housing

activity and to monitor housing markets constantly, so that housing

programs will respond to real need in a cost-effective fashion — where the need is and for those people most in need.

I trust that answers some of your questions.

MR. BLENCOE :

I appreciate the minister's response and his going through the various

levels of government and offices available to him and his staff for

analysis of programs that are primarily driven by federal dollars. But

this is my concern. I was surprised that there was not a substantial

provincial analysis — a cost-benefit analysis and a

value-for-money approach — of the millions of dollars you

anticipate to spend.

The

RSP is a provincial initiative. I can obviously accept CMHC, which is a

body that looks at housing issues right across the country. Of course,

they're going to analyze anything that's happening in terms of what's

happening in the housing field. I'm somewhat surprised — the RSP

is the major initiative of your housing program, and with millions of

dollars to subsidize the private sector —

that you didn't have the background information and rationale or the

sound logic to resolve the problem: the benefit to the taxpayer of

spending that amount of money, and at least some of your own provincial

analysis of the possible impact on the vacancy rate. I may very well

have given you a very rudimentary analysis which was at my disposal at

the time; I admit that. But at least it was an attempt by our side,

which clearly would appear not to have been made by the staff in your

ministry. I don't blame the staff, because they're directed by their

political masters. It just surprises me. I have to say that if I was

responsible for that ministry....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Heaven help us.

MR. BLENCOE : I knew if I said that, Mr. Chairman, I would get the same

kind of response. But if we were responsible for that ministry, and we came

to spend a lot of taxpayers' money — $80 million to $100 million, maybe

more; I don't know — we'd want some sound accounting, sound analysis,

sound cost benefit, value for money, the perceived impact on the vacancy rate,

with the best information available to government, and the impact on the shortness

of supply and affordability. On the affordability issue, I think the minister

himself has stated that this is not affordable housing. We accept that. I've

always said that, and I'm glad it's on the record. But it's very

important when a government ministry launches what it says is its major initiative — not

to go over old ground, but I have to restate that it's certainly advertising

in the public forum-on television, on radio and in newspapers, wherever it can:

B.C.'s program to resolve the housing supply.... You would think — and it

would appear — that all we've got so far towards this program is basically

public relations. I agree that money has been allocated, but the only commentary

about this program is basically the PR that's been developed around it in

terms of television advertising and what in my opinion is somewhat misleading

in terms of what it does.

[2:45]

So again, Mr. Chairman, the minister says he has all those other levels of government — particularly CMHC —

to provide the background information, but I think it's somewhat

surprising and disturbing that there isn't more substance to the

provincial analysis, particularly when the people of this province are

being led to believe that this will really resolve the housing crunch.

It may very well, but so far we haven't seen the results of that, and

it's not just a New Democrat saying this, which is the normal thing,

since obviously the opposition and the government will trade off for

what we view as reality; but I would have expected from the government

side some analysis of the PR reality that they're putting out there.

That's all. Perhaps it can be done; perhaps we'll see something. I

certainly would be very pleased to see if there's any....

far the only analysis appears to have been what we have done on this

side, and I have to say that in many respects it is rudimentary,

because we don't have the full information. We're not running the

program; we don't have the staff. I think British Columbians would

probably be surprised to hear that the only real analysis and attempt

to see what this program would do in the long term for housing in the

province are being made by the opposition.

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

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

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

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

MR. RABBITT : Not we; you.

[ Page 9855 ]

MR. BLENCOE :

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I was one of the people instrumental in setting

up the Capital Region Housing Corporation, which has had an incredible

track record of building affordable social housing in this community.

It has hundreds of units in this region. Indeed, there are many people

on this side of the Legislature — especially the Leader of the

Opposition, who has been active for years — who have a lot of

experience in private and public initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, the government — I'd like to call it the opposition, because that's where they'll be soon — likes

to throw barbs across the floor, but in my estimation there is great

experience on this side of the Legislature in dealing with this issue.

Quite frankly, in terms of the analysis, so far it is our analysis — unless the minister can refute it —

that is showing that the rental supply program is not all it's made out

to be. It won't deal with many of the problems on the lower mainland.

We would like to be proved wrong, if the minister is able to do that,

but it would appear that he can't do that. Does the minister want to

respond? Otherwise, I have some more questions.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in what I heard from the member

opposite about the Leader of the Opposition's experience in building

housing. One of the things I remember about the Leader of the

Opposition's experience in building housing is that, while on a

contract with CMHC, he voted on something in city hall that involved

CMHC. It seems that he went to great lengths to explain that it wasn't

a conflict of interest. I thought it was interesting, and perhaps the

member would give us more on that.

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

AN HON. MEMBER : Alarming.

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

...disturbing

that the member keeps saying that we haven't done an analysis, and that

we're working out of a vacuum, when there is a shortage of supply, and

we've announced that we have the authority to build 8,000 units under

the rental supply program plus roughly 2,000 units of social housing,

which we've done since 1986....

This rental supply program — talk about cost effectiveness — by

spending $80 million will produce roughly $720 million worth of housing

and will create roughly 11,000 jobs. He says that we have done

nothing, and that it's not cost effective. And he goes on and on.

The

statement I made is that our analysis was done with information we

received from various sources. That's how any analysis is done, whether

you have your own staff do it or you collect the information and

figures from someone else — as long as they are accurate.

Statistics

Canada, CMHC, HIFE, as well as our staff at B.C. Housing Management

Commission, are all in the business of producing this information for

our particular area. We are very much aware of what is happening in the

community. The only thing I cannot do much about is increasing the

social housing allotment, because they've cut us back some more. I had

a call from Mr. Redway today, and there should be some good news in the

next couple of days.

But talking about housing, I would

also like to make a little announcement today, since this news release

is going out today. Jointly with the city of Vancouver and DERA — the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association —

we have gone into a program of registry in that particular area for

people who are looking for housing. We've come to an agreement, and as

is known by most members of this House, DERA has done a fantastic job

for us. They are managing many units for us in the east side, and we

are now operating a relocation and registry service jointly with the

city of Vancouver and DERA. The city of Vancouver already has a

registry, but this is specifically for that area.

I have to say that, by and large, the housing situation — although we haven't got enough units — is

working quite well, if we could just get the applications through the

financial side of it and the zoning. That's where the holdup is. As

long as that can be solved.... It is being solved, but it is fairly

slow. That should be improving from today on. When it was started, it

was slow, because as you know, zoning and financial arrangements are

not made overnight. As a matter of fact, zoning sometimes takes months

and months, and it still takes that period of time. Also, some people

have problems arranging their financing, so that and locating property

take time as well.

The program is there; it's working well.

I think it's a very cost-effective program, and I'm extremely happy

that I was able to double that from 4,000 to 8,000 units. It will

provide $720 million worth of construction. I would defy anyone to

argue that the program is not successful. I don't know how you can

argue that. Obviously you are going to, and you will continue to do so.

So I will listen to your next argument.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister made some comment about Mr. Redway. I was just wondering —

with all this bureaucracy the minister's talking about — if

the minister could advise the House today what the social housing

allocation will be for 1990. Do we have any idea? Last year it was

announced early. But we have had no indication. As you know, there are

many groups waiting to hear what's going to happen. Do we have any

affordable housing— social housing — allocation announcements in

the near future?

HON. MR. DUECK :

As I mentioned before in my estimates, it has been 1,886 —

sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, depending on how....

Interjection.

[ Page 9856 ]

HON. MR. DUECK : No, in the past — since

1986. This year, the negotiations have not yet been completed. We are

still hopeful that we can get close to that figure, but I'm fighting

for that 15 percent. I cannot give you an answer whether we will be

successful or not. I think I mentioned in the House Friday or Thursday

that there was a conference called for a week ago; I have forgotten

exactly what day it was. It was cancelled at the last minute. That was

to discuss the allocation and our fair share.

I spoke to

Mr. Redway today. I am not at liberty to tell you what the announcement

will be. I also didn't say it was specifically about allocation; I just

said there will be an announcement which you will be happy about. I had

better be very careful that the record doesn't show that I was specific

on anything. It will be announced, I believe, on Wednesday afternoon

sometime.

I think I also mentioned in the House that Mr.

Redway is certainly sincere in his effort to give us that increase in

allocation. I think he sees that British Columbia is not getting its

fair share. He's got a problem arriving at a consensus with the other

provinces and also with his Finance minister.

I got a note

back from B.C. Housing. They faxed over some of the analysis that you

were speaking about and some of the work that they do. Their analysis

shows that everything being equal.... Of course, in housing and many

things nothing is equal. But if it carries on the way it is now, with

the introduction of the rental supply program, the vacancy rate by 1992

will be between 1 and 2 percent. With this type of in-migration, we

feel that we'll get to that figure.

What I'm trying to say

is that of course we do all this work. I am sure that some of your

figures come from B.C. Housing or Stats Canada or HIFE, or these places

where we get our information from. It's no secret. It's open

information. Anybody can receive that information. We digest it with

B.C. Housing and their department and come up with these analyses.

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

The

minister has said that B.C. Housing has come up with a figure of 1 to 2

percent vacancy rate under the rental supply program. I wonder if the

minister would make the information behind that figure available to

me — the analysis that B.C. Housing or your staff have done that

created the 1 to 2 percent vacancy rate out of RSP. I would be very

pleased to see that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I am pleased to take my place in this discussion.

What I have for the minister really is a question. On Friday I was privileged

to participate in a sod-turning for a..... No longer, in my view, can I refer

to these units as affordable housing. It was the sod-turning of a housing development

in which the province and the federal government are to participate. The housing

development is to be of 45 units, and the annual subsidy from the two levels

of government is in excess of $500,000 a year. According to my calculations,

the subsidy would work out to something in the neighbourhood of $1,000 a month

per unit.

Somewhere

along the line I would hope that we would be doing some research in an

attempt to determine a better way of providing much-needed family

housing, and certainly at a lower cost than that. When I look at a

subsidy of close to $1,000 a unit per month, it seems to me that we

should be able to find a way of better spending our money and providing

more in the way of accommodation for that kind of money. Could I ask

the minister if the province and the federal government are looking at

other programs that would better utilize the money available?

[3:00]

HON. MR. DUECK :

True, social housing is very expensive. The information you have

received perhaps is not quite accurate, but I would like to look at it

and see exactly what information you have. It's shared roughly 70-30

with the federal government — we pay 30, they pay 70.

Interjection.

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

also subsidize other than our own units. In other words, we subsidize

in co-op housing, although we haven't got a financial interest. We will

subsidize clients in other than our own units that are produced under

the program since 1986. We are always looking at better ways and less

expensive ways of housing for people in need, for any type of housing.

The

rental supply program, of course, is not for social housing, but it is

market rent and average and below, so it will provide housing for those

people who have an income but can afford a little more and leaves a

vacancy for those who can afford less. So it all helps in the total

process of finding accommodation for people in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I guess what I'm really wondering, Mr. Minister, is: are we looking at

ways of redirecting the money that is presently being spent? Would it

not be better to give financial assistance to the people who require

the housing, rather than to the housing developments?

HON. MR. DUECK :

This has been debated at length many times. The problem with that is

that the minute you subsidize people and give them cash, the rents go

up to that level immediately. That has been the problem.

For

example: if you gave $1,000, the lowest rent would be $1,000; if you

gave $1,500, the lowest rent would be $1,500. They keep moving up. So

we're saying we're providing the housing, and we control it.

have got programs — for example, shelter allowance — that are

giving people moneys. People who are on GAIN get a portion for their

living

[ Page 9857 ]

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

Also,

the SAFER program — where we provide for those 60 years and

over — provides an allowance for those people with low income so

that their rent is no more than 30 percent.

On Friday we

had a news release — and I should at this time just quote that or

put it in the record, if I can find It quickly — about an increase

in the SAFER program. Here we are. I can do it faster than my staff.

Friday, we released this announcement, and it says: "For SAFER

enhancements" — and this is for the people who spend more than 30

percent of their income, to a maximum of $450 —

"on July 1 the rent ceiling will be raised to $520 from $450." That's

the increase for the seniors in that particular category. For couples

it will be raised from $475 to $575. This should be a great help to

those people who are 60 years and over and who qualify.

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

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE :

I understand that the people I introduced earlier from Pacific Academy

in Coquitlam, along with Mr. Drisner, are now in the gallery. Would the

House join me in making them welcome.

A few moments ago my

colleague, the second member for Victoria, asked the minister if he

would release the information behind the analysis that was referred to

earlier. I'm just wondering if the minister would respond to that now.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'll even do one better; I'll make an appointment so you can meet with

the general manager of the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the

length of time that you require. You probably have other questions.

think housing is not something that just this side or that side of the

House is interested in. I would like to give you all the information

that you require so that you can also assist us in better ways of

providing housing for people who need it.

I have no qualms or reluctance at all. A time that's suitable to

you.... I'll even get him to Victoria or Vancouver — whichever

suits you best — and you can have a meeting with the general

manager of the commission.

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

think my colleague was asking, as I was, that the general background

information to the 1 to 2 percent vacancy claim be made available prior

to any meeting. I'd like to get that confirmed if I could.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I will talk with the general manager and see how quickly we can get any

information for you, or whether he can do it at the same time as the

meeting. I think it's information that you probably are entitled to;

not only entitled to, but that you should have, as the critic. Having

given me a very bad time, I think you are entitled to some information

so that you can sit back and say: "I didn't know how good that

operation really was."

MR. CASHORE : We hear this

figure of 1,886 referred to so many times with regard to the number of

social housing units allocated. That goes back to the first of the

agreements under the three-year agreements between federal and

provincial governments after the province got back into the development

of social housing.

The question that we've asked every year

is.... Apparently the situation's getting more difficult. The problems

with the vacancy rate are becoming more difficult. We see increasing

numbers of homeless people out on the streets. The minister talks about

the work they've done with the Downtown Eastside Residents'

Association, yet the incidence of the homeless on the streets is

increasing in that part of town.

Obviously the minister and

the Housing Management Commission have to turn to very good

organizations like DERA to try to help them deal with this. Every time

the problem of the housing crisis is brought up, we hear you go through

a litany of excuses; we hear you cite all of these different reasons.

You blame the municipalities for not deciding quickly enough with

regard to projects in their communities, and you blame the federal

government for not coming up with an additional amount to

cost-share — as though they're at fault. Surely we have to look at

ways of improving the approval process for social housing and putting a

lot more pressure on the federal government.

Did you know,

Mr. Minister, that three years ago Ontario decided that they would put

up 30,000 units of social housing over a three-year period, and that

they handled the majority of the units on their own, without any

federal involvement whatsoever? That was the Ontario government's

approach to dealing with the housing crisis that became so intense at

the height of the housing boom they experienced years before we did.

When

it comes to talking about putting in the units that are going to enable

human beings — men, women, and children who live in British

Columbia — to

exercise their right to shelter, surely we can't keep falling back on

the same old excuses. When you talk about programs that increase the

number of houses being built, no matter what statistics you come up

with, you have not been able to demonstrate that they haven't

exacerbated the problem for people who are in deep difficulty over the

lack of adequate housing. I have listened very carefully, Mr. Minister,

to the responses you gave to my colleague last Thursday and Friday, and

I haven't seen you come up with real answers that are going to enable

these issues to be addressed.

I think that the minister is

probably well aware that I, too, have a background in working in social

housing projects. I was instrumental in the process that led towards

Jennie Pentland Place and Bill Hennessy Place, two buildings which are

across from

[ Page 9858 ]

each

other in the downtown east side. Yes, it is true that that was at the

time that the Leader of the Opposition was the mayor of Vancouver. He

helped with the process of writing down the cost of the land so that

those people could live in that accommodation — which, for the first

time, was safe and appropriate for people who have had so much to do

with the development of our country and our province. It was done in

such a way that they weren't forced to have to experience the domino

effect, whereby housing pressures in Vancouver end up forcing the most

disadvantaged people in our society to have to move again and again.

When

we talk about housing statistics, we don't get into the grief, hardship

and actual cost in dollars they place upon our health care system or

our Solicitor-General ministry — those various ways in which

people's lives are impacted so negatively. We find, especially in the

circumstances of single parents seeking to care appropriately for their

families, that often the results of this dislocation, this necessity of

having to move because they cannot find affordable accommodation.... Or

when they find affordable accommodation and can at least pay the rent,

it's just a matter of time until the rent goes up and they are no

longer able to remain in that location, and they're out looking again.

are in danger of making much more serious a problem that already

exists: the problem of really having no place to lay one's head on a

long-term basis; having no security of tenure; having no sense that

children who are at risk are going to be able to establish strong

relationships in peer groups so that they don't have to be impacted by

this very distressing and difficult experience of never having the

opportunity to know what it is to live in a stable and secure

community, always being at the tail-end of the domino and always being

at the end of a process that means that they are in some way deemed to

be expendable.

Nowhere

has the situation come more clearly

to my attention than in circumstances in my constituency. In my

constituency, Mr. Minister, we have a situation where the residents of

two housing projects side by side which are owned by one

landowner — a consortium of individuals owns this property on

Howie Avenue —

have received a rent increase that is absolutely incredible. We found

that almost all of these people at the low end of the income

scale — some of them are working poor; some of them are on

pensions and social assistance —

received on March 6 an announcement from the landlord of increases from

between 25 and 30 percent. The lowest unit received an increase of $85

a month, and the highest — a two-bedroom unit — had an increase of

$160 a month.

These

rents have forced these people into the situation where they weren't

paying around a third of their income for rent; they were approaching

55 and 60 percent of their income. This type of thing cannot continue

without serious social costs to the psyche of our people.

would like the minister to comment on this particular example from my

constituency, where I have gone and met with the people and have heard

them tell their stories. What they have told me is that they have been

impacted by a moving freight train that started in the Vancouver area

and is moving right through our community and pushing these people

aside. Rents are going up, and there are no vacancies anywhere at an

affordable rate. That means that they have nothing ahead but grief.

[3:15]

I would ask the minister to comment on that.

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

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Together with the first member for Central

Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck), it gives me great pleasure to introduce

to the House today some 30 students of Valley Christian School. They

are here together with several of their parents and their teachers, Mr.

Mark Ediger and Mrs. Lianne Takeda. I ask the House to give them a

cordial welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I am not making

excuses. I want to make that very clear in this House. Most of the

questions that were asked have been answered ad nauseam — not just

once, but again and again and again. But I'll go over them briefly once

more.

Perhaps

the member should also ask Jim Green of DERA what he thinks of the

housing projects that he is involved in and how we're trying to solve

that situation in Vancouver East. He would probably find that Jim Green

over the last couple of years has been very supportive of what this

ministry is doing in housing.

As an example, since 1986 we

have built or renovated nearly 1,000 units of social housing in the

east side alone. It's probably not enough, and we can argue that point.

As a matter of fact, we won't argue that point. I think I would have to

agree that we haven't got enough housing. There's no question about it.

It doesn't take a magician to figure that out.

That's why

we are also looking at the GAIN. And there will be an announcement on

the GAIN and shelter allowance very shortly. The SAFER program has

already been announced, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago. It will

certainly help the seniors a lot. I get a lot of letters from seniors

saying that they're quite happy and that they are managing quite well

with the SAFER program, especially now that we're upgrading the total

amount and also the dollar amount.

You have to remember,

too, that in the fiscal year 1989-90 the cheques paid out to SAFER

nearly doubled from the year before. Now it's probably not enough, but

what I'm trying to get on the record is that this government knows

there's a problem and is addressing the problem and is doing something

about

[ Page 9859 ]

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

For

example, to say that this ministry does nothing.... I can point to the

Cool Aid project here in Victoria that is under construction now and

will be ready in a very short time. It is a model of what we're trying

to do for people who are down and out. It will have 81 beds — perhaps the member would like to go and look at it — and

the cost will be roughly $4.26 million. It is a beautiful project that

will have a health component, an alcohol and counselling component and

a housing component for those people in need.

The member

also mentioned those who can't find accommodation on the downtown east

side of Vancouver and the single individuals who might sleep on the

street. I have made this comment before — and I want to be very specific — that

no one who is down and out has to sleep on the street. We will provide

accommodation. We will rent a motel unit or hotel room for that

individual for the night if we can't find a place in a hostel or if

they happen to be full.

In the last while, most hostels

have filled up, although there have been some vacancies. But just to

give you an idea again: in that particular area of emergency shelters,

we have increased the units from 561 to 588 for 1991. That's not

talking about emergency shelters. First of all, in hostel shelters

we've increased the budget by 16.6 percent. In the emergency shelter

area we've increased the budget by 40.1 percent. So we are moving in

the right direction.

It has not been a static situation,

but there has been a great increase in the number of units and also in

the budgeting for people who are in need. I have to tell the member

that we could go on to argue that we haven't enough units or that we

haven't enough housing for people in need, and that is true. That's why

we have some of these programs in place. That's why I'm putting

pressure on the federal government.

I don't like what I'm

hearing from that side, who are twisting the words and saying that

we're bashing the federal government, municipalities and financial

institutions.

I'm saying that these are some of the

problems we're facing. For goodness' sake, anyone can understand that

if you haven't got the money and it takes a long time to get the zoning

through and the financial arrangements made, it is a problem. That

causes a delay.

When projects are delayed for 23 months,

when it's a tie vote and the mayor votes against it, we start all over

again. For two years it has been going on. That length of time is a

very bad example — or an isolated example — but it is happening.

I'm

the problems. And for gosh sakes, you on that side of the House have to

be just as aware of it as we are, and you have to assist us. You can

assist us, rather than bringing it up in estimates and using it for

knocking and for being negative. You have to assist us; we have to do

it together. It's not just my problem; it's not just the government's

problem. It's everyone's problem, and everyone should be involved.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, with regard to Jim Green, I have no question that he is

supportive of the units that have been made available to DERA and to

other organizations in the downtown east side. There's no question that

he would be supportive of that.

There's also no question

that he would deplore the fact that it's far too little. It's not

enough to be dealing with the extreme pressures that people are

experiencing out there in the province and in my constituency.

Through

you, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that I get a little annoyed

when I hear him say: "I've answered these questions again and again."

I'm talking about flesh-and-blood human beings who live in Coquitlam.

They're my constituents.

I'm doing a very appropriate thing

by telling the minister about a matter of concern to citizens of my

constituency who I represent in this Legislature, and who deserve

better treatment than they're getting. I don't think it's appropriate

to say: "I've dealt with that before and before and before." Each one

of these cases is unique; each one is a story.

I could

spend an lot more time than I planned to spend outlining the situations

of hardship and difficulty that people in my riding are experiencing.

In one place on Howie Avenue that I was referring to, there's one

person who is absolutely at her wits' end.

She

has a young child, and she has had to move so many times — because

of not being able to pay rent increases that were brought upon her —

that this has caused severe emotional problems for her child. There has

been a need to seek other forms of help to deal with this situation,

which would be unnecessary if there were security of tenure, rent

review and the kind of process to make it possible for her not to have

to pick up roots and leave every little while.

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

"My

rent is increasing by $160 a month on July 1, which is a 41 percent

increase. This is well beyond what I'm able to afford. As my rent is to

increase in July, I will have four months during which it will be well

beyond what I'm able to afford. I have a small child to support, and I

am concerned that I will be unable to provide food, clothing, etc. for

myself and my son during the July to November period. Half of my income

would be going to rent. I am asking you if, on humanitarian grounds, my

rent increase can be waived until November....'

This is a

letter of desperation from this very good mother, whom I have met, to

the landlord. She is almost on her knees begging this landlord to bring

some kind of relief for a situation that she finds absolutely and

utterly impossible. I do not think, Mr. Minister, by any stretch of

imagination that this is an isolated case in this province.

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

MR. CASHORE :

That is true, but you did say that you've heard what I've had to say

over and over again, and I'm just reminding you that what I'm saying is

quite unique. It's quite special, as each one of these cases is special.

[ Page 9860 ]

have another letter from this same woman, Mr. Minister, where she has

arranged for accommodation at 43 Housing Society. They have managed to

make this place available, but she says in her letter that it won't be

available until November. The people who run 43 Housing Society have

written a letter to the landlord — not the government, not to the

housing commission, not to Social Services but to the landlord —

saying: "I write this in the hope you are able to consider delaying the

increase in rent on this individual's suite." This is a person who is

absolutely at her wits' end and without anywhere to turn. She's

appealing to the landlord. She's getting the people in the place where

she's planning to move to appeal to the landlord.

I have a

copy of another letter from her son's therapist. This letter goes into

a great deal of detail with regard to this child's circumstances. This

letter was written on April 28, 1989, by the way — prior to what I

think was her second-last forced move as a result of a rent increase.

This letter says such things as: "The primary focus of the counselling

has been to assist in helping him overcome the effects of sexual

assault by an adolescent neighbour at the age of two. I am putting in

writing several recommendations. Given his background of abuse and the

need for him to be in day care, I recommend he be in day care which has

experienced staff who are knowledgeable regarding abuse. Then it goes

on to say that he should not be moved, having established his presence

in such a community.

Those considerations don't make it

into housing statistics. Somehow those human effects don't make it into

the cold hard facts of data. Yet this is the reality that people are

experiencing. He says at the end of his letter: "These recommendations

are largely common sense, but over time they will help him learn that

he lives in a safe, secure and trusting environment." This is what this

child needs.

We get really hostile sometimes in our society

about adults who are bad, who are afoul of the law, who do things we

find disgusting, but statistics show that so often when we fail to

provide the support at this tender age, this is often germane to the

kinds of problems we experience from individuals as adults. Security of

tenure in housing is a very key component of that.

[3:30]

I'm aware that there is an interministerial committee in cabinet

that deals with matters of child abuse. I really would like to be a fly

on the wall sometime and hear what goes on at those meetings and how

they deal with the dilemma of this type of situation. I would like to

see some indication that these issues are being seen not as a

compartment over here called housing, or a compartment over here called

counselling or a compartment over here called education, which is

another ministry, but that there is an interlinking web.

Somehow we have to have advocacy coming from somebody in your ministry on behalf

of children that is advocacy out of your ministry to the housing component,

to the component that needs to be providing the services that aren't being

provided if those services are not provided within that ministry. Housing is

a part of it. It's an interconnected

part in a series of circumstances that

result in severe damage being visited upon innocent people, who become victims

who are later seen as the victimizers in too many instances.

What

is this mother trying to do? This mother is trying to do everything she

possibly can to avoid that being the case. She has the kind of drive

and the talent and skill that I think can manage it. She is an

extremely capable person, and she's tough.

I also want to

mention that realizing that housing needs are interconnected with so

many other needs, in the letter that went to the people in these two

housing units on Howie Avenue, the landlord said: "In addition, the

owners will be paying the 7 percent CST commencing January 1, 1991, on

every expense of the building which cannot be added to your rent. Since

your rent can only be increased once per year, it must be added on now."

And

you wonder about the need for rent review. My goodness, here are the

lowest-income people in our community, the people who are most

disadvantaged, being the first ones to get the privilege of paying the

GST — getting to pay it halfway through the previous year, six months

before anybody else gets to pay it. That hardly seems fair. It seems to

me to be the type of situation, Mr. Minister, that requires some kind

of righteous indignation on the part of your ministry and others in

government, that you would want to address that on behalf of those

people. It is patently unfair. It's a scurrilous reason. It should be

rolled back, but there's apparently no instrument whereby that can be

rolled back in this province. That's unconscionable, Mr. Minister. That

has to change. Those people deserve an advocate because the resources

they need to live appropriately, whereby they can afford their children

the hope of a decent future, aren't being made available to them.

Somebody has to advocate for them, Mr. Minister. Who's going to do it?

Mr. Minister, I come to another situation here, and this deals with a lot of people who are senior citizens —

not all of them, but.... Again, just as I raised the issue a few

moments ago about the interministerial committee dealing with children,

recognizing that housing is a component of that, here's another issue

on which your ministry is in partnership with the Ministry of Labour.

It has to do with the people at Mill Creek Village. We're dealing here

with a situation of security of tenure — a housing problem. It's not

good enough to say, "No, you've got to deal with that under Labour

because that's who looks after that," because we all know that with

the domino effect that takes place when there isn't enough housing for

people, one situation affects another. When a housing resource is taken

away, it creates more problems for your ministry.

In this

case we have the situation that in 1984, because some people had to

lose their security of tenure at a mobile-home park in the area of

Coquitlam Centre, an arrangement was made through the

[ Page 9861 ]

government,

which had purchased some land. So it was Crown land. Then they went

into an arrangement with a private company whereby this private company

would put in place a 176-pad mobile-home park so that the people so

affected would have security of tenure. These are good, solid

citizens-people who have helped to build the province, The price at the

time that land was purchased by that company was $1.8 million. But the

people didn't know at that time that there was an agreement for sale

written into the contract — this Is Crown land, the people's

land — and that agreement for sale was exercised at $1.8 million

in 1989.

Now

those people believed, prior to that, that they were living on leased

land that would be available in perpetuity. They did not know that the

landlord was going to be purchasing that land on an option that they

were not aware of. That land went on sale early this year for $8.7

million. It has not been sold yet. There have been assurances given by

the local council that the land would not be rezoned, and there are

negotiations going on to see what might be done to enable those people

to somehow hold on to that land.

I submit to you that, in

terms of your carrying housing issues into cabinet, it is absolutely

essential that you advocate on behalf of maintaining Crown land as a

resource for dealing with this type of thing. The sad thing is that

chances have been squandered by just this type of deal. These people

thought they were going to have security of tenure, but the land that

was to provide that security — taxpayers' land, Crown land —

was going to lose that kind of security by becoming private land.

That's highly inappropriate, Mr. Minister, in a province that is

experiencing this type of problem.

The beauty of Crown

land, leased land.... It's good business practice, a time-honoured

business practice. You can't accuse the socialist hordes of somehow

advocating something that's inappropriate. It's just that when you

write in that type of deal, it means that the friends and insiders of

this Social Credit government are again the ones that have a higher

priority, Mr. Minister.

I know that being in the benches

over here is an indication that they don't want to hear this. They

don't like this, but the fact of the matter is....

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I think this is a terrific line of questioning about the insider track

of this government, and I wish the member would continue.

MR. CASHORE :

Surely, Mr. Minister, you realize that your role as a housing advocate

is to be advocating the best possible means of maintaining security of

tenure. That's your job, Mr. Minister — to be looking after the

interests of these people. Now I know that you weren't the Minister of

Housing when this deal was made, but you're part of the process that

has led up to this.

I have to ask you: when is this

government going to learn by its mistakes? When is it going to

recognize that that was a very serious mistake? We have 176 pads there;

Crown land was made available; and now those people are left wondering

what's going to be there tomorrow. That's not appropriate in this

province, Mr. Minister. It's unnecessary. Crown land, the people's

land, was squandered. It was unnecessary. It's not a criticism of those

people who accepted this opportunity on a platter from this government.

It would have been much more appropriate, though, Mr. Minister, if the

press release back in 1984 — or was it '85? — had pointed out that

there was an agreement for sale written into the deal. I submit to you

that that was not made known at the time. Those people had no way of

knowing that it was going to happen, and therefore they are being put

into this vulnerable situation. People who have helped to build this

province, good citizens, people who have worked hard and put a lot of

their own money, I might say.... Each person had to put about $5,000

into developing the site. They pay the taxes on the site. They pay high

pad rentals. They have every right to expect that.... They weren't

complaining about that, Mr. Minister.

I have to ask you:

what do you see as your role In terms of advocating among your

colleagues in cabinet when it comes to this type of situation? Or do

you see this as an appropriate way to go about handling the housing

affairs of the province?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Chairman, I'm sure the member will realize that I'm not going to say

that my role is not to look after housing for the people of the

province. It is certainly expected that I will defend my case by saying

that I'm very responsible and I'm very concerned.

First of

all I should say I'm not the Minister of Crown Lands. But having said

that, I'm in no way shoving off my responsibility on someone else.

We're all in this together, as I've mentioned many times. But I am not

the Minister of Crown Lands, and there is only so much I can do in

another individual's ministry, except lobby and push and beg. If the

member could have been a fly on the wall, he would very well realize

the machinations I've gone through to expand from 4, 000 to 8, 000

units and to expand on all these programs that we have got in place.

Then he would not speak in that way. He would realize that I'm very

concerned, and I always have been in any ministry that I have been

involved with.

I am very well aware of the situation. You

quote these letters from people that have hard times. I'm well aware of

that, and I'm very concerned. Of course I arm I'm not taking this

glibly or saying: "So what?" I never have. That's why I'm so concerned

about delays; it's not because I want to bash somebody. The reason I'm

so concerned and the reason I'm talking about the delays is that I want

to get the houses on stream. On one hand, you say I should not be tough

on the federal government or the provincial government or the developer

or anyone at all; just be easy on them. But somehow these houses will

grow like

[ Page 9862 ]

mushrooms,

without any pressure being put on. Mr. Chairman, that just won't

happen, and that's why we're taking the attitude we are.

question about individual cases is very difficult for me to defend. You

bring up a letter. I cannot say this is what we can do or cannot do,

because I don't know. But I will tell you this much.... Perhaps a

question to the member, Mr. Chairman: has this individual applied to

B.C. Housing Management Commission? Have they been in contact with

them? Has there been any offer made as to units available in that area?

I would really like to know that. If they have, and haven't succeeded,

have they updated the situation recently? It makes a difference. We go

by a point system. If that individual cannot manage and is going to be

without housing, we will make exceptions, and perhaps they will get in

line before someone else who can wait a little longer. We'll make

exceptions. We'll try and get everyone provided with shelter. That is

certainly our goal.

[3:45]

The GST — what can I say? I have to agree with you, that it is going

to hit some people pretty hard, and I'm very disappointed in it. As far

as an integrated process is concerned, we have the Cabinet Committee on

Social Policy, where we deal with all these issues. It's not just with

one ministry, Social Services and Housing, but with Education,

Attorney-General, Advanced Education, Health — some of the other

ministries. There are a number of ministries on it. We also have the

interministry child abuse handbook-the protocol that we are using for

abused children. So yes, we are. We are working in more integrated

committees than ever before, and I think the member is aware of that.

The

Mill Creek Trailer Park was another situation mentioned. I believe the

municipal council has gone on record that they are not going to allow

rezoning of that park. I hope they stick to their guns and say that it

was zoned as a trailer park and will remain as such, so that these

people do not get displaced. Understand that It is their commitment.

Crown

lands for future use. I want to tell you emphatically again that I

fought hard and long at cabinet for Crown lands suitable for housing

would not be sold in future years but leased on long-term leases. I've

got the support, and I hope that will never change, so that Crown land

suitable for housing — we have identified it; a number of parcels have

been purchased already — will be leased and not sold. You asked, will

we learn from our mistakes? Perhaps to that I can say yes, in the

housing area we certainly want to lease rather than sell it.

found it very objectionable when the individual said that lands and

housing projects were let to friends of the Socreds. I have to tell

you, Mr. Member, that most of the social housing units have gone to

either party. When I look at social housing I do not look at what the

society's leanings are — not at all. I don't even want to know. I want

to know if there is need in that community.

I am sorry, Mr.

Chairman, but I don't appreciate that individual grinning when I am

speaking of this issue, because I am very sincere about it. When we

talk about social housing, we do not look at the area or the type of

society it is; we look at the need and the area and whether the vacancy

rate is higher. On one hand they always appear to somehow have the

monopoly on care for people, and then when I mention that I am very

sincere about this, they laugh. I find that objectionable, and it is

not sincere on the part of that side of the House, because when we are

talking about people's needs, we're talking about no politics at all.

It should be apolitical, and that's the stand I take on housing —

period. You point one finger at any situation in housing when I've done

other than that, and I will explain it to you.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would like to continue in the vein of speaking that I started a bit

earlier. I now have the documentation that tells us that the 45 units

to be built in Surrey are going to cost a total of $5,457,188.

According to my calculations that's in excess of $120,000 per unit.

The total subsidy for 45 units will be approximately $47,000 a month,

which is just over $1,000 per unit. In addition to the $1,000

per-unit monthly subsidy that we're looking at, the people who will be

residing in the complex will be paying as their income allows them to

pay.

Somewhere along the line, something isn't adding up.

We're subsidizing to the tune of $1,000 per unit per month, and the

people occupying the units are going to pay.... I'm not sure what their

rate will be, but assume that since there are two-, three- and

four-bedroom units, they'll probably be paying anywhere from $300 to

$600 a month at a minimum. So we're looking at $1,300 to $1, 600 per

month per unit. Then we look at a problem that we're presently facing

in Surrey where the rentals have gone up at Imperial Parkside and

Imperial Pine. We have a two-bedroom apartment going up to $620 a month

instead of $393 a month.

My question to the minister is:

would it not be better to be looking at this type of residential

accommodation, which we could provide for half the cost of the new

accommodation being built, rather than displacing people who are

obviously comfortable now in their accommodation but who, as a result

of the increase in rental fees, are going to have to look for other

accommodation, because they can't afford to stay there?

What

is affordable — $620 a month for two bedrooms or something in the

neighbourhood of $1,500 a month with a thousand-dollar-a-month subsidy

from the taxpayers at large?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, I will review that very closely; I asked some time ago

that all social housing costs be reviewed. That is why we introduced

the rental supply program, because it's a much more cost-effective way

of supplying rental units. I will review that project and see whether

there is something unusual about it.

[ Page 9863 ]

have found In the past that some of these buildings, of course, were

put up many years ago when capital construction was less, so they can

probably get by with rents of $650 a month;

whereas today.... It depends

on whether it's a one-bedroom, two-bedroom or three-bedroom unit; some

of them are three bedrooms. Really, we're catering to families more

than to individuals, so they are generally larger units. It is very

costly. I would like to review this particular case and see whether

there is anything unusual about it. I can tell you without question

that when we look at rental supply — at spending $80 million and

providing $720 million worth of housing for the people of the province — there is certainly a better route to go.

We have many

dollars available for the shelter allowance for those people who don't

live in social housing; the same with seniors aged 60 and up under the

SAFER program. That is by way of dollars, but we have a cap on it so

they can't go beyond that.

The other thing that really

concerns me in the housing area — I'm not sure whether I mentioned this

Thursday or Friday — is the people who reside in social housing units

who are now perhaps earning in excess of $50,000 a year, and the rent

is perhaps still capped at $300 a month. We have no control over those

units. In any units that we have control over, there's an exit policy

where they pay 30 percent of income. As their income Increases, there's

an automatic exit policy, because they can find less costly

accommodation in the private sector. Those units that were provided in

the marketplace by the federal government, in co-operation with the

city.... There are some of them, and they can't evict them. I have

written to Mr. Redway and asked if he couldn't do something about it,

because it certainly affects our ability to provide housing. If people

who earn $50,000 or $60,000 a year are living in that kind of

accommodation, it is deplorable, and I am certainly opposed to it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted, for the record, to make

something very clear. I am not finding fault with the society. In the

case of the development I've mentioned, it is the Red Door Housing

Society. They are doing exceptional work in the lower mainland. I

believe that the sod-turning on Friday was the seventh housing

development they have put together: a lot of volunteer hours, a lot of

effort and the provision of very much needed housing. There's no

question about that.

I am arguing whether or not this is

the way to provide the greatest number of housing units at the lowest

cost. I suspect that for the money being spent on those 45 units, we

should in other ways be providing at least twice as many units for that

sum of money. I spoke to the Red Door Housing Society when I

participated in the sod-turning and asked them if they would look to

see if there was not a better way of providing the required housing.

Once again, I commend them for their efforts, but somewhere along the

line it seems to me that we are spending an awful lot of money for very

few housing units.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I

should perhaps have also mentioned that it isn't entirely within our

authority to build the kind of social housing we want; it's also within

the federal government's. They have the largest share in it, and most

of the money. They also have criteria as to the type of units built;

they either approve them or not. We're not the only player in that

program. It is a partnership with the federal government — 30 and 70

percent. Maybe there are other ways of providing housing for less. But

at the same time, it is a very costly undertaking, especially since the

cost of money and land have increased dramatically -and the units are

probably a little larger than some that were mentioned.

MR. SERWA :

First of all, I would like to thank the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), who was patient and kind

enough to give me the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this

very important subject. As you are all aware, Okanagan South is no

different than any other rapidly growing area. The private sector has

done a great deal for the provision of affordable housing. As a matter

of fact, in the past year an amount about equal to 150 percent of the

entire amount of residential housing built in the province of

Saskatchewan was built in Okanagan South.

I have a few

questions, Mr. Minister. But I'll go right through it, and I would like

answers to them at the end. What has happened with the floor area in

the social housing projects over the past three or four years? It seems

to me that the units are getting larger and larger. I suppose when we

talk about affordable housing, we're going to have to look at the

housing that is being made available on a current basis to see if we

are being as wise as we ought to be in the construction of these.

Certainly

in most of my earlier years, I was brought up in a home which had about

650 square feet, no inside bathroom, and we didn't have running water

in the house. Most of us have probably been brought up in homes that

were somewhere between 650 and 900 square feet in total size, and these

were for families with four children or more.

Recently — as

a matter of fact, just the past Friday — a very impressive social

housing project was opened in Kelowna. It was sponsored by the

Columbian Housing Society and the Kelowna and District Society for

People in Motion. It had six units — and we're very grateful for that —

specifically designed for physically challenged individuals. That was

certainly a very positive move.

[4:00]

We have a lot of problems in our community — certainly no different

than any of the other communities — with single-parent families,

seniors, low-income families and young couples just starting out. I may

be plowing the same ground twice, and the debate on this subject has

gone on for some time, but there's no question that housing

affordability is a big

[ Page 9864 ]

question.

One of the real options that we do have is looking towards

nontraditional housing, which is probably more in manufactured and

mobile housing. I know we have many things to overcome. Certainly

resistance to zoning by regional districts and municipalities is one of

those major hurdles we have to overcome.

There's no

question in my mind that mobile homes provide the affordable type of

housing we're looking for. It is a practical solution, and the ability

is there on the part of the manufacturers to satisfy the demand. We all

recognize the tremendous demand from the population that we have

growing within British Columbia and also from the population that is

migrating to the province.

The real challenge in

mobile-home sites or parks is to make these sites available, make them

suitable and have adequate facilities available on a continuing basis.

One of the things I've tried to bring forward over the past two years

is the recognition that there should be some sort of ability on the

part of government to make funds available for the establishment of

mobile-home sites, as they are for social housing.

There

are a variety of compelling and persuasive arguments that I think could

be directed to reinforce that and the validity of that specific

concern. It is clear that what the tenant has to have is an assurance

of security of tenure. The present situation with a lot of mobile-home

parks is that they are in a landholding pattern and in a use that

provides an income to the park owner. But as soon as the intensity of

development increases around them, they are utilized, because they are

large blocks of property for shopping centre sites or other

high-density development. What we find is that we break up a community

of people.

Again

there's no question in my mind that the

communities that could be developed with well thought-out parks would

be integrated types of communities where you would have the normal mix

— as you do throughout all of our communities — of young couples just

starting out, families and seniors. It seems to me that if we could go

on this policy so we can ensure security of tenure, as well as

reasonable rate increases that would be more in line with

cost-of-living increases, we would go a long way to satisfying the

tremendous demand in our province for this type of housing.

There

are other benefits as well. Certainly one is that there would be a

buildup of equity on the part of the young couple or family, which they

could utilize towards the purchase of a traditional detached home. At

the present time, that opportunity is tending to get further and

further away from individuals. It has always been a very strong point

of Social Credit policy to ensure that affordable housing for the

people of British Columbia has been a number one priority.

What I would like you to do, Mr. Minister, is approach this to see if we can

design something so we can actually utilize some of these funds so that societies,

non-profit organizations or cooperatives could have access to capital funds

to acquire a site — and the government does provide that for social housing

at the present time — so that we can proceed with mobile home parks that are

designed to reflect the need for a balanced community. This integrated community

could live in a well-designed, well-landscaped and secure area and have ample

room for children at play. I would like you to seriously consider that as a

viable option. It would be far more cost-effective in providing the volume of

housing that we really require for the people of British Columbia.

There

are other alternatives too, and you are most familiar with the

potential of utilizing basement suites. I recognize the reluctance to

rezone, but for the immediate response to the demand, this has the

greatest promise of all, if we can encourage municipalities and

regional districts to go ahead with the appropriate zoning.

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

The

size of units has not altered dramatically. They are about the same,

except that we are no longer building bachelor suite units; they are

all one-bedroom. We found that they weren't appreciated. You very often

had a unit available, but it wasn't suitable for someone who was not

alone. So we have discontinued that. I am told the size of the unit is

pretty well standard, as it has been for some time.

You

mentioned the manufactured housing component. That is now being looked

at. We have gone to the factories and looked at some of the housing — I

have only looked at a video and read the material — and these homes are

very acceptable and good-looking. I think it's a tremendous way to go.

There is some reluctance by some municipalities, but three of them have

now agreed to a demonstration project. So we are now identifying the

properties, and we want to put up some demonstration projects to show

the rest of the municipalities what can be done and at what cost. So

that it is an alternative. I am very pleased you brought that up.

The

other interesting aspect of your comments was the zero lot lines. This

has been under discussion for a long time — even when I was on city

council. Some municipalities are agreeing to it — saying yes, that

might be okay — while others are absolutely opposed and will not accept

zero lot lines.

There are different ways of putting up

housing, especially for the first-time buyer. I totally agree that we

cannot continue to build 2,000-, 2,500- or 3,000-square foot homes

for the first-time buyer at the cost of land and construction today. We

have to set our sights just a little lower, especially for the

first-time buyer. I think they would accept moving up later on when

they can afford to. So we are looking at that.

There has

been much discussion on the lease to buy. We're trying to arrive at

some method of leasing with the option to purchase after a few years.

With interest rates going up, it's going to be more and more difficult.

It is becoming quite a problem for

[ Page 9865 ]

many

people — not just low-income people. With a 14 percent-and-up interest

rate and the cost of land, people will no longer be able to build, and

they're going to come down in price. It just has to happen, like it did

in 1981-82 — perhaps not a crash similar to that. Already in my area —

although the vacancy rate is just about nil — the building lots are way

down and houses are down in total price, but the interest rate is up.

So it's still not a total saving, but I think it will be in time to

come.

We also have word — from the officials, at least — from the federal government.... I haven't got word from the minister,

but they're going to allow us to use the business and immigration

investment fund for housing. We're asking for roughly $50 million. That

would help a great deal to provide housing for people.

also provide a grant to seniors. Let's say there's a senior citizens'

group that wants to start a housing project, but they're not capable of

doing it on their own. We provide them with a grant of up to $20,000

to hire an architect or a business manager to get this project

underway. I think that's very important, because some of these people

have all the energy and ideas, but they don't know how to put it

together. So we say: "Fine. We will give you a matching grant of up to

$20,000 to get it off the ground." Some have taken advantage of it and

have been very successful.

also meet with the mayors,

the regional district and beyond. We've had a couple of meetings with

mayors to talk about the housing problems, how they see this whole area

of the housing need, and how it will fit in with their particular

municipality. They've come up with some pretty good ideas, and most of

them, of course, are certainly supported by us. After all that, I have

to say that I am curtailed by the budgeting process. I get so many

dollars, and those dollars have to be allocated the best way possible.

The Municipal Affairs minister mentioned: "Couldn't we provide housing

at a lesser cost?" That is a concern of mine. I know how much it costs.

But when you start figuring out, Mr. Chairman, the cost of land, the

interest rate, the cost of building, and you analyze all that and then

say: "What can I lease these for?" — and 30 percent is paid by the

individual and above that is subsidized — they can't build it for less.

It's a fact. I've seen the estimates and the proposals. What we're

trying to do is get municipalities — and ourselves now with Crown land

— to lease the land to bring that cost down; some people have even

donated land for this purpose — left it in their will. We try to get

land at a reasonable cost so that we can provide housing for those who

are very difficult to house at a cost that's affordable, because you

and I and the taxpayers of the province are paying that. It doesn't

come from some magic tree; it's paid by us. So yes, we're looking at

all those areas. Your comments are very well taken, and I agree with

you.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Just finishing up on a couple of previous speakers, on the issue of

housing.... On Saturday I attended a rally where a group of tenants,

mentioned by the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), were

trying to bring some public attention to their plight. It really struck

me that a large

section of the people marching up and down the sidewalk

were senior women. Many of those women had run out of options. The

minister has said repeatedly through the debate around housing: "Well,

if there's a particular problem, have those people referred to me, and

I will see what we can do to help them." The point that everyone on

this side has repeatedly tried to make is that the minister can't hope

to begin to deal with this problem on an individual basis; that his

philosophy and direction in dealing with this housing problem by

letting the market deal with the supply issue isn't working, and that

what we need is the minister to take another look at the housing

problem and at a way of dealing with this crisis in the lower mainland

that will help the number of people facing either eviction or rent

increases that will create real hardship.

For the minister

to say that we should put those people in touch with the B.C. Housing

Corporation or other agencies, whether it's GVRD or whatever, doesn't

recognize the fact that many of those subsidized housing projects have

waiting-lists for over two years. The minister indicates that maybe

there's something that he can do to fast-track their applications, and

indeed bump other people down that list. The point I'm making is that

most of those people on that list, looking for that subsidized housing

and that kind of support, are there because their options are also

restricted, because they live on pensions that make it very difficult

for them to pay rent. So what you're doing — and the minister should

recognize this, given his previous responsibility — is like bumping

heart patients. In your previous responsibility, you had waiting-lists

for surgery. And in those waiting-lists for surgery, when you had

someone in need of a heart operation, the situation you found yourself

in was having to assess the critical nature and bumping one critical

need for another critical need. That's not satisfactory. And it's

creating a society that none of us ever expected to see here in British

Columbia.

A number of years ago, I was in one of the big

American cities for the first time and saw people living in doorways

and on sidewalks. I was appalled. I recall the first time that my

children saw that, and how frightened they were to see it. Now I drive

in downtown Vancouver and my kids say, "Oh, look, Mom, there's another

bum sitting in the street." What I'm saying here is that under this

administration we are seeing our society changing in a way that I don't

believe anyone in this province ever wanted to see. We're seeing food

banks. We're seeing people in increasing numbers living on the streets.

Not only the single men one would think would be the people most likely

to find living in doorways, but we're seeing in increasing numbers

families having to live in tents in parks to be able to keep their

families together. Again, I can't say in strong enough language that

the minister's response to this crisis, being one of dealing with cases

on an individual basis, is not

[ Page 9866 ]

adequate.

The minister indicates that his commitment is to the marketplace and

increasing supply, but he has to see that that is not working and that

we need a different approach, a different way of looking at the needs

of housing people in this province. The people who have to pay are the

people who are most vulnerable — the mentally ill, the seniors and

families. And if this government cares about families, as they

repeatedly say they do, I can't understand why on earth the minister

would repeatedly stick to his line of answering. The minister has to

understand that it's not working.

I want to talk a little

bit about some other areas of social services, unless the minister

wants to respond directly on the housing.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I think I'd like to talk a little bit about the housing, if this is the

wind-down; at least that won't leave it up in the air. I believe I

heard you say that the individual on the street.... You said the

"bum" on the street; I don't call them "bums"; I think they're

unfortunate people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

You said: "There's another bum on the street." But I want to say very

emphatically that if an individual Is down and out and has no place of

shelter, I will make the commitment to house them. I've said that I

don't know how many times in this House, and you keep repeating; you

keep going around. I've told you repeatedly that we have to be

notified. We have to know, and if we haven't got room for the night in

one of our hostels, we will put them up in a motel or wherever. As far

as families are concerned, that's our number one concern. Single moms

with children is one of our biggest areas of concern.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I don't mind. I talk to my people too. It's not that I'm trying to be

impolite or anything like that, but the ones most in need.... When we

talk about the B.C. Housing Management Commission, you have to

understand that there may be a long waiting-list. Some of them, when we

look back, yes, would perhaps be better served in a social housing

unit, but they're managing not too badly. If we have a case like those

that you mentioned you had gone to visit....

Incidentally,

I saw you on TV and you looked very, very good. You had your hair done

and it was a good picture of you. I just wish I could have been there

and looked as good.

If those people are in need and really

have a problem, I wish they would get in touch with the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. There are a lot of units around in the province,

and if there's someone in dire straits, we can probably fit them in —

at least those in greatest need. We do it by a point system, so if you

have someone — a single mom — and she really literally hasn't got any place

to go, we will look after her.

You mentioned pensioners. If

they are 60 years and over and in need.... I don't know if you were in

the House when I mentioned this, but we have changed. We have upgraded

the amount for the pensioners by quite a bit and that should help a lot

in the housing area for the rent that individuals and couples have to

pay. That was just announced on Friday, I believe, and the news release

went out. It was a good announcement. I know a lot of seniors will be

very happy to see that. They have written me letters and phoned, and

I've got a lot of letters from people saying that if it wasn't for that

SAFER program, they wouldn't be able to manage, but with the SAFER

program they're quite happy. As a matter of fact, with this increase I

think they'll manage even a little better. There also will be a news

release in the not too distant future on the GAIN shelter allowance

that will help some for those people who are In the other category.

have also a system of tracking the units available as far as hostels

are concerned. If somebody comes in, we have a system in place where

they get in touch with the other agencies and we make sure we have the

beds filled rather than going to a motel or hotel. So there's a network

in place to find housing for people.

I think I mentioned in

response to the housing critic earlier that very often people.... It's

because people aren't knowledgeable. Let's say they applied for social

housing a year ago and the situation has changed. They should keep

updating and upgrading and get in touch again and say: "My situation is

now worse. I've had notice. I've got to move out at the end of the

month. I've got two children and no place to go." We will do everything

in our power to get them into housing. It's not easy. There are still

people who have a problem. I don't want to make light of it at all,

because I think if I put myself in that position.... It is very, very

serious.

But you know, I've also had a lot of people phone

me personally, and I have phoned people who have been on TV and on talk

shows, or had my ministry get in touch. I would phone the ministry and

say: "What's going on? Would you look into it?" And we were able to

help.

In one instance I know she phoned me personally and I

said: "Have you made application to the B.C. Housing Management

Commission?" "No, I haven't, but I'm sure they can't find anything for

me either." We found two units within one day, because she was in dire

straits, but then she found a place by herself that was adequate, and

she felt it was better than what we were offering.

We do

have situations where we help people. You have to remember that there

are roughly 60,000 subsidized housing units in British Columbia. It's

not a small number. They are serving roughly 120,000 people. You can

argue it's not enough, and I accept that, and I am doing everything in

my power to improve the situation.

[ Page 9867 ]

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

HON. MR. DUECK :

I can't let something like that go by, because it's on the record.

We're talking about people sleeping on the street. I said if there's an

individual who's down and out and hasn't got a place to live or shelter

for the night, we will provide shelter for the night. That's what I

said, and I make that commitment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : For

order and effective debate I would just like to remind the members that

the questions and comments should be made through the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I thought that that's what I said, but the minister is splitting some

hairs here. I guess the message is that you will not provide housing

but you will put them up for the night.

Mr. Chairman, I

think the issue here is recognizing that there is a long-term housing

crisis in the province. If you are talking about putting people up for

the night, you also have to recognize what the options are in

communities for that accommodation.

I would bring your

attention to a story in the Province on Friday where they were talking

about the emergency shelter for psychiatric patients in my riding, in

Surrey, where they are putting people up for the night at the Turf

Hotel. Would you, Mr. Minister, find that to be suitable accommodation

for people in need in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I will repeat again. If people are on the street and haven't a place to

go for the night, we will provide that shelter. I said it's not

necessarily adequate, but we will provide shelter. No one has to sleep

on the street. That's what I said. If at all possible, we will provide

more and more and housing, which I'm trying to do as best I can. It's

not easy. I'm doing absolutely the best I can in the housing area.

When

we talk about people who have been moved from Tranquille, Woodlands or

Glendale, those resources were in place before any mental patients were

ever released.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK : I am saying to you that no one was released from those

places until there were resources in place. Now what happened since.... There

could be. There could be some who say, "I don't want to live here,

" and take off. Then we try and find other means of helping them. But every

one of those individuals.... It was in cooperation with the parents, if there

were any, or relatives, or the community, or an association. Everyone had a

part to play. We work very closely with them. They don't always agree. Some

want us to move faster, some say we should leave them in a housed institution.

But we are providing facilities. We will not move any individual out of one

of those institutions before the resources are in place.

MR. BARNES :

I just wanted to pick up the point that the minister made respecting

those people who are homeless, who have no permanent residence, no

address. You have given the undertaking that you will provide them a

place overnight if they don't have a place to stay. Is that correct?

What if they need one over a series of nights by virtue of the fact

that they are staying on the streets? There are documented cases of

people living under a bridge, behind a Smithrite container, underneath

a canopy, in a parking lot or under someplace that is in business

during the day but closed in the evening. These people usually

crash.... Sometimes you find them in vacant homes, etc. I think these

people qualify as being homeless. If you're saying that none of these

people needs to be without a home and that you will provide them a

place overnight, I would just ask if that would be overnight or until

suitable accommodation can be found on a permanent basis.

[4:30]

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, I think I was quite clear on that. We will provide them

overnight lodging. In other words, our society — and I personally — cannot

accept someone sleeping in an alleyway. We must provide them with at

least a place of shelter for the night; and then, of course, we try to

provide for the longer term. If they are one of those downtown east

side residents, we try, through DERA or one of the other organizations,

to provide a more permanent place of residence. That is certainly our

aim. I have made that commitment, and we will certainly follow through

on it.

There are perhaps cases where people are in

situations where they haven't even got the wherewithal to ask for

accommodation; I accept that. Maybe we are not coordinating that well

enough, and some people just don't know how to go about it. There may

well be some — although we would provide that housing — who don't know how

to go about it or haven't got the ability to do so. But I say to you

that if our hostels are full, we will even provide a place of residence

in a motel, hotel or whatever. In our society we believe that no one,

but no one, should sleep on the street and say: "I just cannot find

anybody to help me."

MR. BARNES : You'd have a

difficult time finding someone on this side of the House who would be

opposed to such a policy, because obviously you are saying that there

is no need for anybody to be homeless in this province. But you know

that our experience has been quite the contrary, because in case after

case, just about any day of the week, you can find people who are

without a home. In fact, that is one of the problems when it comes to

taking a census: trying to find people who don't have a permanent place

of residence. It is also a problem with people who might need social

assistance. One of

[ Page 9868 ]

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

guess the question now is: have you a policy in place where your staff

is aggressively seeking out these people? As you just pointed out, some

of them may not have the wherewithal or may not be aware of the policy.

It is the kind of policy that I think should aggressively be made

available and publicized in those areas where there is a fairly high

incidence of homeless people. Although they may be all over the

province, there certainly are quite a few in and around the core of the

city. I certainly haven't seen anything publicized that would indicate

that the government is trying to reach such people to let them know

that they can have this assistance.

Another question I would like to ask is: where would you put these people?

Would it be in hotels? What facilities would be available?

HON. MR. DUECK :

The hostels, of course, are for that purpose — for the overnight

people. In the downtown east side, where a lot of these people live, we

work very closely with DERA. Incidentally, since 1986 we have produced

just under 1,000 units for the downtown east side. Jim Green and I

have had a number of meetings. As a matter of fact, until I got into

this ministry, I didn't know Jim Green. When you see him on TV, he

comes across as a pretty ruthless, bombastic type of person. But I have

certainly changed my mind about him. I think he's one heck of a good

person, and he has done a tremendous job for us. We use him and he uses

us. We exchange information on how we can best solve some of these

problems.

We've just entered into an agreement. You weren't

in the House, Mr. Member, when I made the announcement that we now have

a registry specifically for the downtown east side, exactly for

information on housing and relocation of people in need. Vancouver city

has a registry, but this is specifically for the downtown east side.

We've

got a partnership between Vancouver city, DERA and us. We talked about

it just a couple of weeks ago when Mr. Green was in my office and made

this proposal. I said, right off the bat: "Absolutely, no question

about it. I'll go along with that. We'll try and get the city

involved." They said yes, and if it's not operating already, it will be

operating very soon.

The police, too, are very cooperative

when they find somebody in need of shelter. They give us that

information, and so does the community — we get that information from

street workers. The other chap I went on the street with, John Turvey,

was very, very helpful in that area, in that whole east side district

and the core area. So we get that information.

Once

in a

while you get some individual that refuses and does not wish to, but

that's very rare. As a rule, if they find out there is a warm place —

because they may go to one shelter.... We have a network, and with this

relocation and housing information, it should be even better.

There

is a network in place now, and I'm sure the member is aware of it

because he spent a couple of weeks on the street himself. I watched

that with glee, wondering how he was going to make out. "Glee" is

probably the wrong word — I watched with great interest because I

thought living on the street for that period of time must be quite

difficult. We live in a very protected society, and we come from a

protected background. It's quite a challenge. So you have a good feel

for what goes on.

But I do believe that conditions have

improved. We've got certain safety nets in place; perhaps not any more

housing units per se, but we have better coordination and a better way

of looking after those people that haven't got a warm place out of the

rain for the night.

It's not really ideal for the long

term, and some people perhaps will be in this situation for some time.

But Jim Green has got a bunch of units coming on stream again now for

social housing, and more and more people will find a place in a more

permanent situation, I hope.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'd like

to follow up. The minister didn't answer my question. Does the minister

find the Turf Hotel adequate accommodation as an emergency shelter?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question. I don't know the Turf

Hotel. I haven't been in the Turf Hotel. I don't know what it's like. I

don't know what clients.... Maybe that kind of question belongs in the

estimates — I don't know. I suppose I'd have to visit it. I suppose I'd

have to talk to some social workers and say: "Look, do you find this an

appropriate place?" Obviously the member has some information that I

haven't got. I'm not going to answer a question like that.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

First of all, I am a little surprised in that the member's riding is in

the lower mainland. The Turf Hotel is one of the hotels that has

acquired quite a name for itself. It's a pretty rough pub.

think the bottom line here is that while the minister is more than

happy to talk about the programs that are in existence in the core of

Vancouver, through DERA and other agencies down there, there are people

in need throughout the province, and the minister's programs are

piecemeal at best. If the minister does recognize that the programs

provided by people like Mr. Green are good programs, then I guess I

would like to know why the minister hasn't taken the initiative to make

sure those programs are available to other communities as well, so that

communities like Surrey, where people are moving out of the downtown

core into the suburbs, can begin to deal with some of the problems.

Very

clearly, hotels like the Turf and others are not adequate housing for

people with mental illness, as was indicated by this particular story.

Nor are they

[ Page 9869 ]

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

would hope that the minister would care enough about what other

communities are doing to look into what those options really are in the

suburbs, in smaller towns throughout the province. While the minister

speaks very highly of the programs in downtown Vancouver, I'd like him

to explain what he's doing to put programs like those in place

throughout the province.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Chairman, programs that we have are not for downtown; they're for

everywhere. We have programs for the needy: GAIN, the shelter

allowance, social housing. Where the need is the greatest, that's where

they go first. But the programs are for all around the province.

far as the downtown core is concerned, saying that they move out of the

downtown core is not really true, because Jim Green tells me it's about

the most stable community in all British Columbia. They're not moving

out from there.

If you are talking about families being put

in a situation such as you just mentioned, I would have to say that I'm

opposed to it, of course. If we're putting families in a violent

situation for the night, then discretion should be used, and they

should be put in more appropriate motels or hotels. It could well be

that you know of an incident; obviously you do. My deputy and assistant

deputy are here; they are hearing this from you as well as I am. We'll

have to look at it very carefully. I don't want families brought into a

situation of violence, danger or inappropriate housing.

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

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES :

I would like the House to welcome the students from the International

Academy of B.C., along with their teacher, Mrs. A. Glass, and four

other adults who are here with them. There are about 20 of these

students from various parts of the world. On behalf of the leader of

the official opposition and myself, I would like the House to make them

welcome.

MR. MILLER : I wanted to go back off this

topic, which I'm sure my colleague will want to return to in relation

to some of the more serious social problems that we face. They are

generally related to cities or heavily populated areas but not

necessarily so.

[4:45]

I can say, for example, that in my community of Prince Rupert it has been common

practice to locate some of those people requiring emergency shelter in what

I consider to be less-than-desirable accommodation. What makes it worse, in

my view — and I'm sure the minister would share this — is when children are

involved. When you see very small children on the street late at night not receiving

the care that we think would be desirable and being deprived of opportunities

in their life....

The

difficulty with the multifamily housing market.... I'm mindful of the

comments made a few days ago by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr.

Bruce). He talked about the road to Bratislava; I think he was

attempting to be humorous. But I think there are some lessons that we

in North America can learn from situations that have developed in some

European countries in how they deal with housing. I'm reasonably

satisfied with what some of the countries with social democratic

administrations have done. Not in every case, but in many cases they

have come up with some fairly innovative programs for providing housing.

you look at housing as a basic need of society, much

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34p 04s 900528p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34p 04s 900528p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	62400f2b7dc30ad8c7b07c153013e15a3b9c5af5

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — MONDAY, MAY 28, 1990

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MONDAY, MAY 28, 1990

CONTENTS

HON. MR. DIRKS :

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

HON. MR. FRASER :

HON. MR. SMITH :

MR. CASHORE :

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT APARTMENT

AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

MR. CASHORE :

BRITISH COLUMBIA RECYCLING ACT

MR. CASHORE :

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK :

MR. CLARK :

MR. CLARK :

MR. CLARK :

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION

MR. MILLER :

HON. MR. FRASER :

CHILCOTIN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. VANT :

MR. VANT :

SNUG COVE DESTINATION RESORT

MS. PULLINGER :

MS. PULLINGER :

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. MARZARI :

section 32 of the Hospital Act to ensure

MS. MARZARI :

MR. ROSE :

MR. SPEAKER :

MR. ROSE :

MR. HARCOURT :

MR. SPEAKER :

order.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

MR. BLENCOE :

MR. BLENCOE :

MR. BLENCOE :

HON. MR. FRASER :

MR. BLENCOE :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

HON. MR. DUECK :

MR. CASHORE :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

MR. DE JONG :

HON. MR. DUECK :

MR. CASHORE :

MR. CASHORE :

MR. BLENCOE :

MR. CASHORE :

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

MR. SERWA :

MS. SMALLWOOD :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

MS. SMALLWOOD :

HON. MR. DUECK :

MR. BARNES :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

HON. MR. DUECK :

MS. SMALLWOOD :

MR. BARNES :

Document details