[ Page 8783 ]
Routine Proceedings
Tabling Documents –– 8783
Presenting Reports –– 8783
Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act
(No. 3), 1989 (Bill 75). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 8787
Mr. Blencoe
Mr. Williams
Third reading
Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.
On vote 1: legislation –– 8788
Hon. S.D. Smith
Hon. Mr. Reid
Mr. Rose
Mr. Kempf
Hon. Mrs. Johnston
Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates.
Vote 3: ombudsman –– 8791
Committee of Supply: Auditor General estimates.
On vote 2: auditor general –– 8791
Ms. Marzari
Hon. Mr. Reid
Mr. Peterson
Mr. Perry
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.
(Hon. Mr. Richmond)
On vote 64: minister's office –– 8792
Mr. Blencoe
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today are two very great British Columbians, Dr. Linda Lutz from Prince Rupert and her husband, Dr. Richard Lutz. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today are three people from my staff in the Ministry of Social Services. I'd like to introduce my secretary, Bert Willing; the regional director from Vancouver, Joyce Preston; and our manager of classifications in personnel services, David Wilson. Would the House please make them very welcome.
HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure to welcome to the assembly and to the legislative buildings members of the UFAWU, members of the Prince Rupert shore workers; from the co-op, several members of councils and regional districts, and also representatives of the Fisheries Council of B.C. Would this House please give them a cordial welcome.
HON. MR. PARKER: My hon. colleague has introduced Dr. Linda Lutz, the regional director from my home country, the great northwest. I'd like the House to also welcome Dr. Richard Lutz, who's up there with her today.
MR. WILLIAMS: We, too, would like to welcome the fishermen, the shore workers and the related groups who are here today making their protest. We echo their protest and concerns about the impact of free trade.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Today is a very special day in my constituency. I would like to ask the House to join me in expressing a very sincere vote of thanks to the 3,500 volunteers in Surrey who have pulled together what I know will be one of the finest B.C. Summer Games ever held. I would also like to send very best wishes to the 4,000-plus athletes and coaches who will be visiting Surrey for the weekend
With the opening of the Summer Games this evening.
MRS. GRAN: If July 20 is your birthday, your mother had more influence than your father. Anyhow, your mother had more influence than anyone, and you are capable of winning public opinion and of successfully working with women. September will be romance, travel and improved finances. Would the House please join me in wishing the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) a happy fiftieth birthday.
Presenting Reports
Hon. S.D. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Attorney-General from April 1, 1987, to March 31, 1988.
MS. MARZARI: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirtyfourth parliament, and I move it be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
MS. MARZARI: I move the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Motion approved.
MS. MARZARI: I move that the report be adopted. I do so with mixed feelings, both of gratification that we managed to get a report together at all and frustration that the report is not as good as it might have been. In fact, if the House, in its perusal of this report, takes a look at it, they will notice that there are two recommendations. They are not insignificant; they are good recommendations.
But if you read the observations in this report that the committee made over the course of time — when it wasn't engaged in procedural wrangles or quorum difficulties — you will see that the committee actually did make observations about the areas under consideration. They did take a look at and talk to witnesses from the exercise of privatization. They talked to officials from the Forests and Health ministries. Most importantly, I believe, for the purposes of this report, they looked at the auditor general's recommendations regarding the estimates process and the public purse.
The observations are not recommendations, but inside those observations I take my gratification from the knowledge that there has been response from ministries and from the comptroller-general. There has been some partnership developed in actually moving towards many of the auditor general's recommendations, which the committee, despite our political differences, very often agreed upon. But I must say that public accounts committees across the country — not just in B.C. — are at a crossroads. We are at a point of trying to match the rhetoric with the real business of accountability and match the accounts with the reality. We have a long way to go. I present this report and its recommendations with some pride. But, as I say, as we move towards trying to get a better understanding of what public accounts committees can actually do and really to achieve their full potential, we should perhaps be looking towards pulling together a better committee and a better structure for committee action.
I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a report recently put out for discussion by the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees which comments on some of the difficulties public accounts committees are facing now. It is my opinion and the opinion of many others across the country, reinforced by a recent meeting of Chairs and Deputy Chairs of public accounts committees, that a few things could be done to improve functioning of these committees so that recommendations would come forward that could perhaps have
[ Page 8784 ]
more meat on them, more substance and a better chance of having things accomplished.
These are some of them. First, the committee should be smaller. Our committee could be five to eight people who, if dedicated and with a proper schedule of agendas and meetings put forward, would probably be able to get more done. Second, there is a strong recommendation from the CCPAC that cabinet ministers not sit on the public accounts committee. It is better to have backbenchers and people who have time to devote to the public accounts.
Third, It's crucial that public accounts committees be permitted by the House to meet when the House is not sitting. Our 14 hours this year was simply not enough to be able to pull together thoughts out of the auditor general's report, look seriously at the public accounts and provide this House with an adequate rendering of accounts.
Fourth, it's very important that our terms of reference be brought into line with new roles, 1990 roles, of auditors-general across the country so that we can bring our mandate into line with value-for money or comprehensive auditing or at least have a discussion around those mandates.
[10:15]
Fifth, It's very important that the auditor general be granted a vehicle to report to when the House is not sitting. At this point, the auditor general is incapable of reporting when the House is not here The Public Accounts Committee must have permanent referral of auditor general and comptroller-general reports. This can be achieved through the Speaker's office or it can be achieved through the House, but it's important that the Public Accounts Committee be the vehicle to which these reports comes.
These are just a few of the suggestions I would make, and I have made them before in this House, Mr. Speaker. I make them in an effort to explain the deficiencies of this report and why the major consideration here, the major recommendation, is that we ask for timeliness of public accounts reporting. It's an important recommendation. But I would suggest that there are at least 32 other recommendations on the public purse that would have been good to make, nice to make, but that did not come to you from the committee. These will be looked at, I hope, in the future. And I am hoping that we can invite the auditor general to do further follow-up with the next Public Accounts Committee on many of his public purse recommendations.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I submit this report.
MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, it's sort of typical of the way this committee has been run this year that the Chairman finds it very hard to say a kind word about the government members who served very diligently on that committee. In the last meeting of the year, in fact, the Chairman started off the meeting by tearing a strip off the members of the committee — and she didn't make it clear at the time whether it was the government members or her own members
So instead of presenting a reasonable draft of a report that summarized the energy spent during the year by the members of the committee, she took the first ten minutes to say how difficult it was to work with the government side. All the government members on that committee ever wanted during the year was to do something constructive and in an orderly fashion.
Now it's very difficult when you try to do something in an orderly fashion if the people on the opposition side don't even ask questions on the topics that the Chairman, who is from the opposition side, presented for the meetings. So I say: look unto yourself, Madam Chairman, at the time you're offering a critique of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. The quality of the report that the previous speaker referred to depends on the Chairman. The Chairman is the one who constructs the final report. So unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot when you're the chairman of a committee, you do a lot more work putting your report together, and you do it in a fashion that reflects the work of the committee.
I have an underlying concern, Mr. Speaker, about the Public Accounts Committee and the way it was run. The terms of reference for the Public Accounts Committee are very specific. They deal with the financial statements of the government for the past year and the auditor's report thereon. Unfortunately, the work of the committee can be hamstrung if the Chairman thinks the Public Accounts Committee is a forum where those who did not obtain the public mandate to govern attempt to set policy through the facility of the Public Accounts Committee.
I noted in the former speaker's comments that many of the wishes that the Chairman had for the good of our province were personal wishes and, in my opinion, the Chairman's personal views. They are not necessarily a reflection of the will of the voters. I think some of those comments have to be disregarded because they weren't endorsed by the committee unanimously. The report, however, does stand unanimously supported. The opportunity to participate in finalizing it was appreciated, although I would have enjoyed the opportunity a few weeks earlier so that we didn't end up doing it in the last moments.
Another thing about Public Accounts Committee is that we're fortunate to have an excellent auditor general, but I think what happens when you have an excellent auditor general and people on the committee who don't do the extra work necessary to do a good job is that the Chairman of the committee in fact ends up poaching on the work of the auditor general. I noticed during the year that there was a real lack of initiative by the opposition members on the committee; there was a lack of creative thinking by those same members. They have every opportunity to put forward new ideas. They have every opportunity to do some creative thinking that will help the government of this province. Instead, they limit themselves to poaching on the work of the auditor general. If you look at this report you'll find that many parts of it simply précis the words of the auditor general.
[ Page 8785 ]
That is not the job of this committee. So again, I'd like to compliment the auditor general, and I too have a comment on the conference we attended in Edmonton.
This country has gone through an evolution in its public accounting procedures. At first there was very little in the way of properly drawn accounts. The accounting bodies have brought about changes so that most governments now do proper financial statements and the audits are properly conducted. But like a pendulum, there's a swing so far in the direction of the accountants I make these following comments advisedly because I am one of them, but we cannot assume that the accountants will end up running this country. The auditor general for Canada and auditors — general in the provinces have yet to define the limits to their responsibility to the public. They have to be careful, when they step away from reporting on the historical financial statements for the past year and into the realm of management, that they don't presume to be better managers than any other part of our community or any part of our governments.
It behooves the Chairman of this committee and future chairmen of public accounts committees, when they examine the auditor general's report, to limit their thinking to where the auditor general is most qualified, and that is reporting on his statements. In the second part of the auditor general's report, where they comment on management policies and future management systems, they should take them as only part of the total input we need in order to have good government and good financial management.
The auditor general made a quality report. It came in two parts. The part that we can wholeheartedly endorse is the audit. The part that we can accept as good information to help us guide this ship of government is the management comments. I hope in the future that chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee take a little more individual initiative and investigates many of the areas that are available to them.
In closing, I really thank the chairman for her efforts during the year. I enjoyed working with the members of the opposition because it was quite easy.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to hear the Deputy Chairman and this group from the government side that more often than not would not make up a quorum to be at that meeting You talk about your duties. You talk about your Crown corporations that didn't appear. That's what Public Accounts is about. It's about accountability in the system, Mr. Attorney-General. I hear that's a special interest of yours these days: accountability The real place for accountability is in that Public Accounts Committee.
Now, let's think about the auditor general and his work. It has improved significantly. The member on the other side tends to belittle it in the name of accountants. The reality is that the auditor general's functions have improved; his activities have improved; the results have improved, year by year, in this province. That is the beginning of some measure of accountability — just the beginning. The Public Accounts Committee, however, had the long way to go, like the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) says.
I suggest to this House that the activity of the Chairman and the committee this year, despite foot-dragging and sluggishness from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier), proceeded significantly as a result of that member's activities and work, but primarily with the bureaucracy; it wasn't as a result of work with government members.
Let's reflect on Crown corporations that don't get reviewed by the auditor general. Let's deal with the Lottery Corporation, for example, which is the biggest pork-barrel in British Columbia, and that guy over there in the costume who is responsible for it. The Lottery Corporation: are they reviewed by the auditor general? Do we get auditor general's reports on the Lottery Corporation? The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind being attacked personally, but we did do a great job on that committee. I do object that when we're debating this report, there's no mention in this report of the lottery. I think the member should confine his comments to this report and the work of the committee. The fact is that they really didn't find much wrong with the government operations, so I think he's grasping for straws.
MR. WILLIAMS: The point is well made. The point is that the Lottery Corporation should be under the purview of the auditor general and fully examined by the Public Accounts Committee. I'd reflect on the fact that B.C. Hydro, one of the giant corporations in this province, somehow deigned not to appear before the Public Accounts Committee; the CEO found he was too busy to make it to a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to report on his accounts. Let's reflect on that in terms of accountability.
MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, I know I was at more Public Accounts Committee meetings than that member, so I do think he must restrict his comments to the content of the report. In fact, Hydro was hardly a subject during the year at Public Accounts, so could he please keep to the subject.
MR. SPEAKER: The debate is that the report be adopted. I would ask the member to stick to the report.
MR. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear! Hydro comes before the committee nominally, and they chose not to appear. The Chairman of the committee asked the CEO of B.C. Hydro to appear on a specific date. The CEO found he had more important business. I find that extraordinary, but that's the way business is
[ Page 8786 ]
done under this administration and creatures of the Crown.
Look, one of the major items of the committee this year — as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey indicated — was the whole question of the estimates of the House.
Interjection.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Member, the estimates of the House, and we went through that. That member for Burnaby stonewalled the question. Let's remember that this was a result of the stonewall operation in Bill Bennett's bunker down here and his secretary, the present Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). This was the result of a half-billion dollar overrun on the Coquihalla, and this is the subsequent work on the question of how estimates should be dealt with in this House.
But the government members chose not to address any of these questions — that's fine by you. The kind of thing of Coquihalla can happen again and again as far as you're concerned.
The auditor general wanted to deal with this question of accountability when it comes to the estimates. Not satisfied because of the kind of s one walling we got from the Deputy Chair, we had to address this on about three different occasions. We asked the auditor general to prioritize his recommendations, and he did in three levels: what was readily doable, what was fairly easy to do, and what was somewhat difficult. But what the thoughtful members of the committee wanted was to see that it proceeded. These are not firm recommendations, and the member knows that.
The whole point is, the auditor general and his staff did detailed work on the question of the estimates of this House; that is, the full accounts of this House, how they should be managed, how they should be reported on in the future, and what details we should get in our estimates' documents. Those are reasonable proposals that the committee received. They were junked; they were trashed by the government members of the committee. Let's get that clear.
[10:30]
When you had the opportunity to clean up the Coquihalla mess, you chose not to do it. For those concerned about accountability, just remember: when you had the chance to deal with accountability, you chose not to, and we will remind the people of this province about that.
MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the Chairman closes debate.
MS. MARZARI: The arguments you have just heard on the floor underlie a lot of the frustration that the Public Accounts Committee has experienced. As I have said before, there have been a number of difficulties with calling witnesses in terms of organizing the schedule of the committee with the schedule of senior people in our administration. I would suggest that to deal with this we will have to move towards a stricter warranting process to pull witnesses before the committee if existing resistance holds up.
Another thing that has been raised is the real deficit of research that the committee faces. I think we have to move towards having a full-time, if possible, researcher to deal with going into the contracts and pulling out information that is required by the committee, as I have witnessed in other provinces across the country.
But most important, I turn to a small paragraph in the report of this Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees, which says that what is basically paramount is accountability, in that the interests of accountability are not necessarily best served playing House games in the committee. The games of the House, where ideological points of view are exchanged on a regular basis, do not necessarily have a place in the committee. I know we have to balance our own ideologies, our own ways of viewing the world, with the necessity to keep a committee functioning and flowing smoothly so that rules of order are observed and reports are credible, because accountability, not partisanship, out of the Public Accounts Committee is the major consideration.
I quote from the report: "The work requires the cooperation of all committee members, regardless of party affiliation, if the PAC is to be effective. If committee members try to bring partisan politics into the work of the PAC, it will be disruptive and will reduce the Accounts Committee's effectiveness and credibility." I know that's perhaps a Pollyanna statement to make, but it is coming from a reasonable consensus from across the country of people involved with public accounts, and this report, as I say, has been published by the federal auditor general's office.
The important thing here once again, Mr. Speaker, is that we serve the interests of accountability, and there are structural ways we can do that. There are ways in which the committee's functioning can be enhanced by changing its membership and by keeping its Clerk. The Clerk has been very important to the functioning of our committee. I do believe that with a little bit of goodwill, we'll be able to move this Public Accounts Committee into the position where perhaps the recommendations next, year will be far more substantive than what we have put before you today.
Motion approved.
Ms. Marzari tabled a document from the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 75.
[ Page 8787 ]
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION
AND CULTURE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1989
The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
MR. BLENCOE: I wonder if the minister could make reference to my comments from last night. Although I understand that this section deals with local governments being able to deal with graffiti, the point I made was that graffiti is often on unfinished, abandoned building sites — major developments — in certain parts of our towns and cities. Sometimes they sit for years. I wonder if this bill deals with that issue in any way. I'm concerned about safety, and I'm concerned about visual blight and visual pollution. Although I support the minister in her efforts to deal with graffiti, many of those sites that I refer to are where the graffiti ends up. Does this section deal with that issue in any way?
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This section of the bill deals specifically with graffiti. There are sections in the Municipal Act that empower local governments to deal with dangerous, unsafe, unclean, dilapidated or offensive buildings. There's no way that councils are able to force developers to continue with a development if for some reason it has stopped. I don't expect that there would be legislation along that line, but who knows. It's not something that appeals to me. We re dealing In this particular section of the bill strictly with graffiti.
MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad I got that clarification. I just want to spend a little time — not much — on this issue. I don't particularly like the idea of forcing developers to complete their sites. Indeed, councils I've been on.... I was on city council for a number of years, and when we had this situation and they came before us and indicated that their financial constraints were such that they just couldn't complete a project, we had some understanding. We really did.
There are many sites in my community and in other communities — huge developments — where they start, they dig, they abandon, and they leave it in an ugly situation. They haven't got financial constraints, but their priorities change, and they leave that unfinished site, which is dangerous, unkempt and an eyesore, right In the middle of their city or town. Quite frankly, what I'm saying is that those developers have to have some responsibility to the community they start the project in. Whereas the minister says that local councils have some power currently, basically what it comes down to is that the developer supposedly has to make it safe and put hoardings up. What I'm saying is that if the council has evidence that the priorities changed and there weren't financial constraints for the developer abandoning the site.... There are dangerous ones. I am amazed sometimes that we don't have more accidents when children get in, as they do.
If a council knows and has evidence that their priorities changed and they moved to another community and abandoned the site, to come back a few years later, the council should have some way to say to that developer: "Look, you come back and finish that project. You came to this council, you went through the routine, you promised us certain things that you would build and finish, and then you just moved somewhere else." I think council should have some clout to make the developer come back. I don't necessarily like that, but I can tell you, it's a constant irritant of local government, and I think the minister should address it.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, as I have already stated, we're not dealing with these other items that the second member for Victoria is speaking of; in this section of the act we're dealing with graffiti. But if he would like to refer to section 936(5) of the Municipal Act, municipalities have very broad powers. The section applies to "any building, structure or erection of any kind which the council believes is so dilapidated or unclean as to be offensive to the community." That goes even further than the safety, the danger and anything else. Councils have very broad powers, but we don't get Into the area of economics, nor should we.
MR. BLENCOE: I'm sure the Chairman is aware of the situation I'm talking of, being a mayor. I know councils have powers, but I know also that I sat on a council where we tried to resolve some of these major developments. We had the evidence before us that their priorities had changed; there was no need for them to abandon the site. We fulfilled the requirements under the Municipal Act in terms of trying to make those sites safe, but when it came to trying to convince the developers that they should complete, we had no power. They just moved to another community. We still have sites in this community two and three years old. That same developer or owner is building like crazy somewhere else and leaves in my community — and probably in yours and probably in many members' here — an abandoned site, and councils cannot compel him to complete what he started.
It's an issue, and I think the minister should look at it. I'll leave it there, Mr. Chairman.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry the minister is here today. I gather she had other plans, and I sympathize with her in that regard. But I would like to....
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Sure you do.
MR. WILLIAMS: I hope it's accepted in the manner in which it's delivered, which I thought was generous. But there you go.
[ Page 8788 ]
At any rate, I would like to say that the opposition is encouraged that the minister and the government see that the golf course and the convention centre should essentially be in local hands. On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I'd like to commend the minister for that very sound decision and to wish the resort municipality well. It was a creation, as the minister well knows, of a previous government. This is another step forward in the evolution of Whistler as one of the great resorts in the world today.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 75, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
[10:45]
ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION
On vote 1: legislation, $17,477,838.
HON. S.D. SMITH: I rise on vote 1 to make my annual comments about the Board of Internal Economy. I have many questions to ask. However, in the interests of all those who've heard all this before, I'll try to stick to process.
I raise these matters here and not in cabinet precisely because it seems to me the board's underlying purpose is to ensure its workings are for this chamber and not for the executive council. The notion of having a Board of Internal Economy is not in dispute. That decision has been taken by this House, and I think in the main we all accept and support it. However, I think it's useful to understand the effect of the process that we now use.
All public expenditures, as in vote 1, have traditionally been under the scrutiny of this House through an adversarial process, and I use the word adversarial in its proper sense. That adversarial process protects the people and ought to encourage thrift by those of us who are charged with the responsibility to spend public money. The board process is consensual. Nothing is wrong with that, except usually a system of public checks and balances comes with any change away from our basic adversarial process.
Discussion of expenditures, as in vote 1, under the adversarial system, I know, are often very inconvenient, sometimes fractious, occasionally embarrassing and always subject to public opprobrium for any decisions that are taken. The consensual process without public checks and balances results in a lower level of probity and public debate. It seems to me the problem for all of us is that we apply the adversarial standard to all expenditures except our own. That double standard contributes, in my view, to an increasing cynicism by the public about members of our avocation. Politicians are not well regarded. Public trust in elected officials is in fact declining, and that phenomenon ought to concern each one of us.
That said, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of suggestions about how we might improve the situation vis-à-vis expenditures taken under vote 1. It is my long-held view that basic compensation provided to all elected people should not change during each elected term of office. It should be established prior to any anticipated election, to take effect upon swearing in. That process, if applied to us and to all elected bodies that are creatures of this institution, would in my view enhance the integrity of politicians as well as the process. It seems to me it would be fair to the people who elect us, because any who wish to dispute compensation amounts could then do — so during the period of public elections.
Secondly, I would urge that the board have established for it by this chamber or one of its committees — but in any case by some public vehicle — appropriate annual terms of reference.
Thirdly, changes to our basic personnel compensation should receive the benefit of the same kind of external review procedure as we have just established for changes in electoral boundaries.
I have some specific questions which I ask to, among other things, ensure that this chamber be seen to publicly analyze expenditures involving matters of the Board of Internal Economy under vote 1. I'm not certain to whom these specific questions will be addressed, but first of all I will, as I ought to, address them to the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, regarding category 20 of vote 1. For what professions and services has that $50,000 been budgeted? Is the Provincial Secretary answering the questions?
Secondly, under categories 68, 69, 30 and 25 there are several allocations made for operating expenses of various kinds. Does the board have employees of its own, or are these sums used to purchase word processing and presumably the other services contemplated there from somewhere else? Where is the somewhere else? Maybe I could get answers to those two questions.
HON. MR. REID: Unfortunately, I didn't bring the spreadsheet that covers that particular request of the Chairman. I'll get an answer for the member on that one. I have staff coming; they'll be here in a minute.
The member raised two other issues.
HON. S.D. SMITH: Operating expenses.
HON. MR. REID: I hope the member has made note that the operating expenses in this year's estimates
[ Page 8789 ]
of the Board of Internal Economy have gone down, not up. It's one of the only divisions. It's not down significantly, but it's $3,441, which shows some control. It's the Board of Internal Economy, and it shows that the internal economy is paying attention to the economy of the province. I can't relate to the total budget breakdown. The staff that are coming can answer specific questions.
I will take the two recommendations to the board: one, that compensation for each term of office be established prior to the sitting; and two, the annual review and terms of reference of the committee that reviews those amounts.
HON. S.D. SMITH: My final question relates to travel allowances. First of all, I'd like to know if there has been any change made during this past year for the travel allowances available to all of us as MLAs. What was the nature of those changes, if any?
HON. MR. REID: Yes, there were some changes. 'Unfortunately, I don't have the specifics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: They're in your MLA handbook.
HON. MR. REID: Yes, the current changes are a in the circulated handbook. The answer to the question, unless you want to be specific.... I d n t know exactly which amount you want.
HON. S.D. SMITH: Is there any change in travel allowances for any specific category of member that is different than that set for all MLAs and that does not involve either government business or the allowance that is available to MLAs and for which we annually file?
HON. MR. REID: Yes, there are some differences, but this particular year there were no changes made. There were changes in previous years, but none were made this year for individuals.
HON. S.D. SMITH: That is all I have to ask about the Board of Internal Economy. I know there are some in the assembly who believe, and honestly so, that my views would be more effectively expressed to board members. I accept — and indeed respect — that opinion very much. I also disagree with it. There are some who may, I think, see these comments as some kind of self-righteous parsimony, and I accept the risk of that charge as well. But as an MLA soul, I believe strongly that we should improve the system of the expenditures under the Board of Internal Economy, and I think the place to do that is right here in this chamber.
Accordingly, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple of questions, and I intend to raise questions for discussion throughout whatever relatively short term I will enjoy as a servant of this Legislature.
HON. MR. REID: The question of the $50,000 for professional services was the cost for the use of the offices of the comptroller-general and of Government Management Services, who provided processing services. Rather than go external, we used those particular departments. Those were charges to the Board of Internal Economy for those services.
MR. ROSE: We've come to look forward to these annual excursions into, as the Attorney-General described it, self-righteousness. I just wonder whether or not his concern isn't really a thinly disguised attack on the concept of the board itself. In that, he would disagree sharply with his Premier who with great fanfare in April 1987 introduced this concept — the last and final province to have such a board.
I don't know why the member feels this way, because I think we are accountable. Whether or not he resents or does not support the idea of an autonomous Legislature I don't know. In past practices, has the Premier's office been able to reach over the top of this Legislature and determine its behaviour, let's say? Can we not act as a Legislature autonomously and relatively, as far as possible, free from government and government interference? Most Legislatures feel that we can and the Speaker's office is paramount. The freedom from government to perform autonomously is regarded as sacred and sacrosanct.
I don't particularly want a throwback to the bad old days before we had the board. This place was a cauldron of rancour, resentment and personal attacks. I don't really want to return to that. I'll give the present Premier full marks for his human side. In more detail, I'd like to congratulate him for his enlightened approach to this Legislature and its members. It has made this a decent place in the last three years to live and work. I congratulate him for that. Before that, it was a bear pit.
[11:00]
Let me quote the Premier on his views of the Board of Internal Economy. I don't know whether to read it all, but I'll read part of it. From Hansard, Thursday, April 9, 1987:
"In the Speech from the Throne just a month ago, we announced our intention to enshrine the independence of this Legislature to ensure that it is given power to manage and administer its own affairs. This is a significant step, Mr. Speaker, because it will allow this House, through its members, to operate under fair procedures and rules in terms of both its financial management and its administration. My government is committed to an expansion of the rules and roles of all-party committees and intends to ask all members to become more involved in the business and affairs of our Parliament."
That's a pretty important statement. I'll skip part of it, but he does say:
"I further propose that this committee be chaired by you, Mr. Speaker, and include as its other members the two House Leaders, the two caucus chairmen and the Provincial Secretary."
I intend to defend the board, but I think we should remind ourselves that we are, in this party, a minority on it. There's the Speaker, who's independent, and then we have the Provincial Secretary and both House Leaders from the other party.
Going on, he has this to say:
[ Page 8790 ]
"Through the actions of members on both sides of the House, we can now move ahead to develop rules and procedures that will allow our Legislature to function on an independent basis and at arm's length from the executive."
Arm's length from the executive. In other words, we wanted an in. For instance, in 1985 we passed an act in here guaranteeing certain salaries to Provincial Secretaries, and when that act was passed in the Legislature we were told by the Premier's office that they couldn't have their $6,000 that was in the act but could have only $3,000. That's the kind of interference we had before and that's the kind we'll not return to, as far as I'm concerned.
Accountability. I don't know how much accountability we need in this place, but I think we need a lot more than we have. I'll go along with the Attorney-General in that regard. He wants accountability. Well, the board publishes all its decisions in a handbook twice a year. I wonder, does the cabinet meet in camera or in public, and does it publish its minutes or only its decisions? We operate exactly the same way. What about B.C. Hydro? They spend public money. Are the board meetings open to the public? But their decisions certainly become public. What about the ELUC meetings? What about the environmental land-use meetings? Are they open to the public? Are their minutes public, or are their decisions published afterwards with no reasons given?
Interjections.
MR. ROSE: I am glad that the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) is here, because I would like to ask him a question. Are the logs of the flights of the B.C. air service open to the public each month? Can we determine which cabinet minister has flown where, and for what purpose? No.
And speaking of accountability, the Attorney-General tabled his annual report only this morning, so this House would have very little time to look at it.
I don't want to get personal, and I'm not going to do it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, go ahead.
MR. ROSE: No, I don't intend to, because I felt that the Attorney-General proceeded with his questions, as he has a right to do, on an extremely high tone, an extremely high level. I congratulate him for it. But I wonder if the accountability stuff is really part of an act and we're really out to destroy the board. I hope that's not the case.
Mr. Chairman, there are many other things I could say here, but I don't Intend to, unless this thing is prolonged. I feel that we've had a thorough examination of it. We have the vote before us. I feel I've said all I want to on the subject.
HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond ever so briefly to the comments of the opposition House Leader, because I think he was caucusing while I was beginning my remarks. Obvi-
ously he didn't hear them, because I said virtually all of what he said about the role of the board and Its separation from the executive council, except I said it much more succinctly, I think. I said, as well — and I should repeat it — that the decision with respect to the board is, in my view, in the main accepted by all. I said the reason I raise this matter here and not in cabinet is precisely because the board's underlying purpose is to ensure that its workings are for this chamber and not for the executive council. I recognize that, and I accept that and support that. So, as I said, my opening comments were almost a premonition of what you were about to say, except said much more succinctly, I thought.
Interjection.
HON. S.D. SMITH: Elegantly as well, yes.
MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate. I'd like to rise in my place to commend the Board of Internal Economy for what they have done for members in this Legislature. I've been here for going on 14 years, and I know what it was like prior to having an independent body that made and had the opportunity to make the kinds of decisions that the Board of Internal Economy is now making for the members of this House.
As far as public scrutiny is concerned, I don't think anybody is against public scrutiny of anything that goes on in these precincts, and certainly I am not.
But the argument that I have is that there is a caucus in this precinct that is denied access to the Board of Internal Economy, and I think that's wrong. it may be that there's only one member of that caucus, but I think the Board of Internal Economy has to be indicative of all of the members.
Now the members of the government side and the members of the opposition side have access to what goes on in the Board of Internal Economy through the members that they have on that board. I do not, and I take offence to that, and I want it on the record of this House.
HON. MR. REID: Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, the act provides for auditing provisions for the Board of Internal Economy, and we have continued to.... Under the act itself — and I'll just read this for the comfort of some of the members — "the board — shall cause its accounts or financial procedures to be examined and reported on each fiscal year by a qualified person or firm appointed by the board...and — wherever the auditor general thinks fit, he may examine the accounts or financial procedures of the board and report his findings to the Speaker."
I've been advised that the auditor general intends to meet with the Speaker to discuss the current financial status of the Board of Internal Economy.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have just a couple of questions for the Provincial Secretary with regard to the Board of Internal Economy, and they relate to the utilization of airline bonus points. In conclusion, I
[ Page 8791 ]
will ask if the Board of Internal Economy committee has dealt with this specific matter. I'm not sure it's a subject they would have been logically required to deal with, because I thought we had a clear understanding that the bonus points did not belong to any one member for personal or private use, that they belong to the government and that they couldn't be accumulated and saved up until the member leaves off, ice or be used for personal use otherwise. I would be interested in knowing whether the subject of the use of bonus points by a private member for personal use, government use or whatever has come up at your committee meetings.
HON. MR. REID: One of the unresolved issues that the Board of Internal Economy has been dealing with is the question of bonus points. One thing has been made abundantly clear, and I think it should be relayed here again today: bonus points accumulated b y any member while serving in the capacity of an elected official are the ownership of the Crown. They can be used for government activities or government business, but they cannot be used for personal business. The actual determination of that to enter the handbook will be made at our subsequent meetings.
Vote 1 approved.
ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL
Vote 2: auditor general, $5,725,283 — approved.
ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN
Vote 3: ombudsman, $2,765,661 — approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey wanted to speak briefly to the auditor general’s report. The Chair sees no reason why this shouldn't happen, so we'll go back and pick that up under vote 2. Votes 1 and 3 have been passed.
ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL
On vote 2: auditor general, $5,725,283.
MS. MARZARI: I have two points that I want to make around the auditor general and his ability to function inside the mandate granted him by this House. Some of my comments pertain both to the auditor general and to the ombudsman, since they are both offices which operate at arm's length from this House. Yet the irony with which they both live is that their budgets are authorized by the cabinet and by Treasury Board.
I put forward a thought that both the auditor general and the ombudsman would benefit greatly and so would public accountability be better served if the vehicles and the processes through which both these offices receive their funding is accomplished through a body other than Treasury Board. The auditor general has previously put forward a request through the Public Accounts Committee that some other body be developed — some other mechanism — as it has been developed in other provinces.
In this province, failing another obvious body — a bipartisan committee of some sort, not necessarily the Public Accounts Committee — it might be useful to put the budgets and have ratification of those budgets through the Board of Internal Economy. This idea is not without merit since the Board of Internal Economy is bipartisan by its nature and does meet on a regular basis. The Board of Internal Economy could well then be the mechanism that both the auditor general and the ombudsman's office might report through. That is basically the point I wished to make.
The second point I raised earlier in my report from the Public Accounts Committee: it is imperative, if we are to have a fully functioning auditor general's office and appropriately mandated Public Accounts Committee, that the auditor general have the ability when a report is finished to bring it forward in a timely fashion to the public view. When the House is not in session, the auditor general does not have that capacity, and there has not been a vehicle developed. In other provinces the Speaker's office is used for the auditor general to bring forward a report which can then be made public. In this province, because the House does not sit and because the auditor general's mandate is to bring forward to the House his reports, we don't have such a vehicle.
The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who controls Treasury Board, is not here to be interrogated. I put these questions, these thoughts, these recommendations on the record. I do believe that both these points will enhance the quality of accountability in this province and will bring us closer to the late twentieth century in our management techniques.
[11:15]
HON. MR. REID: If I might just respond to the question of the time between the adjournment of the House and a referral of auditor general's reports or recommendations, currently they are by agreement referred to the Speaker. The Speaker accepts them and, where appropriate, can make them public at his discretion between the sittings of the House.
The other thing I'd like to point out is that the auditor general's budget for 1989-90 has risen by $641,783 to a total of $5,725,283, and he has a total complement of FTEs of 87. That's quite an increase over the last two years.
MS. MARZARI: If we do have a mechanism for the auditor general to bring forward his reports in a timely fashion, I did not know about it. I was actively involved in trying to create such a mechanism last fall. If some decision has been made in the last few months, I have not been apprised of that decision. If the Speaker's office is the vehicle through which the auditor general may bring not only his annual report but his special reports from time to time as he deems appropriate, then I will make the assumption that the Speaker's office is capable of receiving them and disseminating then-L
[ Page 8792 ]
MR. PETERSON: I want to respond to the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey's first request to this House: that the auditor general's budget be determined by the Board of Internal Economy. In deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee, 1987-88, that matter was dealt with very thoroughly. The committee at that time decided that the status quo should remain, taking into account the following: looking at other jurisdictions within Canada; and also, probably one of the most important, that the auditor general, if he truly feels that his budget is inadequate, can come to the House and request additional funding. That option is open to him, and it seems to me personally that with those options available to him.... Treasury Board, through the Ministry of Finance, is in charge of the financial workings of the government of the day, and that's where it should remain. I would just like to remind the member that that was the decision of the majority of the members of the Public Accounts Committee, of which she was the Chairman at the time and I was the Deputy Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to do it just prior to my estimates, but....
HON. MR. REID: Your estimates? Have you got some estimates?
MR. BLENCOE: Housing estimates; a couple of estimates.
It's a pleasure for me to introduce my family this morning. I think they've come down to try and confirm the rumour that the House may be adjourning today.
Interjection.
MR. BLENCOE: We're all on our way out, Mr. Member.
In the House today is my wife, Victoria MacPherson Blencoe, accompanied by my three sons, Christopher, Jonathan and Richard. They are also accompanied by my mother-in-law, Mrs. Pat MacPherson, and Mrs. Helen Buksar, who is aunt to my three boys. Would the House please make them all welcome.
HON. MR. REID: I wanted to point out to the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, in answer to the response about the auditor general's presentation of reports to the Speaker, that the Speaker can receive them but he does not have the authority to disseminate them between sessions.
MR. PERRY: I guess that clarifies the issue. I wanted to ask the Provincial Secretary, in light of his earlier answer, whether he was willing to commit that the auditor general's report would be delivered to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee as soon as it is ready and released by the auditor general. Can he make that commitment?
HON. MR. REID: I don't have the authority to do that as Provincial Secretary. This House is the only authority that can advance that report, by consensus.
Vote 2 approved.
MR.CHAIRMAN: Now we'll continue with vote 64, which was already presented to the House.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
On vote 64: minister's office, $301,553 (continued).
MR. BLENCOE: I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on the housing component; indeed, I will compact some of my comments as much as possible. But there are a number of issues I wish to raise. It is a very important aspect of our work here in the Legislature, and unfortunately, once again in the last year we have witnessed a.... I don't like to use the word "crisis"; it's overused. But indeed there has been a housing crisis in terms of shortage, demand, security, a lack of protection for tenants, a lack of affordable housing units being constructed and a lack of government participation in the co-op sector.
There have been many ideas suggested, and I commend the government for making moves on some areas — I would be remiss if I didn't say that. But I still think there's a long way to go, and I've always felt that the Housing portfolio has been underestimated by the current government. It tends to get tacked onto the back of another ministry and shuffled around. Quite frankly, this side of the House would create a proper Ministry of Housing to work with the private sector, to develop programs with the private sector and also to develop public programs, working with the federal government and the non-profit housing component in a far more creative, innovative and dramatic way.
One of the reasons we would do that, of course, is that we have the ability to see housing problems come upon us. We see the markets tightening, we see prices rising and we see rents increasing dramatically. But unfortunately we don't seem to be able to pre-plan and prepare for those problems. I think one of the reasons we need a full-blown ministry, proper staff and proper analysis.... I'm not talking about a huge ministry, but I'm talking about giving it the priority I think it is due. There's nothing more basic than food, clothing and shelter, if we believe we're a progressive society, and I think we really need to re-emphasize housing as an important ingredient of our society.
Maybe that will happen in time. The minister has introduced some changes and some innovations this session, but there are some major gaps that I think still have to be dealt with. Let me share a few of them
[ Page 8793 ]
with the minister this morning, given the time constraints we have as the day proceeds.
I mentioned to the minister, yesterday that I met a group of 25 to 30 senior citizens from James Bay, a very Important part of my community, who came to see me. They toured the building, and they wished to see me. We always do this; we meet our constituents' I was amazed at the questions they wanted to ask me. There was only one question those 25 to 30 seniors wished to ask. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a cross-section of political views in those groups; I am aware of that, but we work with them because we think there are interests we share. There was only one question they kept bringing up: when will this government introduce some security for tenants? When will this government allow me as a senior citizen, at the end — well, not at the end but in the highlight of life, if you will — some security from dramatic rent increases? When will my home have a degree of protection? They kept asking: why will the government now allow me as a senior citizen, when I get a 40 or 50 percent rent increase, which is clearly beyond the market, which is clearly taking advantage of the marketplace and the tight market and is gouging.... They couldn't comprehend why a government would not be fair and say: let's have a process of review.
I had to say back to them: I'm sorry, but this government currently says that any rent increase in the province of British Columbia is legal. There are no parameters, no confinements, no mechanism for seniors, who have contributed to the community, the country and society and are hard-pressed to hang on to their fixed income and their pensions. For many of them,50 to 60 percent of their income now is going to just housing. They can't understand that when they can show that their increase is not just keeping up with the market, is not reflecting the natural necessities of a landlord to keep up with costs, but is basically taking advantage of those senior citizens. Many of them cannot or do not want to move; they have been in those tenancies for 15 and 20 years, That's an issue too. There is a attitude by this government — and not just by this government — that if you are a tenant it's not really a home, and therefore you can just move. That came out clearly to me from those seniors yesterday: "That's our home." Some of them in the last year have gone through dramatic increases, but there is nowhere to turn; no rentalsman, no rental mediator or officer. You should have the ability in legislation to arbitrate and to roll back a rent increase if it Is deemed inappropriate, unjustified and is a clear gouge.
I asked the Minister of Consumer Service (Hon. L. Hanson), who actually administers the rentalsman — there is an overlap, because the Minister of Social Services and Housing does have a broader perspective in terms of housing issues — how he justifies not having a review process, especially if a senior citizen, somebody 65, 75, who has a 50 percent to 60 percent increase says: "Mr. Minister, this increase is beyond the market. It's way beyond what is happening in my community. My landlord is taking advantage of a tight market." How can you look that senior citizen in the face and say: 'I'm sorry. That's the market. You take it, you leave it, you move." A gigantic leap in the costs of those seniors. I'm obviously not just talking about seniors, but families and others.
[11:30]
The minister is not, I know, unaware of this situation, The minister is not unaware of what the rentalsman staff and the rentals officers in that office did in arbitration during the days of rent review. I know the minister is going to come back within a few minutes and say: "Oh, the NDP wants rent control. They want arbitrary limits on rent." Let me say here again today, categorically, that we're not saying bring back arbitrary rent levels. No. We're saying that there should be a process of rent review. Every tenant in the province of British Columbia, if they feel that their increase is beyond fairness, could have it looked at by an objective arbitrator, review commission, review body. My colleague from Vancouver Centre knows what I'm talking about. My colleague from Point Grey knows what I'm talking about. Every day we have families, young people and seniors line up at our doors and say: "Why can't this government at least give me a way to have someone look at these rent increases?"
MR. BARNES: Like they did with the cap on the property taxes.
MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Member. Like you capped property taxes because there was a spiral in property values. Very good point; good analogy; good comparison, Mr. Member.
Interjection.
MR. BLENCOE: Well, Vancouver city council has requested the return of the rentalsman. Actually Vancouver city council asked for rent controls back, I believe, or at least rent review. This side of the House hasn't gone that far. We've just said rent review.
That side of the House knows that all we're asking for is a level playing-field. We're not asking for legislation that favours tenants or landlords. We're just asking for a mechanism whereby both landlords and tenants are treated equally under law. That's all we're asking for.
If the rent increase can be justified, if it's fair, then a rent-review board could rule so. And those seniors I faced yesterday, who talked to me, just couldn't understand why there wasn't some way to take a look at what's happening to their homes. Many of them now are paying 60 percent of their income. I don't know how they're getting by. This is the average senior citizen; of course, there are many who have a higher income and are quite all right; I know that. They can't understand why this government couldn't support a process of rent review.
Mr. Minister, I ask you once again: why couldn't you, in the interests of fairness, equality and a level playing-field, look at, consider, a rent review? As a matter of fact, I recall the minister doing a radio story and I think that he and I were involved in a rental
[ Page 8794 ]
dispute here in Victoria. His response was that the tenants in that dispute could appeal. He thought there was an appeal procedure. There wasn't. He knows it. Can the minister address that issue?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member suggests that we should maybe have a separate ministry for housing. I suppose that's all well and good. We could have separate ministries for everything. I suppose we could break up many ministries like Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and have three ministries. We'd end up with a cabinet that would be unwieldy. We realize that housing is a most important subject and, to use the member's words, ingredient in our society; there's no denying that, and we believe the same thing. But I don't really believe it needs a separate ministry. We also believe in being creative, and we think we've done some creative things in housing this year. I'll come back to that in a moment.
The member said we still have some major gaps to fill in housing. We might have some gaps; I don't know if they're major.
I don't want to dwell on items that fall under the purview of another minister, such as rent reviews, rent controls, rentals person or rentals officer — whatever you want to call him or her — because they do not fall under this ministry at the moment. I suppose an argument could be made that they should. I don't know. That's a whole other argument.
We'll say one thing: whenever we have reviewed a jurisdiction that has brought in rent controls, we have found they haven't solved any problems. They've created some other problems. If I sincerely believed that rent controls would solve our problem....
MR. BARNES: Not controls.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: just a moment. I want to talk about it, because we get this quite often from various sources: why don't you bring back the rentalsman and rent controls? Wherever they've been tried, they've been a disaster. They have not worked. All you have to do is look at the city of Toronto, and you can see what happened there.
We'll scrap rent controls for a minute. When the member says we should have a rent review process, maybe that's not all bad. We've taken a long, hard look at it. We've brought in, for example, a change under this minister's jurisdiction this year on residential tenancy, amendments that he has brought in. We look at these things with an open mind all the time. All I'm trying to say is: when we sit around the cabinet table, we don't close our minds to these things. We take your suggestions and other people's suggestions with seriousness and sincerity, and we look at them. I'm not making a commitment that we are going to do this or that or the other thing, but we look at them in a very serious way. We will continue to look at these things.
Talking about seniors, I too meet with a lot of seniors' groups provincewide, not just in my own constituency. Because of the nature of my position, I've met with seniors' groups all over the province. Yes, seniors are concerned about security of many things: housing, health care, income and security in a lot of things. We take that very seriously, and we want to provide the senior citizens of our province with that feeling that they are secure.
I notice that the opposition House Leader just took his seat. He's very interested in the subject of security for seniors, and I know he wanted to be part of this, and I welcome him into the House to hear all this.
Since 1986, in conjunction with the federal government, we have constructed 5,516 new social housing units, and of that number,2,700 units were for seniors. That's the largest category in the social housing: of 5,516 units,2,700 were built for seniors.
We have increased the SAFER rates, the shelter aid for elderly renters, this year, as was talked about yesterday. We have expanded the net, if you like, to capture everyone 60 years and over rather than 65.
We have a non-profit seniors' housing matching start-up grant so that if any non-profit group wishes to build seniors' housing, we have some seed money for them, start-up grants, up to $20,000 so they can get their plans formulated and off the ground, etc.
When we come back to the separate ministry thing, I point out for the members' edification that one of the recommendations of the Cosh commission was to put housing in the Ministry of Social Services. It was major recommendation of that Cosh commission.
I know the member will have many other things that he wishes to canvass regarding housing, so I'll save any of my further comments until that time.
MR. BLENCOE: I wish to try and keep the debate on a reasonable level, and I think so far we're doing that. But I do have to say that I did not get a succinct or substantial response to my inquiry as to why there will be no rent review, other than the argument I've heard for ten years that rent control, rent review and the rentalsman are automatically bad. It seems to be the only Social Credit argument we hear; there's no substance or analysis.
I'll tell you what, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to give you some analysis this morning to show that killing the rentalsman, rent review and rent control did not do the things this government said it would do. As a result, this government's policies, which were instigated in '83 and '84, have been an abject failure, because they said to the people of this province and the 1.3 million tenants and their families: "Trust us. Let us get rid of those security issues — the rentalsman, rent review and rent control — and we will ensure that the private sector, the marketplace, builds enough housing and keeps your rents down. You'll be okay."
I've done a little digging. I've gone back to those heady days of '83 and '84 when this government said those things: "We're going to get rid of all of those things. Trust us. We'll make sure you've got enough housing. There won't be any crisis or huge rent increases." I'm sorry the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) has gone, because the first quote is from him. This was in June
[ Page 8795 ]
1983. The Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary was just a lowly backbencher at that time.
MRS. GRAN: Lowly!
MR. BLENCOE: Sorry — he was an hon. member of this House.
He joined in the debate, as did others, when they were killing the rentalsman, rent review and rent control, and decimating the residential tenancy branch, leaving nothing for tenants in terms of protection and security. Here is the Provincial Secretary, then the member for Surrey: "Rents are in a slump. There has been a continuous slowdown in rent increases. Some incentives are still being offered by new buildings. An average rent increase will be well below 10 percent this year. Competition is very keen. Landlord-tenant relations are much improved. What do we need a rentalsman for? We don't need a rentalsman; we'll take care of everything."
We take a look today, Mr. Chairman, and if we ever needed a rentalsman to protect the landlord and tenant matters.... I wish the Provincial Secretary was here to defend his 1983 rationalization for eliminating the rentalsman. Now I go to the minister responsible for rental issues in those days — I must say a fellow I had a lot of respect for — Jim Hewitt, who was the minister responsible at the time. I debated him for many hours on this issue.
AN HON. MEMBER: What year?
MR. BLENCOE: Good question. This was October 1983. This is when you were killing the rentalsman, and you were saying: "Trust us. We'll take care of you. We'll take away your security. Trust us." Look at these quotes.
This is Jim Hewitt: "It's fair to say that this government identified this particular time as a window in which we could move to let the marketplace work and allow renters the opportunity to have available to them rental accommodation and have competition, as opposed to government intervention in the marketplace." What happened? Where are the units?
Interjection.
MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to get to that issue and give you the statistics of what happened, because the market failed. You failed, because you said: "Trust us; we'll take care of you as we obliterate all the issues that defend tenants and families in the province of British Columbia." Here's another one. I'm just reminding you. Now today where are we? Here's the same minister again: "We felt it was an area where government could step away" — that is, from the security, residential tenancy, rent review and the rentalsman — "and allow the marketplace to work with less government interference, but also allow those agencies who are there to assist consumers and vendors to step in and assist where it was necessary."
MR. ROSE: Who said that?
[11:45]
MR. BLENCOE: That was the minister responsible at the time, Mr. Jim Hewitt, rationalizing getting rid of all these items that take care of over a million people and families in the province of British Columbia. "Trust us; the market will take care of you. We will build the units. There won't be gigantic rent increases."
To quote Mr. Hewitt again: "I believe these deregulatory measures will ultimately result in a new real estate development, more jobs and a continuing healthy availability of rental accommodation."
This is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet): "Our program is to let that private sector build." That's why — again, a rationalization by the government of the day — we're going to get rid of all those offices, all those mechanisms that protect British Columbians.
I could go on. I've got lots more rationalizations by this government when they decimated those protection items. What happened? What happened when they said: "Trust us, and the private sector will respond"? Let me give you some statistics, Mr. Chairman. Remember, we had Walter Block and the Fraser Institute advising the government of the day: "Get rid of all those things, and we'll take care of you. We'll build all the housing you need."
Let's look at the private sector rental starts. This is greater Vancouver, private rental starts. Developers were saying: "Get rid of all those things, and we'll build, build, build. We don't need rent review, rent control or rentalsman, because we'll take care of everybody." And this government bought the market line. What happened? In 1982, one year before we cancelled rent control and rent review and the rentalsman, right in the midst of all that awful rent control and rent review, how many units were built? There were 1,071 private sector starts. That was right in the midst of all that terrible time, when the government would say the private sector didn't want to build a thing because of all those awful things.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in 1983 what happens? The government eliminates rent review, the rentalsman, rent control; decimates the residential tenancy branch and all those protections for over a million families and a million tenants in British Columbia. The starts by the private sector, you would think, would just go skyrocketing because they had said that awful bogey of protection for tenants was gone. What happened? In 1983 it dropped to 750 units. There was a gigantic decline in rental construction, even though you said: "Trust us as we eliminate all those issues."
Mr. Chairman, let's go on. In the heyday of this government's program of eliminating any protection for families and tenants in British Columbia, let's go on and look at the figures. In 1984, 864 units; it climbed a little bit. But in 1985, boy! Two years of all those awful things gone which this side of the House supports, and what happened? Only 275 units were built by the private sector. But you said: "Trust us, we'll build for you." They didn't do it.
[ Page 8796 ]
In 1986, when this government had promised the people that the units would climb dramatically, and three years after rent review, the rentalsman being killed and residential tenants decimated, how many units by the private sector? In greater Vancouver,88 units. It's right here in CMHC studies. Where's Walter Block now? Where's the Fraser Institute now? Where are those defences of the marketplace now when we killed all those things in '83 and '84? Where are all those units you promised us? They don't exist. In 1987 we had a slight increase to 463; in 1988, 315 private sector units. In seven years we've never hit 1982 levels — right in the heart of rent review, right in the heart of rentalsman time, when rent controls were still in place. In that year, 1,071 units; in 1988, 315 units.
I don't want to read any more quotes from the illustrious members opposite who defended killing all those things with: "The marketplace will do everything." This program and this government has failed to deliver the goods, and a million tenants in British Columbia don't have a mechanism to review anything. I want the minister to tell me what happened to the promises, to the trust, in return for getting rid of all those things in the province.
Let me add that during that time of private sector units — that's rental units — being built, there was one thing being built pretty fast: condominiums. Oh yes, at about 1,000 a month minimum, folks.
Interjections.
MR. BLENCOE: That's right. Lots of them. Condominium starts: 1985, 1,017, 1986, 1,200; 1,500 in 1987, in 1988, 1,005. But homes for Mr. and Mrs. British Columbia, for Mr. and Mrs. Senior Citizen, were not being built at all. This government promised it. They said they would build. "We'll get rid of all that stuff Trust us."
Mr. Minister, please tell us what happened to your great program? What happened to your great promises and the trust the people at that time put in you to deliver? Now what are they doing? They're carrying on with the same programs. Massive subsidy to the private sector, in hope that we'll have the trickledown theory and we'll have a few units built, the minister has said in Vancouver, at a minimum of $850 a month, $750 in Victoria, paid for by the taxpayer in terms of a subsidy. When are you going to learn from your mistakes? When is this government going to realize that there is an active role for the public sector to play, not only in security but also in the demand area and the supply area? Tell us what happened.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, first of all, we were keeping this debate on a nice high plane and we almost stayed there. I understand that the member has a mandatory speech to make. He's got to get up and say these things. He had a vicious attack on Jim Hewitt, poor old Jim Hewitt, and on the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) when he was just a backbencher down at the back. I understand too, Mr. Member, that your wife and children are in the audience and you want to put on a good show for them.
MR. BLENCOE: They've gone.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Have they gone already.? You were doing that anyway.
Rather than dwell on things from 1983, '84 and '85, I'd rather talk about 1989. 1 want to talk about some of the positive programs that we have in place, and what is happening already with them. We turn to the private sector to determine why people are not building rental units in this province. Last year, the private sector built 1,400 rental units in the whole province, not counting condominiums. Some condos are rented out; all condos are not occupied by the owners — I think we should know that — and they're not all $1,400 a month either.
However, the private sector only built 1,400 rental units in 1988. If you add that to the units we built, 1,886, it still falls short of the mark. We said to the private sector: "What would it take to make you people build affordable rental housing?" The answer came back loud and clear to my staff from the private sector: the number one thing they would need is cheaper money. Write down the interest rate on mortgages, available land and speed up city hall on zoning approvals and cut through the red tape so that we don't have to wait 18 months or two years to get approvals for our projects.
In the budget speech this year we announced a program that we would be writing down the interest rate on first mortgages by three percentage points, and to follow that up with the new structure of the B.C. Housing Management Commission board of directors, we appointed Peter Thomas as chairman. Again, turning to the private sector, to someone who knows the business of housing and building homes and marketing homes probably better than anyone else in the province, we decided to turn to the expertise that he would bring and the people he would bring around him. He did bring in a tremendously high-profile group of people to offer us suggestions on how we should tackle the problem of the supply of rental housing.
It's strictly a problem of supply. We decided to tackle that and let the private sector do it for us with some help from government. We said: how can we best lever the taxpayers' dollars to get the best value and the most number of units built for the least amount of dollars? I think we have done that. By writing down the interest rate.... I'll give you an example. The housing commission put out a proposal call in June for 2,000 units at the reduced interest rate that we are prepared to write down. To date, there have been 550 responses from developers and builders to that proposal call — 550 bona fide responses to our proposal call, which is exciting. We will be approving some of those projects within the next two or three weeks. This fall we'll put out a proposal call for 2,000 more units to be built by the private sector.
But here's the key thing. By writing down the interest rate 3 percentage points and using approximately
[ Page 8797 ]
$20 million worth of taxpayers' money, we will build 2,000 rental units. That is nearly $200 million worth of rental accommodation, so we are getting ten to one leverage for the taxpayers of the province.
I remember that the second member for Victoria, when we announced this program, said.... I have to paraphrase him, because I can't remember his exact poetic words. He said: "It's a joke. It's a trick being played on the people. They should have taken that $20 million and put it straight into housing instead of levering it." I submit, Mr. Member, that if you took $20 million and just built housing with it, you'd build about $18 million worth of housing, because $2 million would be eaten up in the bureaucracy to look after it. What we're doing is taking $20 million and building nearly $200 million worth of housing with it. I think that is a tremendous benefit to everyone in B.C., especially the taxpayers.
MR. ROSE: What will they rent for?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: They will rent at the bottom end of the market. Whatever the bottom end of the market is, that's where they will be renting. I think we had a figure of somewhere between $700 and $850 a month, depending on the location.
We're only offering this program in areas where there is a vacancy rate of less than 2 percent, which certainly applies in the lower mainland and on the Saanich Peninsula; it applies to a few other communities around the province too. Some areas in the province have vacancy rates as high as 20 or 25 percent, so the program will not apply. But I think it's important that by putting out two proposal calls for 2,000 units each and investing $40 million of the taxpayers' money, we will build nearly $400 million of rental housing.
[12:00]
On top of that, we've had a tremendous response from the communities of Vancouver, Victoria, Saanich and Oak Bay. Mr. Thomas and I, in some cases, have visited municipal leaders, such as the mayor of Vancouver. Mr. Thomas has visited the civic leaders on the Island, and they are interested in forming corporations, a partnership with municipalities, such as was announced in Vancouver by the city of Vancouver and Mr. Jack Poole. They want to form a corporation where the city owns 25 percent of it, and what they put in for their equity is the land that the city has. The city has some land that's suitable for rental housing. They're going to put in the land; Mr. Poole and his investors will put equity and their expertise into the company. The government will write down the mortgage rate three percentage points. They intend to build, in the next 18 months, some 4,000 units of rental housing. If they make that mark, that will be great; if they even fall short of it, they will put a tremendous number of rental housing units on the market at very little cost to the taxpayers.
Interjection.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Social housing is a different subject. We'll cover social housing, Mr. Member, if you like.
We're talking about affordable market rental housing, and that is the problem. The problem is that the supply is just not there. I feel that within the next 18 months we will solve that supply problem by putting several thousand units of affordable rental housing on the market. But the main thing is that we have levered the taxpayers' dollars at no risk to them and have built ten times the amount of housing that we could do if the government just stepped in and built the houses, as was suggested by the member for Victoria.
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the people obviously are going to get no answer as to why this government failed them in terms of housing, when they eliminated all the various programs that were around to protect them. I guess the tradition will continue, and we will continue to have that kind of failure. That worries me.
What the government is hoping for — and most jurisdictions have abandoned — is the trickle-down theory that if you subsidize the private sector, hopefully they will build the housing. That's what this government has hoped for since 1983, and it just hasn't happened.
You have $40 million, I believe, that is going towards this program. I think the maximum you want to build is 4,000 units. According to the budget when you delivered that program, I figured it out at 50 units per week to meet the timetable of these very expensive units at $850 a month.
I think it's really hard when you say to a senior citizen, for example, that we're using your tax dollars to subsidize this interest rate for the private sector to build housing, and your money is going into it, but don't ever expect to live in that housing, because you will never be able to afford it.
All the evidence is in that if you want the public sector to get value for money in housing, it's direct spending. If you just put it into the private sector and subsidize it, you don't have that asset. If you take all the analyses that are in on the MURB style of subsidies to the private sector — a billion dollars in seven years.... We hoped, as this minister is doing, that the trickle-down theory would work when we built all those condominiums with public money. Thousands of units were built across the country at a cost of a billion dollars to the taxpayer of Canada, and all those units under MURB and ARI~ paid for by the taxpayers of this country and this province, have now been flipped over to condominiums that the average British Columbian or average Canadian will never live in and can't afford. But they paid for them to be constructed. That was a subsidy for the private sector.
The evidence is in that value for money is giving public dollars to the non-profit, affordable sector. That's where you get value, less cost to the taxpayer; and those affordable units remain in public hands, remain affordable and don't get flipped.
[ Page 8798 ]
This minister is already admitting that these units that the public are going to pay for are going to be $850 minimum. Mr. and Mrs. British Columbia, Mrs. Average Senior Citizen, your money is going to go into that, but don't ever expect to live in it. Oh well, the trickle-down theory might work. We might create a little more supply at the bottom end — maybe, we hope, we pray.
Even the federal government abandoned this kind of program. What we've got to decide in British Columbia — the real issue — is whether ordinary citizens, average British Columbians, will see their tax dollars subsidize real estate investors or developers, like the excessive tax subsidies we've had in the past. Or will we help those in need by direct spending on construction programs and thereby retain those units in perpetuity as affordable housing?
By this style of program the minister has introduced, every jurisdiction now reports that it's been a failure; the taxpayers have spent billions of dollars to subsidize the private sector and the return today is minimal,
I don't not support working with the private sector. I think there are some other ways we can do it, but I would prefer to see the valuable resources of this province, along with the federal government, go Into programs where we are going to get a return We've tried this recourse before.
I want to ask the minister: in the budget, I said 50 units per week would have to be started under this private subsidy program. How many units have been started five months later? I know it's a giant leap of faith. You hope to entice the private sector to participate, but the crisis is with us now; we need affordable housing now. We have non-profit co-ops and regional district housing corporations lining up and saying: "We can deliver." But you've gone to your friends in the private sector again to give them a slice of the action, hoping that somehow they'll build those 4,000 units within I don't know what timeframe, but I worked it out to 50 units a week. How many are constructed? How are you dealing with the crisis today? I don't see any units yet.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Now you see the real difference in philosophy between that side and this side in the final statement: "to your friends in the private sector." You can see where they are so afraid that somebody's going to make a buck. Somebody might pay some wages, pay some taxes and make a buck. The member said the only way to build housing is direct government spending: his words, not mine. Let me tell you, Mr. Member, and this House and everyone in this province: the least efficient way to build anything is by direct government spending.
I'll give you the example again. If we take $20 million and build housing with it as government, we'll build $18 million worth of housing, because it will cost us 10 percent to administer it somewhere in there. With the bureaucracy under those guys, if they should ever become government — heaven forbid — it will cost you 40 percent to build it. The maximum you will build with $20 million of the taxpayers' money is $18 million worth of housing. It becomes very inefficient.
But if you say to the private sector that we'll write down the interest rate, but you must build affordable rental housing and you must keep it in the rental market for a period of five, ten years minimum.... If it's on leased land, it will be rental housing forever. So there's no way anyone is going to rip off the system. I think there's always a fear over there — you can hear the fear — that these developers are going to rip off the system.
MR. BLENCOE: We have the evidence.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, you don't have any evidence on this. You're talking history. I'm talking 1989 and the units that are going to be built in the next two years in this province. I'm talking today — now.
The member harps on seniors' housing as if it is the number one problem in the province. It is not. The number one problem is family housing. Seniors are well provided for. There's the odd place are qui where we could use a little more seniors' housing, but as I said, since '86 we've built 2,700 units of seniors' housing. In the next year we will build 1,290 units, and a great number of them in your constituency of Victoria, Mr. Member; also in Vancouver and the lower mainland. Seniors' housing is well provided for, but it's in a different category. It's social housing, as the member for Vancouver Centre was talking about. It is direct spending, and it's very costly, even though the federal government pays two-thirds and we pay one-third. I say again to you and to every person in this province that there may be four or five levels of government in this country, my friends, but there's only one level of taxpayer. Whether the federal government is paying for it or the provincial government, the municipal government, the regional district, school boards, hospital boards, whoever is building it, it comes out of one pocket: yours and mine and those people who send us to this House.
You said "hopefully" it will be rental housing. There's no hopefully about it. I told you: we put out a proposal call for 2,000 units in June. There will be a proposal call for 2,000 more this fall, and by the end of 18 months we'll have those units built. But they don't start the day you announce the program. You don't build 50 this week and 50 next week and 50 the next week. They'll all be built in the next 18 months, Mr. Member. Some weeks we'll build 51, some weeks we'll build 151, and as the program comes down towards the end, we'll be building thousands. It's sort of like the legislation in this place: nothing happens until the last week, and then it all comes tumbling out the end of the funnel. That's exactly what will happen with these housing programs in the next 18 months built by the private sector.
MR. BLENCOE: We have heard this kind of speech from this kind of government for I don't know how many years, both federally and provincially: "This program will do it," We've heard it over and over
[ Page 8799 ]
again. We're hearing again: "Trust us. The private sector will do it for you." We heard it in '83 and '84: "The private sector will do it for you." Well, the private sector builds what is profitable. Sure.
MR. R. FRASER: You don't like profit?
MR. BLENCOE: I love profit, love wealth generation, love wealth creation, but I'm talking about value for public dollars.
Every jurisdiction reports, when they get into subsidizing by public dollars for affordable housing, that it is not a good return for your public dollar. Then, when I take a look at this trust speech.... And I'm getting it again today. "We'll do it for you." You said it in '83: "The private sector will build all the housing." Here we are in another crisis, zero vacancy rate, and we don't have any rentalsman or any of that stuff to protect people in a crisis. But they said: "Trust."
The minister says it all comes out of the taxpayers' money. Where was the minister when we had half a billion overrun on Coquihalla? That money could have gone into direct spending for housing. But we don't hear that, do we, Mr. Chairman? We don't hear that member saying: "Perhaps we should have had been a little tighter on the reins and put half a billion dollars into housing instead of building a highway that overran." But that was public money, Mr. Minister. It's into your riding, too.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're against the Coquihalla, too.
MR. BLENCOE: I voted for the bill, but I didn't vote for the overrun. I didn't vote for your mismanagement of public money. No way did I vote for that million dollars that you could have put directly into housing. I don't hear you talk about that when you talk about public money being put into housing Come on now!
[12:15]
My good colleague from Vancouver Centre knows what I'm talking about. All the evidence is in. What you're really doing is standing pat. You're cast in the past. You cannot see that there are other ways to create affordable housing, that the non-profit direct spending model does work. You're saying this free enterprise, entrepreneurial spirit will deal with everything and take care of everybody. Sure, it's great. I have no problem with entrepreneurial spirit, but when I am talking about public money and public resources, I want the best return for those public resources. I want the best return for public resources, and I am saying to you the evidence is in right across the country now from the seventies when we tried that program: a billion dollars, a gigantic waste, and we don't have anything in return.
We are not going to win because we are going to have this continued debate. This government is cast in the past, they are staying pat.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: We've got both feet in the future.
MR. BLENCOE: No, not when you introduce this kind of program, you don't.
I want to know from the minister...
Interjections.
MR. BLENCOE: We've got a few more minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections.
MR. BLENCOE: That side of the House doesn't want to hear about their failures, doesn't want to hear about the promises they made. All I am trying to do....
MR. LONG: We don't have any.
MR. BLENCOE: You don't have any failures? The people of the province of British Columbia know that's not true.
MRS. GRAN: Name one.
MR. BLENCOE: In the budget of this provincial government for housing are grandiose announcements about what we are going to do in housing. But, you know, when I take a look at the budget, there is only $12 million in new housing programs. That's all there was. That's right; that's what it says here.
What they managed to do was lump everything into the budget that looked like it might have something to do with shelter or housing. They pulled it in and tried to come up with a grand total of how much money they were spending on housing.
We've now taken a look at this housing program and we've pulled it apart. Their rental deduction program, that grand announcement that was going to benefit all the renters in the province of British Columbia — we analyzed it and found out that 80 percent of tenants in the province won't get a penny out of that program. What they said basically was: "You're getting huge rent increases; we'll give you something back." The homeowner grant increased universally, but of those 1.2 million tenants in British Columbia, only 20 percent will get some relief financially. All homeowners got a universal program and a general increase. That was the big program for tenants, and now that we financially analyze it, there's no substance to it at all. It's not a financial boost to tenants, and tenants and their families are still having trouble.
[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]
I take a look, Mr. Chairman, at the ads for housing programs in 1989: 800,000 British Columbian households will benefit. Great ad. That breaks down to about 2.4 million people in the province of British Columbia. This is what the housing programs would help. We did a little investigation with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who rarely came forth and actually said what the program would really do and how many would benefit. You know what he said. It wasn't 2.4 million,
[ Page 8800 ]
but only maybe half a million people in some way who will get some little benefit out of the housing program In the budget. The ads were saying 800,000 households or 2.4 million people. The minister said I was nitpicking. Here was this great program to deal with housing problems, and even by their own admission, the majority of British Columbians would not be helped by the housing program.
Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? This government announced we're going to do all these things in housing. What do the British Columbia economic Indicators indicate for housing? This is where the truth really hurts, and this is why we have some doubts when you say: "Trust us, we'll do it for you." Their own economic indicators.... You would think housing starts, under this budget and with what the minister was saying, would dramatically rise Wouldn't that be a reasonable conclusion to make? All these grand ads and taxpayers' money telling them what we're going to do for you, and all the housing we're going to build. What does the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations estimate for 1989
A downturn in housing starts of 4.9 percent.
Now we've got the minister saying here today: "Trust us: we'll do it." He said in 1983 with all these ads that he would build all this housing, and we found out that most of those programs are all fluff and no substance. Then we get to the actual economic indicators where the truth really hurts and shows what this housing program is all about: a 4.9 percent turndown in housing starts.
Unless the minister has something to say and something to add, what I think is happening is that this government wants to give the appearance to the people of British Columbia that they want to do something in housing.
MRS. GRAN: We are doing something.
MR. BLENCOE: They're giving the impression of action but no beef and no substance. We heard it before in '83 and '84. The same lines, the same budget items, the same kind of stuff: "More subsidies to the private sector. The private sector will take care of you all. The private sector builds well." But when it comes to some of the real housing needs and relying totally on them, every jurisdiction has found that you just don't do that anymore.
I want to know why we should trust you to deliver.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because I'm a nice guy.
MR. BLENCOE: That's what the Premier says. The Premier goes around the province and says: "I'm going to do all of these horrible things to you. I'm going to cut seniors' pensions. I'm going to cut housing. But you know what? I'm really a nice guy Vote for me."
People want substance, reality and programs that are going to build.... Seniors and tenant families want protection for their homes. They like nice people; we all like nice people. But they want policies and programs that are real. Let's have some reality.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just want to put a couple of other facts on the record. We've got to get back to some facts here. Just a couple of things, lest the member leave the impression that there aren't many seniors' non-profit housing units in B.C. At the moment there are 24,000 units of seniors' non-profit housing, and more are being built every year.
When the member talks about a predicted downturn in housing starts of 4.9 percent.... The real estate people are predicting that the lower mainland housing market may cool off, and there may be a downturn. That, in the sense of helping our program, could even be a blessing, because tradesmen and developers will then be building rental housing and will be happy to get work building our new affordable rental housing rather than building market housing. If the real estate market does cool down a little in Vancouver, that could be a blessing in disguise for us.
A quote from the budget figures again, just so people don't get the impression that we're only spending $12 million on housing, as the member said. Overall — this is all housing programs, including SAFER, etc. — the provincial government will spend $890.9 million on housing programs this year, and $121.9 million of it is for new or enhanced programs. I just wanted to get those things on the record.
Let me close by saying that all we have touched on here is our program for putting several thousand units of rental accommodation on the market. As the new board under Peter Thomas and the new group that he has around him get further into their mandate, we will be moving into the field of home-ownership, which we think is even more important — I'm glad to see the member agrees — in the long run than rental accommodation.
I agree with some of the comments the member made earlier that tenancy is important, whether you are a renter or an owner. But property ownership is something that Canadians and British Columbians hold very dear; we all do. We all want to own a little piece of this country and this beautiful province. So the next programs you will see announced from this ministry in the coming year will be related to home-ownership, so that all British Columbians will have a chance at owning a home in British Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:26 p.m.