1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd 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 13, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8187 ]

CONTENTS

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act,

1986 (Bill M207). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading — 8187

Oral Questions

Lumber exports to United States. Mr.

Howard — 8187

Mr. Williams

Louisiana-Pacific plant. Mr. Williams — 8188

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Kempf)

On vote 56: minister's office — 8189

Mr. Davis, Mr. Blencoe, Mr. Mitchell , Mr.

Rose , Mr. Barnes

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1986

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today

visiting from Ashcroft is Mayor Ward Bishop, members of his council and

representatives from the Ashcroft Board of Trade. I ask the House to

join me in welcoming them.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today are Mr.

and Mrs. Jackson

from Burnaby, with their son Dale Jackson, who is an intern with the

NDP caucus. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to take this

opportunity to ask

members to join with me in welcoming a former constituent of mine, Mr.

George Fessenden, who is now living in Prince George, to the assembly

this afternoon.

Introduction of Bills.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Industrial Development

Act Amendment Act, 1986.

MR. HOWARD: I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Before you put that question, and commenting upon it, the

current

government has viewed the north in general, and particularly the

northwest, as being an area that should just provide raw materials to

people in other parts of the world, indeed other parts of the nation

and the province, to process and manufacture into finished products.

What we want to do is create jobs around processing and manufacturing

in our own area. We want to see the value-added concept applied to us

as well as it does to others.

This bill amending the Industrial Development Act seeks to

establish

a northwestern aluminum products development council, comprised of

people living in the northwest, whose purpose would be specifically to

zero in on the processing and manufacturing of aluminum and make

recommendations to government with respect thereto.

I've always held the view that people will develop ideas and

solutions to problems and concerns if they are given both a challenge

and encouragement — and this bill does both. I'm confident that great

positive results will emanate from the bill when it receives second

reading.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on

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

after today.

Oral Questions

LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question

to the Minister of

with him prior to making the proposal to the United States that there

would be special envoys involved in dealing with the question of lumber

exports to the United States.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I can

advise that there was

no direct overture to me with respect to the matter of an envoy. But I

understand that there have been some discussions. The position which we

have taken all along is the commitment which the government understands

was made between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the

United States that there would be a clean launch and that all issues

involving trade would be on the main table.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the minister could

tell us whether,

inasmuch as it appears there might be special envoys to deal with

lumber separately in the comprehensive free trade negotiations, he

ensure that the special envoy representing Canada comes from British

Columbia and is chosen by British Columbia, so that British Columbia's

interests are protected in any discussions taking place among those

envoys.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the

position of government

has been clear from the very beginning, and that is that the trade

issue as it relates to British Columbia with respect to lumber stays on

the main table. We are opposed to the view, which has been expressed,

that lumber be hived off and dealt with separately.

I don't think it could have been said much better than in a

statement which I received this morning. It is a letter signed by a

number of members of the United States Congress requesting that the

United States administration embark on free trade discussions totally

unfettered. It is very interesting. If I may quote from one paragraph

of this particular letter dated April 21 — I'll give the member a copy

of it — the congressmen go on to say: "In addition, restrictions on key

Canadian exports, such as lumber, could be the first shot in a trade

war in which significant U.S. exporters to Canada, from citrus and

agricultural interests to high technology companies producing

computers, aircraft and office equipment, stand to lose an important

expanding market." The position we have taken, and that we have been

assured has been given by the Prime Minister of Canada and agreed to by

the President of the United States, is that all of these issues go on

the main table for all discussions on free trade.

What we would really like — it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker —

is if

all political parties, including the members opposite and their

particular party, would support the concept of free trade, because it's

certainly in the interests of British Columbia. In the interest of the

province of B.C. and all producers of lumber, we ask that the members

opposite convey to their federal leader, as well as to other Members of

Parliament, the importance of this particular issue to British Columbia.

[2:15]

MR. HOWARD: May I ask the minister a

supplementary question.

Is he aware that well over a year ago I proposed there be established a

unified committee comprising representatives of the government of

British Columbia, the government party, the opposition party, industry

and workers involved in the lumber industry so that we would be

speaking with one voice on lumber exports into the United States? And

is the minister aware that that man who sits in front of him, the

[ Page 8188 ]

Premier of the province, vetoed that

idea and denied any opportunity to have that unified voice'?

Obviously the minister doesn't want to answer that question.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Are you aware of that? No,

obviously not.

I'll try another question. Has the minister communicated to

the

envoys to deal with lumber apart from comprehensive trade negotiations'?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I repeat

the comments which I

made earlier with respect to the discussions on free trade or enhanced

trade or freer trade — whatever they're talking about. What I'm

concerned about is exactly what was raised by the members of Congress

in the United States with respect to free trade.

Our position has been clear all along. What I would like is

the

support of the opposition on this particular issue — the opposition

party and your federal branch.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps you should ask Jim

Keegstra to get on

your side as well. He's a great voice in world affairs. I ask the

minister if he has communicated with his friends in Ottawa, his

government, which appears to be doublecrossing British Columbia on the

lumber issue.... Has he communicated the views that special envoys to

deal

with lumber as a separate item in free trade are not to the advantage

of British Columbia, because we may get double-crossed by them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the federal

government is

aware that all items go on the table. As a matter of fact, as I recall,

the Premiers of all provinces have insisted on having reference to the

discussions which are going to take place during those free trade

negotiations. Our position has been abundantly clear — that we want

lumber on the main table, and not hived off from all other matters

which are going to be discussed.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Can the

Premier confirm that

they received telegrams just last night respecting this new federal

arrangement from Mr. Kelleher?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker,

but I can

reiterate to that member very clearly that this government has made its

position, not only through the trade ministry, the Forests ministry and

my office.... We agreed to the concept of a free trade discussion in

which all items are on the table with no preconditions, no exceptions.

That has been our position all along, that Canada and the Minister of

International Trade nationally must stand firm against any U.S.

pressure that would try to divide items and take Canadian items off the

main table.

It would assist the Canadian side if the federal NDP and Mr.

Broadbent, who have opposed the free trade talks, therefore leaving

this country vulnerable to the very actions that are taking place,

would support the concept of free trade talks. Then the United States

would not feel that they have allies in Canada who do not support free

trade in all items on the table, and they wouldn't have allies in

Canada that would allow them to continue to make attacks not only on

lumber but on fish and some agricultural products and others, which

Canadians say can only be dealt with along with our concerns about

American trade issues on the same table at the same time, with no

preconditions and all items on the table. We have the statement of the

Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States that

that was the spirit within which the free trade talks would start.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier

confirms his concern

is with respect to a doublecross, because the envoy is entirely

separate. That is not the same table; that's a decision taken by the

federal government. The Premier confirms, then, that his understanding

has not been confirmed whatsoever; that indeed the federal government

is taking a different route and that the big chip is British Columbia

lumber, and we could lose this main industry of our province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I don't confirm that.

I'm saying that

British Columbia is standing fast, and that our position is far

different from the position of the NDP in this province, who are

willing to sell out to central Canada interests and Ed Broadbent any

time he waves his hand and blows the whistle. Our position has not

changed; our position has been, from the very beginning, that all items

be on the table and that there be no preconditions. We will continue to

press for that.

If you wish to attack the federal government because of the

inability of your federal MPs to carry out that attack, then go ahead,

but I'm telling you what the British Columbia government position is

and how we will conduct our discussions within the Canadian negotiating

team.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's now clear

there are two tables.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask the Minister

of Industry and

Small Business Development if he was warned by his own staff that the

generous terms proposed and in fact confirmed for Louisiana-Pacific

would endanger our position with respect to the United States and with

respect to the countervailing duty that Louisiana-Pacific on previous

occasions sided with the American industry on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I

don't recall being

warned of those dire consequences of the tremendous economic benefit

for the northeast part of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister check his

files in order to

be entirely sure that he was not warned by his staff that the zero

percent loans would be a dangerous precedent and would in fact invite

pressure with respect to the countervailing-duty people in the United

States and the coalition against B.C. lumber? Will he advise the House

whether he will check on whether he was warned?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I check

my files all the time, and I'll do it again.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry,

Mr. Speaker, again with respect to the Louisiana Purchase — I

[ Page 8189 ]

mean Louisiana-Pacific — can the

minister advise

the House how many American states, the western and Rocky Mountain

states, give zero-percent loans in terms of interest for projects like

the Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, first of

all I don't think

that the plant that's being constructed in the Dawson Creek area is

going to produce any dimension lumber that I'm aware of. Secondly, I'd

be happy to bring a very lengthy list of the incentives that are

offered by all of the states of the United States in the form of free

land, in the form of free training for employees, in the form of

interest-free development bonds up to $10 million and beyond if

necessary, and subsidized power, subsidized water and subsidized

services to their community, and next week or the first opportunity

that I get I will be happy to rise in question period and bring you an

exhaustive list for the benefit of this House of the kinds of benefits

which are offered by the States to the very kind of industrial

development that we're getting in northeastern British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of

Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LANDS, PARKS

AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 56: minister's office, $208,882.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, just before

we adjourned for

lunch I was commenting on the remarks of the two members opposite who

entered into debate in regard to my estimates, and I suggested that

after listening for an hour, I had heard no policy questions whatsoever

in regard to my ministry. However, the member for Vancouver Centre —

well, the only one in the House; I don't know where the other one is;

he's never in the House — wanted to hear about the downtown east side

matter rather than talk about policy matters in my ministry. I am quite

happy, as I said earlier, to talk about that because I wouldn't want to

let that member down.

As the hour drew to 12 o'clock and we adjourned, I was talking

about

those individuals who, having made their wishes known via courier to

the B.C. Housing Management Commission, turned down the alternative

accommodation that was offered them. I gave one example, and I would

like to give several more.

I would like to name names because these are very real people.

They

are names and situations that were picked up by a courier from the B.C.

Housing Management Commission — which incidentally, Mr. Chairman, goes

down each and every morning now to ensure that those so-called evictees

aren't left without housing, without alternative accommodation. I gave

the example of an individual, a name which I didn't mention but I will

now, an S. Sharma, who was offered accommodation in an Orchard Park row

house, and refused that accommodation because it involved the

maintenance of a small yard. Apparently that individual didn't want to

have to cut the lawn, so he turned down that accommodation.

As I said earlier, you can lead a horse to water but you can't

make

him drink. You can offer this accommodation, but if it's not taken,

then surely that person is left without accommodation. I'll give

you...

[2:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, the little member

chatters away over there. I'll give some more examples. These examples

were...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee

will come to order, and the minister will avoid personal references.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I withdraw "little," Mr.

Chairman. I'll give

more examples. We have a J.W. E Khouri who refused an offer of a unit

in the Cherry Tree complex in Richmond as "unit unsuitable." In

Richmond — an unsuitable unit. That unit was too small. We have another

one, an M. Guerard, who refused a unit because it was too large.

There's example after example.

Mr. Chairman, that member has done his homework in this

committee

the same as he does in question period. He doesn't even listen to his

friends.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee

will come to order.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if he had

taken the time — and

I'm sure that that member has lots of that — he would have watched

Channel 13 last evening on which Jim Green and company, not of city

council in Vancouver anymore, but a friend of that member over there,

agreed.... In fact, it was Mr. Green who said on that

program.... It came out of his mouth; they were his words: "Nobody

is without a roof in Vancouver." Yet that member chatters away as he

does, and that member brings up the subject on the floor of this House.

They don't even listen to their friends. The report of the Vancouver

Downtown Eastside Relocation Task Force, DERA's own arm, as late as

April 24.... I've got a copy of that report and I have the figures.

It says: "Number of people successfully relocated: 69. Number of

applications in hand: 32. Inventory of available units: 73." I don't

understand that member for Vancouver Centre. Have you been home lately?

Have you checked with your friends to see what the situation is?

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House fully understand

what the

situation is. The situation is purely a political one on the backs of

those poor people. We knew that way back on Tuesday, March 7, when this

article showed up in the Vancouver Province :

"Pickets May Hit

Fair Gates." We know what that's all about. We know what that whole

Downtown Eastside Residents' Association situation with Mr. Jim Green

is. It's purely a political ploy, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, on

the backs of your constituents. Shame, I say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria said that I should do my

homework. Well, I want to tell you that I've done my homework. I know

where that Downtown Eastside Residents' Association situation is. The

trouble with that member for Victoria is that he has selective

misunderstanding. That

[ Page 8190 ]

member, just before lunch, talked

about rat-holes. He tried to make

this committee believe that I was talking at some time or other — he

didn't say when — about co-op housing being rat-holes.

MR. BLENCOE: You're living in one.

HON. MR. KEMPF: We'll get to that. Oh boy,

will we get to that, Mr. Chairman. I can't wait.

He talked about rat-holes, and suggested that I called coop

housing

rat-holes. Nothing was further from the truth. I said, and I remember

quite distinctly.... I see Jim Hume is not in the press gallery. I

remember quite distinctly that when I said it on a television program,

I suggested that the taxpayer's dollar was going down a rat-hole in

British Columbia — not only British Columbia but all over this nation —

in regard to co-op housing, and I still say that. And we haven't been

able to convince the federal government otherwise, but we will before

it's through. That's what I said. That member over there doesn't even

know what he's talking about.

I and the members on this side of the floor believe that the

taxpayer's dollar that goes to social housing in this province and in

this country should go to only those in need, not the Svend Robinsons

of this world, Mr. Chairman, who earn in excess of $70,000 a year and

live in social housing; not those people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member said: "Well, you

lived in co-op

housing." Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did. Certainly I did, and I'll tell you

why: because there was absolutely nothing wrong with it; and there

still isn't for someone earning $27,000 a year — absolutely nothing. I

lived in co-op housing when my salary was $26,500 a year, and I don't

feel bad about that, not at all, because that is exactly the concept.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I can't even

hear myself talk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one at a time, please.

I'm sure there is

going to be an opportunity for other members who wish to express

whatever views they might have to respond to the minister when the

minister takes his seat.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member for Victoria

screamed bloody blue

murder in this chamber when he found out that it was I. And he didn't

find out; I told this chamber. I told the media. He screamed bloody

blue murder. But what are you going to do about Svend Robinson? What

are you going to do about that socialist member who sits in the

parliament in Ottawa? What are you going to do about him living in

social housing?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: He said I don't understand

the concept. I

understand the concept very well. It's a socialist philosophy, Mr.

Chairman, which says: "Do as I say, not as I do." It's a socialist

philosophy, and if it wasn't, why isn't that member on his feet? Why

isn't that member writing to that Member of Parliament who lives in

social housing and draws the salary of an MP in Ottawa? Why isn't he

demanding of the media that they print that kind of thing? Mr.

Chairman, it's a socialist philosophy: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: That member said that we

have an ideological

difference. You bet we have an ideological difference, and there is the

ideological difference. I want the taxpayers' money of this province to

be spent wisely on social housing and only on those truly in need in

this province.

That's exactly why it was that, subsequent to the

recommendation

made by the inquiry commission into social housing in British Columbia,

l am at the present time establishing a social housing advisory

committee. It was pointed out quite clearly by the inquiry commission

that prior to their inquiry we really didn't understand that there was

a multitude of organizations dealing with all aspects of social

housing, but never once did they get together. Never once was there a

communication as to really what we should have...

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

HON. MR. KEMPF: It's not wrong. It came out

in the hearings

that were held, and it's in the report. We may be talking about many

years ago, Mr. Member, but the report of the inquiry commission pointed

out very clearly, and that's why they made their recommendation, that

it's about time that we got together and put our heads together and

made sure that the social housing that was built in this province went

to those in need, people who really required it, and was built in a

fashion that they require.

That's exactly why I am going to set up a social housing

advisory

committee. I would recommend to those members opposite that they

strongly recommend to their friends in the social housing and co-op

housing movement in this province that they become involved in that

committee. That committee will report directly to me as minister.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't trust you.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You don't trust me, but I

think they do and they will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The

second member for Victoria will withdraw that remark. It's

unparliamentary.

MR. BLENCOE: Which remark, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference about trust to

the other hon. member. The remark will be withdrawn.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Not only will I be

appointing a social housing advisory committee; I will also....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, that member

is really agitated this afternoon; I don't know why.

[ Page 8191 ]

Mr. Chairman, I will also, in my ministry, and we've got

feelers out

now... We're advertising now for an executive director of social

housing. We are going to place great emphasis on social housing in this

province, not social housing for your cronies but social housing for

those in need; not thousands or millions but billions of taxpayers'

dollars going down that rat-hole you talked about for those who are not

in need. No sirree. It's about time that stopped, Mr. Chairman.

The member suggested that I don't do my homework; and the

member

suggested that I was a front for developers. Mr. Chairman, I defy that

member to show me anywhere that I have said that the private sector

would ever be involved in the management of social housing in the

province of British Columbia. Because never did I do that.

I have nothing against the non-profit organizations managing

social

housing in British Columbia, nothing whatsoever. I merely suggested

that possibly the private sector should be involved in the

construction. Why would the nonprofit organizations...?

MR. BLENCOE: It already is.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, can you stop

that member

chattering? That's all that I suggested, and I had been led to believe

that if we did that it would be done more economically. I'm looking to

get the best bang for the taxpayers' buck when it comes to social

housing. That's my responsibility as the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I said nothing about the private sector managing

social housing projects in this province. I think the executives in the

co-op movement do a fabulous job of it, and I wouldn't want to take

that away from them. I have nothing against them managing it. I do,

however, think that the private sector has a place and should be

offered an opportunity to build social housing, particularly if it can

be done more economically on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

[2:45]

MR. BARNES: It all depends on how much of

the tax dollar you're prepared to spend.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if that is

done on a bid basis,

then there's no possibility for ripoff that the second member for

Victoria talked about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Construction only, on a bid

basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first

member for Vancouver Centre will have every opportunity to participate

in debate.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Look at the mess we're in

now with housing

subsidized by the taxpayer. That's what I'm getting at, and that was

the object of the inquiry commission, and that's the object of the

advisory committee, and that's the object of the executive director of

social housing — to get at those problems. I don't know why the

executives of those coops are screaming as they are. I have no idea,

unless they see that their opportunity is being taken away — not the

opportunity to manage a co-op, which they say is what they wish to do,

but their opportunity to get big gobs of money from the federal

government that we really don't know whether we get value back for.

That's all I'm getting at.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: A great deal, and we'll get

to that, Mr. Member; we'll get to that.

There were a lot of accusations made by the members opposite

just

before lunch. But my policy, Mr. Member for Victoria, is to subsidize

people in need — not bricks and mortar, not non-profit organizations,

but those in need of social housing. I fully intend to do that. And

don't think for one minute, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, that you

have the edge on understanding what need is, because I've got to tell

this committee that I don't think that member does. But I've got to

tell you where I come from.

I come from a situation where I didn't see running water in my

until I was 12 years old. I didn't see hydroelectricity or electricity

of any sort in my home until I was 14 years old. In fact, I lived in

accommodation until I graduated from high school very little of which

had indoor plumbing or running water or all those things. Don't think

you've got the edge, Mr. Member, on understanding those in need,

because you haven't. In fact, with your socialist philosophy of do as I

say and not as I do, you don't have the edge at all. You don't

understand at all.

The member talks about money that we might be spending for

social

housing and thinks because we don't spend money on bricks and mortar we

aren't supplying a service to those in need of social housing in this

province. Well, they don't understand, or they don't want to

understand, because this province presently contributes over $15

million annually to joint federal-provincial social housing programs;

not only that, but we're proposing that we spend an additional $3

million a year on non-profit social housing.

You know, you just have to go out of this province to realize

the

programs we have and how much those programs are respected in other

jurisdictions. You know, our SAFER and GAIN programs are the best

social housing programs in North America, and they are heralded as such

if you don't listen to those members opposite. Our GAIN and SAFER

programs in this province are second to none in supplying social

housing to our citizens in British Columbia. They would have you

believe different — absolutely preposterous.

You know, the member over there believes that there are three

levels

of taxpayer, and because it's a federal program and because the money

is sent to Ottawa by the taxpayer in British Columbia, we shouldn't

worry about that. But I've got to tell you that my constituents at

least, and I think many other British Columbians, understand that that

money is coming out of their pockets regardless of whether it's sent to

Victoria or Ottawa, and they want to see it spent wisely. They don't

want to see programs such as we have gotten ourselves into in the past.

Just to get it on the record, we are now in this country

committed

through co-op housing, through

section 56(1) — committed; we can't get

out of that — to $23 billion of the taxpayers' money over the next 30

years. And that member over there wants to continue to go down that

road. It's estimated by my people — and we're using a very conservative

figure — that $10 billion of that $23 billion is clearly going to

subsidize those in social housing who are not in need: the Svend

Robinsons of this world. And that's what that member wants to continue?

Well, I say no. I would have

[ Page 8192 ]

abrogated my responsibility to the

people of British Columbia had I

not taken that on. I could have turned my back, as many people have in

the past, and said: "No, it's federal money, so why should I get

involved in the controversy'? Why should I have people waltz into my

home, upset my wife and talk about my hot-tub? Why should I get into

that?" I could have ignored $10 billion of social housing going to

people who are not in need. And he wants to continue that program, Mr.

Chairman. Well, I don't, and neither do other members on this side of

the floor, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't note any questions before lunch, but

having

given the members opposite some food for thought, possibly now they can

ask some policy questions about my ministry.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, you may have

noted that the minister made reference to a number of names of

individuals in a document he was reading from, stating addresses and

making comments with respect to why they would not accept relocated

accommodation. Would you please table those?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tabling cannot be done in

committee, hon.

member. It will have to be tabled by the minister when the committee

rises and the House resumes.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'll table the documents

afterwards.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North

Vancouver-Seymour has

indicated for some time today that he wishes to enter into debate, and

he will now be recognized.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be voting in

support of the

minister. In other words, I have confidence in the minister. I'll have

even greater confidence in him if he gives serious consideration to a

policy proposal which I and others have made, and that is in the area

of what I'll refer to as reverse mortgages.

There are many elderly people in British Columbia who own

their own

homes outright but are genuinely in need in terms of current income. In

the United Kingdom, and to some extent in France and Italy, there are

financial programs available in the private sector, but facilitated by

government, which allow these older people to in effect sell their

homes but have the right to live in them as long as they wish

thereafter. The income from the sale turns up as an annuity, as a

monthly payment which they can use in order to buy groceries and cover

other needs which would otherwise go unsatisfied. It's a program which

sees others owning the home eventually, having right of occupancy, but

only after the older person or older couple have no possible use for

the home. It is certainly relevant in British Columbia, because we have

a higher proportion of older people living in their homes than any

other province. Indeed, some 12 percent of the population of this

province are age 70 or older. Forecasts see that proportion rising

perhaps to the order of 15 or 16 percent of the population by the year

2010, perhaps even 20 percent by the year 2020. So we have a large

proportion of the population which could take advantage of a reverse

mortgage or reverse annuity type of scheme.

The reason why we don't have schemes of that nature in Canada

indeed, in North America — is that we have two quite separate and

distinct industries, the real estate industry on the one hand and the

insurance industry on the other. They have not as yet got together — in

other words, there's a gap between them — in order to make schemes of

this kind financially viable. One of the reasons why reverse mortgage

schemes exist in the United Kingdom is that for many decades they have

had what is known as building societies. Building societies do bridge

the gap between real estate on the one hand and insurance on the other,

and they have therefore been able, because of that experience, because

of that umbrella-type industry, to launch reverse mortgage plans.

Central Mortgage and Housing has studied reverse mortgages,

has

recommended them. I am told the main reason, other than the fracturing

of the industry that exists on this continent, why schemes of this

nature have not developed is that they have not been in any way

endorsed by government. The other is that the monthly payout to people

over 70 has not been seen to be adequate when interest rates are high.

Interest rates have certainly been high in recent years in this country.

But interestingly enough, happily, with the introduction of

the

federal budget last year, Canadians as individuals have a lifetime

capital gain allowed without tax of up to half a million dollars. This

makes it possible to launch schemes whereby individuals can buy into

home equity plans, avoid capital gains tax — not pay, in other words, a

high tax such as a marginal rate of income tax — and finance relatively

cheaply these home conversion schemes for the elderly.

This is a private sector thing. There is no reason now, given

the

federal legislation, and of course given the development of an industry

which bridges the gap between real estate and insurance, why we can't

see many of our older people living out the rest of their years in

their customary neighbourhood, in their own homes in greater comfort.

They won't be driven, as many of them are increasingly, into apartments

or indeed into institutions. There is plenty of evidence on the health

side that they will live longer. There will be less expense to the

community at large. So there is really a saving to public treasuries

there, as well as a savings in terms of human values and in terms of

needs which are presently not satisfied and which would be satisfied in

the future if reverse mortgage-type schemes were in effect.

[3:00]

Really, the home which older people live in is affordable but

would

be more affordable if this kind of scheme existed. What I am really

asking — what I have already asked the minister privately, and I want

to ask him publicly — is: how can or will his ministry look into these

various schemes? There are several people in the greater Vancouver area

who have looked into the accounting side of this matter, into the

legalities. Would his ministry take a good, hard look at the reverse

mortgage or reverse annuity idea, help the private sector do a job for

a mounting percentage of our population? Among the elderly who live in

their own homes over age 70, nine out of 10 own their own homes

outright. They have an asset in which they live, but they can't convert

those lifetime savings into something which will help them to live as

they should be able to live — in dignity, and not faced with urgent

needs, as many of them are now.

So here is an opportunity for government to participate by

simply

investigating an idea, giving it an official stamp of approval, setting

certain guidelines in the process, but getting the wheels turning,

essentially, in the private sector without any substantial contribution

by the taxpayer; something

[ Page 8193 ]

which enables more of our older

people, our elderly, our senior

citizens, to live in dignity throughout the rest of their lives and to

benefit from the savings which created many fine and comfortable homes,

homes which shouldn't really trap them into a living condition which is

unwarranted in a society such as ours.

[ Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman to the member

for North

Vancouver- Seymour, the answer is yes. I would just like to say, and

get this on the record, that the information provided me by the member

regarding reverse mortgages and reverse annuities has already been

passed to officials in my ministry asking for ways and means by which

they can possibly be dealt with in B.C. — and I extend the same

invitation to the members opposite. I believe in looking at any

positive alternatives to what we are already doing in social housing,

whether it be for the elderly, the handicapped, or just those in need

of social housing. I make that same overture to the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour. I understand the problem that some of our elderly

citizens are facing out there. If there's a way of doing this, and

surely investigation will show if there is, it will be considered, Mr.

Member.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to take a few minutes

to respond, not to

the personal gibes of the minister but to some of his facts and

figures. First, in terms of the policy, I assume the minister is aware

of the new CMHC proposal on co-op housing — the index-linked mortgages.

Hopefully the government is going to get behind that new policy,

because it has the potential to save a lot of money, particularly in

the co-op sector-suggested by the co-op sector. All his rhetoric about

the non-profit societies absorbing money: the record is there in

umpteen reports that they are the best cost-effective program for

delivering that kind of housing anywhere in the country.

Secondly, the minister talks about $15 million for social

housing.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Fifteen million. Let's get it

right. This

government spends far in excess of that for media manipulation and

advertising in British Columbia. They spend more money on advertising,

television and everything else than on people in need of housing. So

let's put that on record. It's a shabby record and doesn't stand up

against other jurisdictions. I gave that evidence this morning.

Thirdly — before we call the non-confidence vote — the

minister

tries to confuse and use bafflegab in terms of the private sector not

being able to participate in social housing. The minister is well aware

that much of the construction for non-profit societies and regional

housing corporations is done by private sector companies. They have

shared in that. There's been a partnership in that area for a long

time, so let's tell the story accurately.

I also want to give some figures on how the private sector has

benefited by tax expenditures in terms of public dollars for housing.

The private sector has got millions of dollars from the taxpayer. Let

me give you some statistics and I'll finish with this, Mr. Chairman. I

think this minister's got to be honest and admit some of these things

in terms of the private sector. We have no problem with the private

sector participating, but the facts should speak for themselves and

there should be a little honesty in terms of when we debate this issue.

Between 1976 and 1982 the non-profit housing sector of this

country

got about $428 million. In that same period, about $1 billion was spent

or utilized by the private sector for MURBs, ARP and other programs

like that. One billion dollars — double what the non-profit sector got.

What did we get with MURBs? We got tax write-offs; upper-income people

writing off tax shelters. It was supposed to be housing for those in

need, and the average rent was $700 to $800 a month. One billion

dollars. The taxpayer paid for that. At the same time the non-profit

societies, struggling to try to provide housing for those who couldn't

afford the MURBs, got half as much.

That's the record. Let's tell it as it is. The private sector

has

done very well out of the taxpayer; $1 billion between 1976 and 1982.

Above that, the Canada Rental Supply Plan and the Canadian Home

Ownership Stimulation Plan distributed $800 million to middle and

upper-middle households. Let's get it accurate. Let's tell it as it is.

The private sector has done very well over the years. But the

non-profit society is dedicated to channelling its dollars. We have the

highest percentage anywhere in the country in terms of directing into

integrated units — about 42 percent. The statistics are there, and I

can give the minister the reports — the highest in the country in terms

of targeting in integrated projects. Income integration is the key, not

ghettoization. That's not what we want to return to in British Columbia.

To conclude on this point of the numbers, housing expenditures

are

two to three times greater than direct spending programs. Greater

indirect subsidies are directed toward middle-income households. For

every $100 in direct total expenditures for non-profit societies, some

$200 to $300 is spent in tax expenditures or tax relief or tax shelters.

Social housing programs receive only 7 percent of the huge

annual

housing expenditure in this country. This minister wants to return and

even up that in terms of the private sector's participation. He hopes

the trickle-down theory will have an impact. The figures I give today

are the reason why non-profit societies have to be supported — the

church groups — in delivery of affordable housing.

The private sector can participate; they do participate in

construction. We believe in a mix of housing. They have a role to play.

But don't take away those valuable dollars from the non-profit

societies. The figures are here. In a period between 1976 and 1982 they

got twice as much in taxpayers' money for the private sector. So let's

have a little clarity about the figures in terms of the private sector.

Let's tell it how it is — two to one in terms of dollars.

I suspect what this minister wants to do is cut back even more

those church groups and those organizations that for years have worked

for the needy in this province. It's a philosophical battle but, boy,

it's more than that. There's an issue at stake here. We believe housing

has to be delivered to those in need and affordability has to be an

issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to call a vote, if we can, on the

nonconfidence motion.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8194 ]

YEAS — 15

Dailly

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Brown

Rose

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 31

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

R. Fraser

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Hewitt

Rogers

Reid

Johnston

Parks

Strachan

Reynolds

Lea

[3:15]

MR. MITCHELL: I was glad that that

particular vote was

called, because it proved what we've been trying to get through to this

minister: what he is not doing. For the last two hours we have heard

that minister go on and on about providing housing for those in need,

but nowhere.... He has attacked senior citizens, he has attacked

people in need, he has attacked individuals, but he has never given any

positive — and I say positive — statement of what he is going to do to

carry out what he is talking about. I find it disgusting....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you going to table

Blencoe's polls?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There are a

number of

conversations going on. Only one should speaking and that is the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew; others will please do it outside of the

chamber.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing

the young lady

from Surrey keep on referring to certain polls. I can assure her that

the polls that have been taken in my riding show you people at the very

bottom. I don't know if she's got any other polls that she would like

to table, but I can assure you the polls that I have been taking in my

riding show that the Social Credit Party is on the way to oblivion.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should get back to housing, and the

inability of this minister to bring to this House anything else but

personal attacks on individuals. The problem of housing is not a

single-issue problem. There is no one simple solution. The reason we

have the problem today is that this government for the last ten years

has done nothing on an organized basis to provide a surplus of

affordable housing for the communities.

It's easy to stand there with some philosophical belief that

the

co-op movement is something to condemn. Co-op housing is the centre of

private ownership. To go on about how he is going to provide social

housing in ghettos or some form of government-subsidized housing is not

the answer in our Western Community. There are many types of housing

for many types of individuals. Until we look at housing as one of the

basic needs of individuals, then we are not going to come up with a

solution.

It's easy to say that we are going to provide for need, but he

hasn't said to this House who is in need. Is it only those who are at

the social welfare level? Are they the only people in need? There has

been in the democracies of this country a conception that shelter

allowance should be provided at 25 percent of your income — 25 percent

for shelter allowance. But when you look at what this government policy

is on social assistance, for those single persons on GAIN they allow

over 50 percent for shelter. For a single person there is the maximum

of $375 providing they have to pay $200 for shelter. What has that

done? When you put $200 as the maximum you will give, there is no

flexibility. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) brought

to the attention of this House the need for some flexibility, because

what that $200 level did was raise the rent for inadequate housing, for

a papered-over coal-bin in someone's basement with a light in it. That

was the only thing available for some single people on welfare, and

that was what the landlord charged. It was completely inadequate. Until

we as a society have some kind of policy that there should be a surplus

of affordable housing so that people can live in dignity and in

comfort, in comparison to the rich country we have, we will go

backwards.

I know it's nice to say that he never had inside plumbing or

running

water until he was 12 and never had electricity until he was 14, but

this is not an answer. This is 1986, Mr. Chairman, and we have to look

ahead, and we have to look at the riches of this province. So I think

that if we're going to discuss social housing, we should establish some

ground rules in this Legislature.

In the report done by his ministry they said that their target

group

was 40 percent of those on lower incomes. I don't know where he takes

his figures, but the average income in British Columbia is around

$29,000, according to Statistics Canada. So if you take that figure and

you take 40 percent from the population base, the maximum allowance

they are going to use is around $20,000 for a household. Is that the

group we are going to target? I believe they have put in some other

figures — they have to be paying at least 30 percent of their income

for rent. If you're going to set that 30 percent as a ground figure for

rents, unless you provide a variety of housing and different approaches

to financing the housing, you are going to see all minimum rents for

households going up to the $500 limit. There's not going to be any

flexibility. You're going to get exactly the same ghetto problem that

you have for single persons on welfare, for whom the minimum rent for

the most rat-infested room is $200. You have to have some flexibility

and you have to have some variety. The answer is not ghettoized housing.

It's nice to attack somebody because he didn't want to mow a

lawn in

Richmond. I don't know what his age was nor his capability, but to use

the time of this House to attack individuals for some petty reason like

that is not the way we're going to solve the housing problem for

British Columbia residents.

The co-op and social housing provided by the Capital Regional

District in their housing program....We had a form of shelter

allowance in the rent subsidies whereby those on lower incomes could

claim a percentage of their rent back in a grant. That was wiped out in

'82, I believe. These are

[ Page 8195 ]

some in the variety of methods of

providing housing. Senior citizens' housing, retirement homes are for

one group....

[3:30]

But you don't wait till they get to the bottom of a disaster,

and this is what we had and this is what was focused on in the

Vancouver area when Expo came along. We had a problem that was allowed

to fester. Time after time the members from the Vancouver area said:

"Unless you come up with a proper policy that is going to look after

social housing and look after those who are living in the downtown

area, we are going to have a problem." So we had a problem. Everything

that was predicted happened. Then instead of admitting that there was a

problem and that we had to look at that problem, we attacked the

co-ops. We attack people as individuals — people who don't want to mow

lawns or people who have moved up the income ladder.

We have to look at mixed housing. I know philosophically the

minister doesn't agree with mixed housing, doesn't agree that we should

have senior citizens, single parents and those who are middle-income

living together. This is the philosophical belief of many western

democracies. The coop movement is just a part of it, a part of the

solution to providing people with an opportunity to own.

I've been lucky. All my life I have been able to earn an

income, to

live in an area where houses were affordable. I never had any great

sicknesses. I could own my own home. But there are a lot of people

today who will never be able to own their own home, so they own a share

of a co-op. It gives them a certain sense of pride, a certain sense of

responsibility and a certain sense of being part of a little community.

To attack that — and that is the centre of private ownership.... I

mean, you can say that those who own their own homes are at the top.

But also, equally as important, is the right of private ownership as

part of a co-op, that philosophical belief that you can have some

pride. I say this because I have one small....

Okay, before I get on to that other one, I would like to ask

the

minister one question. What is his maximum level of areas that he

wishes to provide supplements to for housing for those in need, and

what type of guidelines is he recommending? There have to be some

guidelines, some floors, some top levels; then the people know where

they're going and what the ground rules are. But we can't accomplish

providing affordable housing by attacking individuals, attacking groups

or attacking fellow colleagues in the House.

I ask the minister.... Up until now he hasn't given these

answers. I say let's get some ideas of where he's going to go, what his

guidelines are and what we look forward to in housing.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, that was a little

difficult to follow,

but I'll try to answer in a logical fashion. As to the last question,

which really was the only question I detected in all of that rhetoric,

I agree with the philosophy that's now in place, as far as provincial

government spending on social housing is concerned, because whether the

member knows it or not, no one — absolutely no one — in any social

housing supported by the provincial government pays more than 30

percent of their income for rent. That's the way it is now, Mr. Member.

As far as the SAFER program is concerned, SAFER pays 75 percent. SAFER

assistance pays....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: No, it's not my ministry,

but you're the one that entered it into this debate, Mr. Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe).

AN HON. MEMBER: Not SAFER.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, certainly it was. You

talked of social

housing and the provision of social housing in British Columbia. You

think the only social housing in B.C. Is co-op housing. That's just how

wise that member is, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the question of

social housing.

The SAFER-assisted individual in B.C. has paid for them 75

percent

of every dollar that they pay over and above 30 percent of their

income. So that's my philosophy. That's the way in which I want to see

the taxpayers' dollar spent in B.C. on social housing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But before I sit down, there are a couple of other things I

want to

say. I want to place on the record, particularly for some senior

citizens that I see in the gallery this afternoon — and I want to place

it firmly on the record — I have never, to the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), attacked a senior citizen in my

life. I just wanted the member to know that.

The member said there is no one single answer to social

housing, and

I agree with that statement. The member said housing is a basic need

for all individuals, and I agree with that statement. That is exactly

why I called for an inquiry commission to inquire into social housing

in British Columbia — exactly. That is exactly why, Mr. Member, I will

appoint a social housing advisory committee, and that is exactly why I

will appoint an executive director of social housing in British

Columbia — because housing is a basic need. Before you can provide that

basic need to those who are in need, you have to know who they are and

where they are and what their needs are. That's the whole object of the

exercise.

The member talked about a surplus of available housing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: A surplus of affordable

housing, if you want

to use the word affordable. Well, I would rather, when spending the

taxpayers' money, think in terms of an adequate supply, because if it's

the taxpayers' money that's been expended, I would rather we didn't

have a surplus. I would rather we just had an adequate supply.

I agree as well with the member's feeling that we should have

mixed

housing, and never, ever did I say that we shouldn't have. But I just

can't, for the life of me, see what difference it makes as to who

builds that housing, as to how those living in it can or cannot be of a

mixed group. If the member can enlighten me on that, I would certainly

look forward to that.

Before I sit down, and in talking about people being mixed in

social

housing, I've got to ask a question of that member, and ask how he

would feel about someone making in excess of $70,000 a year being in

that kind of mixed housing, and where he feels there is justice there,

where he feels that Mr. Svend Robinson, the silk-purse socialist, has a

right utilizing taxpayers' dollars to be funded for a good part

[ Page 8196 ]

of his monthly rental. I would ask

that member how he would justify that situation.

MR. MITCHELL: You know, as I said before,

the only thing that

member can do is attack personalities. I know we can all tell stories,

and I know when the minister was speaking earlier on he was telling the

House that when he lived in that co-op house he was only getting

$26,000 a year as an MLA. He and I know that is untrue because that

particular coop was never in his name. It was never in his name; it was

in his wife's name, and the rent was based on that particular income.

It was not based on her income and his income, and to come in

here

and mislead and say: "Oh, I was only getting $26,000...." I'm not

getting into personalities. I don't care about personalities; I don't

care about individual cases like Svend Robinson or anyone else who was

living in co-op housing. I am wanting to know from that minister in the

questions I ask: what are his guidelines? What is the top maximum level

of people that he is designing social housing for? Is it $29,000, is it

$26,000, or is it using the figure out of his ministry's report which

sets it around $20,000?

Now let's get some positive figures. Let's not get into this

garbage

of talking about individuals. He said he never attacked any senior

citizen. Well, he was making fun of somebody who didn't want to mow a

lawn. I assumed, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, and the person

that was evicted out of the hotels in lower Vancouver or Vancouver

Centre was not a senior citizen. But a lot of them were. A lot of those

who were evicted were senior citizens, old-age pensioners, war

veterans, people on GAIN. To pick out an individual because he didn't

want to mow the lawn.... There are a lot of people that don't like

mowing lawns. And there are a lot of people that live in rental houses

and apartments. There is a need for smaller accommodation in the city

core. We have to look at all these problems. We're not going to find an

answer by picking out some individuals and attacking them, saying one

thing and meaning another.

I ask the minister: what are his ground rules for the group

that he

is going to provide with social housing? I'm sick and tired of another

study. This government has been in power for ten years. We have the

mess we have today because of their inaction. Are they going to stall

it with another study? When we get into Parks, we'll go into some other

studies that that ministry inherited. What's he going to do about those?

I didn't say anything about the SAFER program. I mentioned in

debate

that the provincial renter's tax credit system was a type of subsidy

and provided accommodation. It helped those who were on a low income

and who were renting, outside of the provincial housing corporation

buildings, or outside of co-ops; they were renting from the private

sector.

He keeps on saying that he wants to see construction built by

private industry, I guess. Name me one co-op project that was built by

anything else but the private construction industry. All the co-ops are

just like any other person who has a house built: they put out their

contract for tender, and they supervise it, and they provide some kind

of inspection and design service. They're all built by the private

section of the construction trade. They're not built by individuals.

They'd be a lot cheaper if they could get a real co-op working and

building their own housing, but that would be so radical that the

minister, I'm quite sure, would find a reason to get rid of that.

[3:45]

Again I ask the minister: has he considered returning the

rental tax

credit? I hope that he will answer my question, not attack another

individual or attack me. I'm quite a harmless person. I'm asking

questions. I'm not trying to get into personalities.

I ask him: what are the ground rules, in what field? You say

"in

need." Is it going to be $10,000? Is it going to be anyone who gets

over $12,000? A thousand dollars a month? Is that "in need"? Is that

for an individual or is that for a household? There have to be some

ground rules. He can use the figure that the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Segarty) uses: $3.65 an hour, the minimum wage. Is that going to be

the ground rules he uses? Let's get some facts, let's get answers to

questions, and let's not attack individuals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is advised that

the rental tax credit is, again, another ministry.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the member

repeated, I guess, a

question that I answered before, in regard to my philosophy for the

provision of social housing. I must repeat what I said before. My

philosophy of social housing is not to spend taxpayer money on those

that don't need it, not to subsidize those who are not in need. It's

also to subsidize people rather than bricks and mortar; to subsidize

those of our citizens in a way in which they can obtain the kind of

housing they require.

I don't know how I can put it more clearly. The member surely

doesn't know the difference between a contractor and a builder, and I

would ask that member, on leaving this chamber, to get a dictionary and

find out the difference between those two terms. He seems to think that

in order to provide social housing, in order to build something in the

province, you've got to have a third party. I'm saying that that's not

necessary at all. Social housing can and will be built without that

third party, and in a way in which the cost to the taxpayer will be

less. That's all I'm looking for: a situation which will ensure that

any tax dollar spent on social housing in British Columbia be spent

solely on those in need.

Mr. Chairman, I can't make that any clearer. I'll reiterate

for the

member what I said before. Maybe it will help him to realize that his

question has been answered. No one in any social housing supported by

the provincial government in British Columbia pays more than 30 percent

of their income on that housing. I guess that clearly sums up the

philosophy of this government when it comes to social housing and the

provision of social housing in this province.

MR. MITCHELL: I don't know if the minister

is now attacking

developers. There are developers — do you want to call them builders? —

the

type of people who organize it. If a group of people get together, then

they are builders. I take it that he says that you have to buy it as a

turnkey operation from some contractor. How can a group of people who

are building...? The most important thing of their life is their

home, and they don't have an opportunity to be involved in the design,

in how it's put together?

You say there's a difference between the construction trade,

the

contractors and the builders. There has to be a middle person who puts

any project together. You can call him a general contractor, a builder,

a developer. If you're going to have individuals who sit down as a

group and put this project together, there has to be some input.

[ Page 8197 ]

The co-op movement deals through affordable housing societies

and a

variety of groups, church groups. In my riding, Kiwanis has a large

program. They dealt with a developer. They didn't go out and deal

individually with the plumber, the carpenter, the electrician. Is that

wrong? I know that if the government does something, they'll deal with

some person who puts the project together. We always get down to where

we're attacking names or individuals. Call it a builder, a developer or

a contractor, it's somebody who puts it together. There's nothing wrong

with that.

The minister still hasn't answered the question: what is the

group

in need? What is the level where the 30 percent comes in? Is it 30

percent for those on a $70,000 income? That they won't pay any more

than 30 percent of that? Every other province in Canada has set the

shelter allowance at 25 percent, but in this province we have taken 30

percent. Maybe next year they will want to eliminate a few more and

it'll be 32 percent. We know that, but we still want to know what the

maximum income or the minimum cut-off for a household is. That's a

simple answer; let's not have another study.

I know you say that that renter tax credit would come out of

another

ministry, but it comes out of another ministry because it is part of

providing shelter and was brought in to help provide shelter like the

SAFER program that the minister talked about.

One other thing I would ask the minister. We can go out and

say

we're going to buy a pig in a poke. Has he got any standards that he is

going to use for construction? What is needed for a family of three or

a family of six? In the Capital Region Housing Corporation they do have

standards. If you have four children, you need a three-bedroom house.

If you have two children of both sexes, you need three bedrooms. You

know there are certain standards. Are we going to go back to the

standards when he was a boy where a lot of us lived in crowded

quarters? Is that going to be the standard, or are we going to have the

standards set out by the National Building Code? This is the important

part. We haven't had those answers from the minister.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the member

has made my argument

exactly, and that is exactly why I am taking the recommendation of the

inquiry commission to set up a social housing advisory committee in

this province — for the very reasons the member just gave. In the past

and right at the present time it is not known what is needed. It is not

known who needs it. It is not known where it is needed. That is exactly

why we are accepting the recommendations of the inquiry commission in

this ministry, to make sure that from now on in British Columbia only

social housing which is acceptable by those who use it is built.

I guess I do have to draw him a picture. It has been done very

successfully all over this province for a long time in regard to senior

citizens' housing. We have a group like the Kiwanis come to us as

government and point out in their community a need for senior citizens'

housing. That need for senior citizens' housing is accepted by

government. A tender is called and a senior citizens' housing project

is built. That is exactly the kind of situation I want in this province

for all social housing.

I'll give you a scenario. We've got a social housing advisory

committee. They report directly to me as the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing. They point out a need for a certain type of social housing

in your community, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. As a ministry

we then call a tender. We then build that complex. We then offer the

management of that complex to a non-profit group, whoever it be, a

church group — the ones you're saying I'm attacking — or any one of

those groups to manage that complex. That group, as do many co-op

groups all over this province, sets its own rules within that complex.

Now tell me, what's wrong with that? Our third party would be an

advisory committee reporting directly on the need for certain kinds of

senior citizens or mentally disabled or disabled persons or any kind of

social housing, reporting on that need directly to the minister. I fail

to see the problem with that kind of situation. The problem is, and we

see it and the commission saw it.... They saw it up in Kamloops

where a social housing project was built in an area which required

anyone living in it to own an automobile in order to get to town to buy

their groceries, to do whatever they had to do in the city.

[4:00]

Now you tell me if that was the right decision, to build that

particular social housing unit or set of units in that area. The

commission heard time after time that no thought is given to all kinds

of social housing in one unit, and you talk about mix. I defy you to go

up to Wilderness Place that I lived in, and am now moving out of, and

find one ramp which could accommodate someone in a wheelchair living in

that complex. Why shouldn't they be permitted the opportunity to live

at Wilderness Place?

How much thought was given at Wilderness Place, when it was

built,

to those in wheelchairs? That's exactly what we're trying to get away

from in appointing a social housing advisory committee reporting

directly to the minister in this province. Did they say that we should

set up a housing advisory committee, Mr. Member?

MR. BLENCOE: What a coverup!

HON. MR. KEMPF: Was a recommendation that

we set up a housing advisory committee in the province of British

Columbia...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One moment, please.

The second member

for Victoria will withdraw the word "coverup." It is unparliamentary.

Please withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: If the member took offence, I

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair found offence.

Thank you. The minister continues.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I think this

is a very good

dialogue we have going on here, because it points out the very reasons

for the inquiry commission, the very reason for the setting up of a

social housing advisory committee in this province, the very reason for

appointing an executive director of social housing.

MR. BLENCOE: How much?

HON. MR. KEMPF: How much what?

MR. BLENCOE: How much does the commission

cost?

[ Page 8198 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, whatever it

costs, and I can't

give the member that figure now because it isn't available, if it gets

to the bottom of the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars of

taxpayers' money on co-op housing for those who are not in need, it's

worth every cent of it, every last nickel. Does that one suggest that

we should have a social housing advisory committee in this province? No

it doesn't. It does nothing, and that's why an inquiry commission was

appointed.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for

Victoria will withdraw that phrase. The Chair finds it offensive.

Please withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just

referring to the fact that they've already done a study.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair heard a reference

to another hon.

member which the Chair found offensive. The member will withdraw the

word "coverup."

MR. BLENCOE: If the Chairman took offence,

I withdraw it.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy.

I'm really happy

that the second member for Victoria is making these remarks at this

time because I've got to tell you that the inquiry commission into

social housing in British Columbia has not finished its work. It hasn't

printed its final report, and I want that member's remarks, such as

those just made, on the record of this House so that they can be

utilized at the time that final report comes down. I look for that

member to make more of those kinds of remarks. I appreciate that.

For the very reasons that were pointed out by the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), an inquiry commission was set

up, and we are acting on those recommendations made. There will

probably be more because we are concerned, and I am concerned as the

minister responsible for housing, that the taxpayers' money be spent

wisely and be spent in the right place. That's why the inquiry

commission was called.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: Still I keep asking what are

his ground rules, what are his income levels that he is classing as

people in need.

Mr. Chairman, I'll save him a lot of money. Right now if he'll

down to his office, or when we get out of the House if he phones the

Capital Region Housing Corp. and says "How many units do you need?"

they'll give you a figure. There's a need right now for affordable

housing. If he phones up the Indian Friendship Centre and says "How

many homes do you need for those people from your community who are

living in the core area?" they'll give him a list. If he phones up his

own organization, the B.C. Housing Corporation.... I phone them

nearly every month wanting accommodation for people from my

constituency who are in need, and they tell me they have a waiting-list

anywhere from a year to two years. So if he's only looking for a reason

to get into providing affordable housing.... All these groups have

already got an established base-line for income. There is a need. So

all he has to do, if what he's looking for is the need.... I don't

know what it's like up in Vanderhoof or in other areas of the province,

but I do know in this area there is already a need. There are

organizations that he approves of in place, and they'll give him the

answer. So let's not say we're going to have a study to find out what's

needed. We know what's needed.

This is the important part: this is a stall. It's a stall to

spin

their wheels, to do nothing, and we have to have something positive. We

have to look at housing. Housing provides a need, and with a proper

program it provides jobs, and it provides people with a right to live

with some dignity, not to be attacked, not to be ghettoized, not to be

ridiculed and not to drag red herrings through the debate on

individuals. We're not interested in that. We're interested in action.

So far, in all this debate, this minister has not shown any action but

to do another study, studying the problem that they have had for ten

years.

MR. ROSE: I've listened relatively

attentively all afternoon,

and it seems to me that the minister tends to wallow in nostalgia. He

told us all about his early life and how he was born in a log cabin

without mother or father, how he pulled himself up by his own

bootstraps, how he went from no water to hot water and it took him 50

years. I suppose that's progress of a sort. I was really wondering

whether he did it all himself, or whether he ever got any help on the

way. He raised himself. Probably like Romulus and Remus — raised by the

wolves? I know he's very fond of wolves; he likes shooting them. The

bull, too.

However, I have two or three quite serious questions. It may

come as

a shock to the minister, but I do have the odd serious question to ask.

I don't want a reply all hyped up with all that pseudo-indignation that

the minister can muster from time to time, because it's not good for

the minister. He might have a blood-pressure problem. If he doesn't

watch out he'll blow his stack.

I was thinking when he mentioned Kamloops how he built the

social

housing somewhere in the bush. Well, they built a coal-mine up in the

bush too. It's called northeast coal. And they built a rail-line to it;

that's called infrastructure. The government did that. If you build

social housing out in the bush, I don't think there would be anything

wrong with running a bus to it, so that people who didn't have

cars... And that is a responsibility — that's part of

infrastructure. So don't damn the planners entirely. Maybe they

shouldn't have done it, knowing our record on transportation, but there

certainly was a reason for that.

The other one I was going to mention is that there are all

kinds of

examples.... The minister was up in my riding the other day. Very

ideological — he proclaimed to all the private-enterprise

house-builders that he believed in private enterprise. This came as no

shock to them, I guess.

Hey, will you two guys be quiet for a while? You're

interrupting my

flow. The minister is polite to me. It's you guys who are causing me

the trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair

thanks you for the help, but please carry on.

MR. ROSE: Schools are going to be required

in that new

subdivision. Those private enterprisers could really be criticized

along the same lines the minister criticized the people in social

housing in Kamloops. Because you know what?

[ Page 8199 ]

They put all those new houses in there for families and there

is no

school there. What a dumb place to put a subdivision — no school.

Just on the other tack of it — those were just preliminary

observations; I got everybody's attention — it's really tough out

there, even for people who are working, to get housing. I have examples

of it in my own family. It's very difficult to get housing. The Greater

Vancouver Regional District housing board have got some in New

Westminster on McBride. It's over $600 a month for three bedrooms. It

is virtually impossible for working families, especially single-parent

families, to afford that.

So there is a crying need for affordable social housing — not

for

lavish housing; there is all kinds of that stuff, such as the minister

opened in a subdivision in my riding. I don't object to that; that's

fine. But I don't think anybody is going to need a study to find that

out. You can study it to death, it makes no difference to me. But spend

your money building, not studying.

The minister talked about spending $15 million on social

housing.

You know what that is? That sounds like a generous amount. I mean, I

don't have $15 million. I know there are people over there on the other

side who do, but I don't have $15 million, and I don't think the

minister does either. I know he's got a hot-tub, but he doesn't have

$15 million. You know what that is in comparison to the education

budget? It is one hundredth of what we are spending on education. It is

roughly half of what we are spending on government propaganda —

information from the ministries. So you see, we're not focusing....

The minister wants to save the people's money. I think there are lots

of places I could suggest rather than social housing. I wouldn't mind

paying more taxes if they were to provide social housing for people,

because I am very lucky and so is the minister and so are most of the

people in this House. We really don't know. It took the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) one month down on skid road to find

out what it was really like. We don't know about it. We talk about

being poor, ill-housed, living in a log cabin, but most of us never

really feel that. But those people do. I can't really speak for them;

all I can do is make comparisons.

There is a vast need for social housing. It is very difficult

to get

housing that is affordable. For working families and single parents

earning even $20,000 a year it's difficult to have to spend $600 a

month of that money just for shelter, to say nothing of all the other

things.

I know from my own family's experience that there is a

tremendous

need for chronic-care homes. I don't care if a private contractor

builds one. I don't care particularly who builds them. I would like to

see them out to tender.

[4:15]

Why isn't there more free enterprise, limited-dividend,

limited-profit housing? You know why? Because there is no money in it.

There's no money in building limited-dividend housing. There is an

example of that in Port Moody, the only one that I know of. If you ask

CMHC where the limited dividend housing money is, I think you'll

probably find — I haven't checked on it lately; I haven't made this

speech for a while — that nobody is interested in building. Or maybe

the legislation doesn't even exist anymore. It became redundant like

the vestigial tail or appendix. It wasn't being used, so it just

withered away. I don't know. So that's one thing.

But I know there is a tremendous need for chronic-care

facilities —

that's housing for the elderly. Even though it may not come under the

minister's direct control, he should sure look at that, because it

takes over a year, sometimes two years, to get people who need

chronic-care housing into one of those facilities. Sometimes they have

to move away from their own communities and their own friends in order

to find a place in one of them. That is a tragedy, and that is one I do

know about.

The second one I would like to mention, again, really doesn't

come

under.... Well, I'll stick to housing. But I want to talk about

assumable mortgages. That doesn't come under the minister's direct

control, but I want to make a representation to him about it. What I

wanted to ask him is: is he aware of the granny cottages in New

Zealand? Has he any plans to institute a similar thing here? For the

benefit of those who don't know what I am talking about — including

sometimes, I am accused, me personally....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Not by the hon. members — not

today. The New

Zealand experience is simply this. There are modular units. Some people

might even call them trailers. These small, temporary modular units can

be put in a back yard in a single-family zoning and hooked up to

sewers, water, etc., and Granny or Grampa — if he is so lucky; most of

us work so hard we die earlier — can live on the back 40 of a

single-family lot, hooked up to all of the facilities, have her own

independence, and not interfere with the independence and privacy of

her children, grandchildren or whomever. This has to be, of course,

accomplished through the Municipal Act. It has many benefits: it

prevents the building of large institutions; it prevents instances of

improper use of the zoning, because these modular units are rented —

from whom, I don't know; perhaps some people might say from a co-op;

the minister might say from a company — to make a few bucks, which is,

I think, a reasonable kind of activity in our society, a mixed economy.

I would like to know from the minister whether he's

considering that

avenue as a possible innovation, which he'd have to clear through,

first of all, Municipal Affairs, because zoning restrictions would have

to be listed in those cases. It has some fine advantages. I think it's

a great idea.

This is the last one, really, on my list. It has to do with

the

assumable mortgages. I have had in my riding, I guess, at least six

complete horror stories, where vendor A sells to purchaser B, and

purchaser B takes over an assumable mortgage. The Law Reform Commission

has had some things to say about this. Purchaser B, though,

occasionally forgets to make the payment, and vendor A is not notified

until perhaps a year's payment, plus interest, has accumulated by the

lender. Purchaser B walks away from this, with no legal obligation

whatsoever, and leaves vendor A holding the bag. I would like to know,

since the Law Reform Commission has suggested there be changes, and the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), I think, is certainly sympathetic to

this.... If I've had six of these cases, where people were left

with huge debts and, as a matter of fact, threatened by a takeover by

the lender — in this case, often a bank.... What's the Minister of

Housing got to say about those things?

I'm not here to beat the minister up; he can do that for

himself,

when he feels like it. Instead of scapegoating and hurling

unsubstantiated charges, putting motives in the mouths of some people

who aren't here to defend themselves, I would like to hear what kind of

innovative ideas,

[ Page 8200 ]

protective ideas and security ideas,

on the subjects that I've raised the minister has to offer.

HON. MR. KEMPF: On the question of

assumable mortgages,

certainly the member opposite realizes that that's not something that

comes under my ministry at all. Really, he should be discussing

that.... I agree that there's a problem there, but certainly it's

not for me in this committee to make comment on that particular item.

It's for another minister at another time.

As far as granny housing is concerned, I'm very aware, Mr.

Member,

of the granny housing situation, particularly in Australia, where, I

understand, it has for many years worked very well. In fact, I began, I

think, three or four years ago to put together a file of information on

granny housing. I have quite a file at this time on, I think, every

aspect of granny housing. I agree with you 100 percent: if we really

want to save the taxpayers money, in relation to senior citizens'

housing, the granny housing situation is the way to do it. Not only

will it save the taxpayer money, it will also look after our senior

citizens in a much better fashion. It will also allow the family of

elderly senior citizens to take more of a role in looking after them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Certainly I will. I've only

been here for 90 days, Mr. Member. Certainly I will.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Not really. I look forward

to the next ten

years with great anticipation, Mr. Member. Certainly that is high on my

agenda. I agree that there are going to be other ministries that have

to change their ways or change their legislation or change their

regulations in many areas of this province in order to allow it. I

think it's a fabulous way of providing senior citizens' housing.

The member talked about the opening of the first phase of

River

Heights, and the fact that there was no school. Well, that's true, but

had the member stayed — and he really should have because there was

some great wine and great cheese served after the official

opening....

MR. ROSE: I don't drink wine.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You don't have to drink

wine. You could have

stayed to go in to see the whole plan, because the plan does in fact

call for a school among other things. I'm sure the member will agree

with me that you don't put the cart before the horse. First you have to

have a community with children in order to merit building schools, and

that's exactly what will happen at River Heights. I really suggest that

the next time you partake of such an opening you stay around and talk

to those entrepreneurs and really find out what it is that's going to

be the end result in that development and in that total subdivision.

That's only the first phase; there are four more phases to take place

over the next five years, which will include infrastructure such as

schools.

MR. LAUK: Is entrepreneur a French word?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Entrepreneur — it could be.

Mr. Chairman, the member talked about profiteering. He was

saying

that housing wouldn't be built unless there was a profit, and I agree.

I don't think profit is a dirty word. I really don't. But I've got to

ask the member whether he really thinks that units built for social

housing in the province of British Columbia costing the taxpayer of

this country and this province over the life of that mortgage — a unit

built at a cost of $180,000 in an area where you could buy, at the same

time as that is being built, single family dwellings for half that

price.... Does he believe that there is a profit involved in that?

I just throw that out, because that is happening and that is exactly

why something has got to be done about the way in which the taxpayer's

dollar in this province is being spent on social housing. That's

exactly the reason for it. That's exactly what I'm saying, Mr.

Chairman. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are being expended under the

guise of social housing for those not in need. Certainly the need is

not for silk-purse socialists. How many times do I have to tell you

that? People who sit in parliament in Ottawa and draw the kinds of

salaries they do — that's not need at all. Let's talk about that. I'm

saying that the federal government is spending literally billions of

dollars under the guise of providing social housing, at least 50

percent of which is going to those not in need. That's what I'm upset

about, on behalf of the taxpayer of British Columbia and the taxpayer

of Canada, and it's got to stop.

MR. ROSE: I warned the minister about

huffing and puffing

again and how hard that is on his blood pressure. I would just like to

say that the reason I didn't hang around and drink wine with him after

the opening was that I had reviewed that whole thing. That was my

point. After all, I was there for an hour and a half, because the

minister was an hour and half late.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Because I sat in this

House. Where were you on Friday?

MR. ROSE: I was over there trying to meet

the minister on

time. And I went by ferry; I didn't go by private government plane. But

even at that you weren't on time, so you're late again. The late

Minister of Housing.

The point that I was trying to make about profits is that the

private sector, other than ripping off these places at $180,000 a

unit.... It obviously wasn't built by somebody who owns a co-op. It

was built by a construction company, presumably, and it presumably was

sent out to bid. I don't know about your horror stories. You may have

these nightmares from time to time. It's not my problem; it's your

problem. But what I was saying was that we used to have

limited-dividend housing, and the reason we don't have the housing now,

built by the private sector, is because there isn't enough money in it.

They would rather put their money into highrises, investment MURBs and

all kinds of things, rather than limited dividend low-cost housing. So

the state had to step in. We're just as concerned as the minister,

although we don't yell about it quite as loudly, that we get a bang for

our buck. That was the point I was trying to make, and that's the only

point I want to make.

Now just on the end, on the silk purse socialists crack, I

think

that it'd be nice if we had a few more silk purses around here, because

we've sure got enough sows' ears.

[4:30]

[ Page 8201 ]

MR. BARNES: I wonder if the minister would

answer a question.

Earlier this afternoon and this morning he accused the opposition of

asking no specific questions. He's made reference to the B.C. Housing

Management Commission having an excess of spaces or accommodation

available. This, I think, is very good news. Now I've been in the

Legislature for a number of years, and have been so accustomed to that

particular commission having a shortfall in terms of requests for space

by families and individuals over the years that it's become common

knowledge that they have a waiting-list of several hundred.

Obviously it appears, from what the minister has said, that

they no

longer have a waiting-list, that accommodation is there in abundance.

In fact, they have an excess of space. I would like for him to clarify

for the House: is he in fact saying that there is no longer a

waiting-list of hundreds of applicants for space applying to the B.C.

Housing Management Commission?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, and I'm

glad that that member asked me that question. BCHMC has a turnover of

clearly 100 units per month available. Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre,

you weren't listening this morning when I quoted from a report of the

Vancouver DERA relocation task force who themselves, on April 24, 1986,

reported — and I quote again for the record: "Number of people

successfully relocated, 69; number of applications in hand, 32;

inventory of available units, 73."

What the member doesn't realize in regard to the B.C. Housing

Management Commission is yes, they have a long waiting-list, but only

one out of three who puts their name on the waiting-list accepts

housing that is available. They've either in the meantime found their

own, or they don't like the kind that's being offered and say: "No, we

don't want it; we'll look for ourselves." But only one out of three of

that long, long list you talk about...

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, I'm saying I told you

earlier that

there's a turnover of 100 units available per month. If you can give me

a hundred names a month, we'll give them accommodation. Again for this

House and for their information, I pledge that if anyone is in need of

housing in the province they need only go to the B.C. Housing

Management Commission and it will be provided. I can't be any clearer

than that.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) — and he has left

his seat

— asked a question about affordability of housing in British Columbia.

I think that's straying a bit from social housing, but I think maybe we

should place on the record, at least, that people not only in this

jurisdiction but in many jurisdictions have had over the years to give

personal priority and some sacrifice — and I think we've all done that

at one time or other — to buy their own home.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Yes, it's not easy; yes, it is a sacrifice. But it's one which

make because we feel that the home is probably the dearest thing to the

heart that we can have. Today house prices are lower, in fact much

lower. That same member talked about the opening of River Heights.

House prices today are much lower, as are mortgage rates, than they

were five to ten years ago. And yes, we may have to make a sacrifice.

Young people may have to make a sacrifice to own their own home. But

that's nothing unusual, nothing new. It's been done for decades.

Housing in this year is probably easier to obtain than it has been in

over a decade. Right now, to that member who is no longer in his seat,

housing is more affordable than it has been for many years in B.C.

MR. MITCHELL: In wrapping up Housing, there

are a couple of

things I would like to bring to the minister's attention. He still

failed to give me any figures on what he considers a need. In his own

case I believe it would be around $40,000. Is that the figure he feels

social housing should be? Or should it be $12,000? Or should it be what

the report said: $20,000 per household? There have to be some figures.

We still get back to attacking the individual co-ops. He

brought to

the attention of this House that in his own Wilderness Co-op there

weren't ramps to get into the units. I agree, that's wrong. But I can

show in my own riding.... Handicapped people in a wheelchair

couldn't even get out of some of the parking lots that are provided by

private developers. I don't go around attacking private developers

because of some parking lots you can't get through with a wheelchair.

In fact, I can show you some multi-storey apartment buildings built by

private developers that you can't even drive a fire truck around, which

is an offence under the National Building Code, the fire code or the

insurance code. But you don't go around blindly attacking private

developers and private apartment-owners because of individual cases. It

is quite true that there are mistakes and that there have been

shortcomings in housing and in co-ops, but you don't attack blindly on

individual cases.

I think it's important that we look at housing in a lot

broader

sense than we have. I personally don't have that much faith that this

minister will do any differently than his predecessors in a government

that he has supported for the last ten years. I know the next person

that comes to my constituency office and needs a house, needs

accommodation.... When I phone the B.C. Housing Corporation and

they tell me they have a two-year waiting-list, the next phone call I'm

going to make is to the minister. He has promised in this House that he

has a turnover and he will provide it. I thank the minister in advance

for the next set of constituents who come to my office, because....

Two weeks ago the Ministry of Human Resources was paying to keep a

single parent — or a widow or divorced or something — and four children

in a motel. We tried every agency in greater Victoria, and every one of

them told us that there was a waiting list and that we couldn't get

anything for months and months. If there's a waste of taxpayers' money,

it was that. The only problem, Mr. Minister, is that the money over the

shelter allowance was taken off that family's food budget because there

was nothing else provided.

I think we should digress to other housing. I'm not happy with

the

minister's answers. He gave me one that I hope to use regularly. But I

think we should get onto....

My co-debate-leader asks that we go a little longer on

housing, and I will sit down for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North

Vancouver-Seymour has indicated that he wishes to speak, and he will be

recognized.

[ Page 8202 ]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a

point very

briefly. I feel strongly about it. I believe that shelter assistance

for those in need can be best provided by turning the funds over to the

individual, the human being in need, rather than the government, in its

so-called wisdom, providing bricks and mortar. I believe that this

would not only be less expensive, from a taxpayer's point of view, but

would also better suit the individual in need.

First of all, in this country and on this continent, but

certainly

in Canada, people are better housed than anywhere else in the world.

They're better housed, basically because the private sector, through

the workings of the laws of supply and demand, provides housing. If

individuals in need receive a financial contribution from government,

and go out and shop around for the housing they believe they need, I

think, in this excellent and healthy market for housing in this

country, they will be much better served than if governments erect a

barracks, erect housing, erect social housing, in effect creating

ghettos. This is the way to go: give the people a choice, give the

individual in need the choice. Don't provide them with housing which

government designs, which government finances.

There's another very good reason for this. If the individual

goes

out and shops around, they're likely to find a home in a community

where there's a cross-section of people, not only from an income point

of view, but from many social, ethnic and other points of view. You

avoid this problem of creating ghettos, creating institutions in which

people in need are housed. We seem in Canada to have been overly

concerned about creating communities in subsidized housing in which

people of various levels of income are housed, people in various

circumstances are housed.

The minister said — and I've read various studies which

indicate

it — that at least half the people in heavily subsidized housing are

people who are not in need. That is doubly foolish. We are creating a

ghetto of sorts. But we're certainly subsidizing using the public purse

to support those, subsidize those, at least in equal number who are not

in need. By definition, a policy which gives the money to the

individual, the person, and allows them to select the housing they

choose is going to save half of the dollars we now spend on public

housing; or to put it another way, where you could spend twice as many

dollars more effectively looking after people in need.

I say that the commission the minister is setting up should at

least

look at this obvious alternative of paying people a shelter supplement

and letting them shop, rather than putting up money for social housing,

which often is a blot on the landscape.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has referred a

number of times to

various reports conducted in the province of British Columbia in terms

of social housing. I think the people of British Columbia deserve some

answers and some cost figures of what they're paying for this

duplication of reports.

I have indicated on a number of occasions that in January 1986

the

British Columbia Housing Management Commission conducted a fairly

exhaustive report on social housing for British Columbia. In January

1986, I might add, Mr. Chairman, this report was tabled. The report

lists numerous organizations who are a part of the consultation

process. The report is endorsed by Mrs. Mary Kerr, chairman of the

British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

[4:45]

Without getting into specific details of what this report

said, or

recommends, the interesting

part is that in January 1986 this

exhaustive study came down on social housing in the province of British

Columbia, and then suddenly, a few months later, now you see this

report, now you see Mrs. Mary Kerr, now you don't. Suddenly, a few

months later, there is an attempt by this government to convince the

people of British Columbia — they just finished one study, an

exhaustive study, and consultation — that we need to do another one.

April l, 1986, was the preliminary report, a matter of months after

this one was done and tabled in January 1986.

Well, we all know why this report was done. I've gone into the

reasons why a number of times in this Legislature: it was to cover up

for this government's inadequacy in terms of dealing with the Expo

evictions; this government's reluctance and refusal to deal with what

was happening in Vancouver.

I'd like to know, and so would the taxpayers of British

Columbia,

what this first report cost the taxpayers — the report that was tabled

in January 1986. I'd like to have those figures. I'd also like to know

what this latest report, this latest commission, this Court of Star

Chamber that the minister is holding in the province of British

Columbia, cost. How much are you paying the staff on that commission?

How much are you paying the researchers on a per diem basis? And what

will be the total cost to the people of British Columbia? They're

entitled to those answers, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. KEMPF: To take the last question

first, Mr.

Chairman, as the commission's work is still going on, there's

absolutely no way I can tell at this point what the inquiry commission

into social housing is going to cost. I will undertake to make those

figures available to this House and to that member when they are

available. As for the cost of the first report, I don't have those

figures at my fingertips. We'll get those and I'll make them available

to that member.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times I have to suggest to

that

member that mixing the social housing question with the Downtown

Eastside Residents Association question is mixing apples and oranges.

There is no relation.

I called a commission to inquire into the delivery of social

housing

in British Columbia because it was quite evident, on the basis of the

information I was given — I don't care how many reports were done in

the past — that there's a problem with the delivery of social housing

in British Columbia and with how taxpayers' money is spent in that

area. I intend to get to the bottom of it, Mr. Second Member for

Victoria, regardless of what you and your friend Jim Green might do or

say, and regardless of whether he'll picket Expo. I intend to point out

to the people of British Columbia that there is a problem; that people

who are not in need are being subsidized by use of the taxpayer's

dollar not only in British Columbia but all across this country, and

that's wrong.

There are other problems. I don't wish to prejudice the work

of a

very good commission of inquiry, but those problems will surely be

brought to light when the final report comes down. I wait with bated

breath for that final report, Mr. Member, because it will surely

prove.... Whatever the cost of that report to the taxpayer of this

province, if the recommendations that are brought down are accepted and

dealt with, it will surely save the taxpayer....

MR. BLENCOE: The federal taxpayer.

[ Page 8203 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Federal taxpayer! Do your

constituents not

take federal tax money our of their pocket'? Is it a different taxpayer

that pays to Ottawa? You don't seem to understand that it's the same

taxpayer. I ask that the member, when he goes home tonight, phone his

constituents — any of them — and ask if a different tax dollar comes

out of their pocket to pay Ottawa or pay Victoria. It's all the

taxpayer's money.

I told you before, I would have abrogated my responsibility as

the

member responsible for housing had I not acted upon the information

given to me. That's why I called the inquiry; that's why they're

bringing down reports, and will bring down a final report. Yes, it's

costing the taxpayer money. I'll make that figure known to the people

of British Columbia and let them decide whether it was worth it. It's

not for that member to say whether or not it was worth it to the

taxpayer of British Columbia. It's up to that taxpayer.

If you want to talk, get in your own seat, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister's

comment is well

taken. It's unparliamentary to interject, and not sitting in your own

seat is most unparliamentary.

HON. MR. KEMPF: The member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) talked about the ceiling — where was it that I thought the

ceiling should be as far as those who live in co-op housing are

concerned. Well, that's not up to me. That decision has been made since

the inception of co-op housing by co-op executives, and if you take

their figure, which is in the vicinity of $26,000 a year, which I think

is not someone in need.... But they have made that decision. They

say that's where the ceiling is.

I've got to give that member a little bit of an education

here. Of

course he, being an urban member, doesn't know. He said that the salary

of a back-bench MLA was $40,000 a year. That's where he is totally

incorrect, and he knows it. The only difference between him and me in

that respect is that I spend the difference between $26,500 and $40,000

on my constituents, because that is paid us for expenses. The second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) laughs. He wouldn't know either. He

wouldn't know what it is like to serve a rural riding in this province,

and what that costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come

to order. That's

all very interesting and well known to all of us here, but it does not

really fall under the purview of the administrative responsibilities of

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I know it's been discussed,

but I think at this point we should cease discussion on that item.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't

agree with you more.

But I was not the one that raised it, and I felt it had to be put on

the record that there are some members of this House who do in fact

spend their expenses on their constituents. I see one over there right

now: the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). He does it all the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has been well

canvassed. To the estimates, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is

quite remarkable and

indeed once again a sign of why we on this side of the House voted no

confidence in that minister. I have asked at least once for the dollar

value of this report. I have asked in this House, and you took it as

notice and said you'd bring it back to this House. You have not done

that. You are the minister, this is under your purview, and you don't

have at your fingertips the costs of this. You're stalling, Mr.

Minister. You don't want to give us the facts. You don't want to give

us the numbers on how much this study cost the taxpayers, because you

know that you've just started another one, a total repetition of the

work that has been done already. We know why you have started this

other report.

Is the minister telling us he doesn't know how much he has

budgeted

for this second report, this commission currently studying so-called

social housing in the province of British Columbia? He doesn't have a

budget figure? He doesn't know how much was budgeted for this report

that was tabled in January? No wonder people have no confidence in him.

That's what you're supposed to do in this House. You're supposed to

have that information. You're supposed to be able to tell us. The

people have a right to know what you are spending their money on. You

talk about trying to save taxpayers' money, and you don't even have the

decency to do your job in terms of telling us what the dollar value is

on these reports.

How much are those researchers getting paid to do this current

commission? A thousand dollars a day? Five hundred a day? How much is

it costing us daily to repeat the work done in January 1986? The people

of British Columbia want to know, because they can't believe when we

tell them that you have just done a report in January and now you're

doing it again, on federal programs that have been studied by the

federal government, and they put changes in place to make the

corrections that are necessary.

Give us the value. Give us the dollars. Let the people know.

We're

debating your ministry and your estimates, and the people are entitled

to know what you are spending and, I believe, wasting their money upon

in this latest commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 56 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister telling us he

has no budget

estimate? He has done no figures on this latest commission, so it is

wide-open? The chequebook is open? Is he saying that he will spend any

amount of money to give his friends in the private sector dollars that

the non-profit societies and those church groups want? Is that what he

is saying? The chequebook is wide open? Any amount of money to find the

trumped-up dirt this minister is going to find on non-profit societies

and churches in the province of British Columbia? Is that what he is

telling this House? The chequebook is wide open?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I've told that member on

two different

occasions that it is impossible for me at this time to say what this

commission of inquiry is going to cost this province. As soon as the

inquiry is over I will make those figures public and available to the

member. As far as the last report is concerned, I have no idea what it

cost. I will get those figures, and I will return them to the member.

MR. BLENCOE: I find it absolutely

incredible that a minister

of the Crown doesn't have fiscal control on his ministry. For a

commission that is supposedly being set by this minister or by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs we have no budget item, no cost

predictions, no per diem rates, no

[ Page 8204 ]

research figures. Is it a wide-open

chequebook, Mr. Chairman? Can he not give us a figure that he sets in

terms of the limits to this commission, or is he prepared to spend any

amount of money so they can do his dirty work on the churches and the

non-profit groups of the province of British Columbia? Wide open, is

it? It's total fiscal irresponsibility, if what the minister is saying

in this Legislature today is that he is prepared to pay whatever bill

they come up with. A blank cheque for whatever it costs — well, what a

way to run an operation. Here's this man who pontificates about saving

the taxpayers money in the province of British Columbia. He wants to

get to the root problem of what's happening in social housing, and yet

we just had a report in January 1986. And he's telling this Legislature

that there's a wide-open chequebook for dirt-hunting on church groups

and non-profit groups in the province of British Columbia. That's what

he's telling this House. That's his idea of democracy; that's his idea

of a commission. He can't even give us any figures on how much it's

going to cost. That's fiscal irresponsibility. He talks about saving

taxpayers' money, and he can't tell us how much he's given in terms of

the budget for this commission.

[5:00]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Well, the member wants to

know what the

members of this commission are being paid. I don't make that decision.

I don't make the decision as to what they're being paid on a daily

basis. They're being paid as per a Treasury Board directive, that which

is paid those who serve the people of this province on such inquiry

commissions. That's what they're being paid, and the total figure is

impossible to divulge today because the work is not done. When the work

is done, I have undertaken to the member to make available to this

House and to that member that figure.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister telling us he

doesn't have the

figure that he's paying on a per diem basis, or salary, or whatever, to

the researchers?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I don't set that.

MR. BLENCOE: Come on, tell us how much

you're paying those

people. Is he telling us that the legal fees for the people he's got on

standby or retainer to give legal advice...? Does he not know what

the rates are, and how much that's costing the people of British

Columbia? You can't give us any figures on what you're paying some of

these people at all?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, that's why we've got this commission, and the

chequebook is wide open — any cost to find what they want in terms of

destroying social housing and non-profit housing in the province of

British Columbia. That's what the case is all about, and that's what

the minister is bent on doing. That's what he has got senior staff

doing. That's what it's all about, and this minister can't even give us

any figures on what he's paying various people who are working on this

commission. Well, that speaks for the record, and that's why we

introduced a non-confidence motion in this Legislature.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I did throw out

to the minister the figure of $40,000. Maybe I should have thrown out

the figure of $46,000. I think if he adds $20,000 to $26,000 he'll know

where I got the figures. I'm not interested in that. I'm just saying I

wanted to know a figure of your need, and I wanted a figure of what

your top rate is. Now you say $26,000, but let's have some of these

figures.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to the other

section

of his ministry that he started off with in very glowing terms, and

that's dealing with the Parks

section of Lands, Parks and Housing. I

think it's important that we as a Legislature and especially the

minister should really view the parks of the province as the asset they

are. If you go back over the history of the development of our

provincial park system, there have been changes in the philosophical

evolution of our parks, but I believe we have a potential within that

Parks ministry to create something that this province needs, something

we have failed to capitalize on in the last four or five years under

this government: that is, to develop our parks with a perception that

they are an asset and have a potential of job creation second to none.

From the minister's own figures and the documents, last year

we had

15.9 million visitors to provincial parks. These are the ones who have

recorded their stay in the park. That figure, Mr. Speaker, is more than

the first-predicted number of visitors to Expo. We have in our park

system — with our resources, with our beauty, with our lakes, our

marine parks — an opportunity to develop those parks as a destination

point, not only for people within British Columbia but for all of North

America. I think in the last few years under this government we have

looked at our parks as a group that we should attack. We started off

really bringing it to a head in 1983 when, in our so-called restraint

program brought on to the heads of the people of B.C., we started

cutting back in parks. We started that simple answer: "We're going to

privatize parks." I don't believe, in spite of what the minister says,

that that has been a successful program, either for providing services

to the parks or for providing and developing these parks as a

destination resort for all of North America and for creating jobs.

I would like to go through some of the problems, I guess, that

have

developed in B.C. over the last few years. We have had a lot of

unemployment. But we have always been looking at the salvation of our

unemployment being to export more of our resources out of the province.

We have failed to build on our internal economy, build on the 70

percent of the people of this province that are still working in spite

of this government. It's really important that we provide to the

recreation

section of that community and to those who are on holidays

an incentive to travel in B.C. and also to provide something so that,

when they do visit and stay in B.C., they are going to be able to share

some of the beauties but also sell our parks system.

We are falling down on that. We're falling down on developing

it. We

have made it a kind of scapegoat. We attack parks or we attack people

who work in parks. We lay them off or threaten them with their jobs and

say we're going to privatize this park and privatize that service. I

don't think that is building up the esprit de corps within the Parks

ministry that should be there. If you go through the history of the

Parks branch and how they evolved in British Columbia, the majority of

those who have developed our parks today were from the forestry

department. When they developed a park, they looked at it from a

forester's position. They did a little selective logging. They did a

little harvesting in the development of those parks, which was

excellent, because they had

[ Page 8205 ]

people who were trained, and they were

interested in developing the resources. Parks are a resource.

The problem with our outlook in looking at parks is exactly

what

this minister is doing in housing. We have had studies and studies and

studies, and again this minister is having another study in the housing

section of his portfolio. Last year when some of the parks came under

the debate that we must look at developing those parks, what did they

do? They set up another study, a report of the Wilderness Advisory

Committee. I know that particular report was set up under another

ministry, but what it did take into consideration was the parks of

British Columbia that come under this minister.

I'm not going to go through the 24 parks that they were given

opportunity to study, nor am I going to make any comments on the

recommendations that they have made, because according to the Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), that report has not been received

yet. But I want to bring them to the minister's attention, and we'll go

down them from number 1 to number 24 and pick out various parks that I

feel this minister must make a decision on. I hope that he has the same

clout in the cabinet in comparison to the shouting and ranting that he

does in this House — that he has that clout and he exercises it when he

is trying to get some of the recommendations through.

The number one park in the government's request for a study

under

the wilderness parks was south Moresby. Now this minister knows that if

any park or proposed park is being studied more than south Moresby, I

don't know where it is. In fairness to his predecessors, when they set

up the last study on south Moresby, they used input from the residents

of the Queen Charlotte Islands; they used input from those who work in

the forest industry; they used input from the native Indian community,

who are involved in protecting certain native heritage sites on south

Moresby. They brought in technical staff from Environment, from

Forests, and from Lands and Parks. They brought in staff and input from

federal parks personnel. I believe it took two to three years to

develop their report and present it to the government. It has four

options. I've said this to the predecessor of the present minister: I'm

not saying which is the best of those four. I have my preferences. But

that minister and that government have an obligation to do something,

to adopt the number one proposal, the number two proposal, the number

three proposal, the number four proposal, or a combination of all four.

We can't continue to stall and put our heads in the sand, and say we're

going to have another study. Let's do so