[ Page 3769 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is my pleasure to remind members of the House that this week is Environment Week. In that regard, I am pleased to take this opportunity to introduce to the House the winners of the 1997 Minister's Environmental Awards, who are here in the gallery today: first, Mark Angelo, of the Outdoor Recreation Council and the B.C. Heritage Rivers Board; Irving K. Fox, from Smithers; and Dr. Elaine Golds, from Port Moody. A fourth winner is Gerri Young of Fort Nelson. Unfortunately, she isn't able to be with us today, as she is at home convalescing from surgery. I'm certain that the House would support welcoming her and wishing her a speedy recovery.

We also have, as visitors here, recipients in other categories. First are representatives from Beach Grove Elementary School in Delta: their principal Della Henderson; teachers Susan Anderson and Susan Earles; and grade 5 students Andrea Parsons and Kathleen Evans. Also joining us is His Worship Mayor Douglas Drummond, on behalf of the city of Burnaby, and the Okanagan-Similkameen Parks Society, represented by its president, Don Sloan. Trevor Hill and Rob Murray are here, representing Hill, Murray and Associates Inc. of Victoria, as are Dr. Valentin Schaefer, who heads the Institute of Urban Ecology at Douglas College, and finally, Bob Ferguson of the Delta Optimist newspaper. I believe their achievements deserve our highest commendation, and I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming them now.

F. Gingell: Much as I do not approve of people being introduced twice, I am going to beg the indulgence of the House in allowing me to add my special welcome to Mr. Bob Ferguson of the Delta Optimist, a good friend. I welcome him to the club of previous years' winners of the Minister's Environmental Award.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have a crew from Rogers Community TV, which is located in Burnaby, their western Canada head office. We have Harley Steubing, Trevor Broadbent and Norman Wong. This is their sixth annual visit to the Legislature. They come here each year to interview the local MLAs. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Sawicki: Burnaby-Willingdon is represented in introductions about the same as it is represented in the Minister's Environmental Awards this week, which makes us all very proud. I want to mention that on behalf of my colleagues from Burnaby North and Burnaby-Edmonds.

I really rose to introduce two more guests in the gallery from my constituency. They are Lindsay and Kelly Angelo, who, of course, are the daughters of Kathy and Mark Angelo, who are here. I think Lindsay and Kelly remind us of a central message of Environment Week: they will inherit the planet that we leave behind. Would all members make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery we also have 57 visitors who are grade 5 students, and some adults with them. They are here with their teacher Mrs. Carol Taylor, and are from Armstrong Elementary School in Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: I would also like to add my congratulations to Irving Fox for his award, and to have the House recognize that Irving has been a great contributor to my community and my riding over the years. We're all very proud that he has achieved this award, and I ask the House once again to welcome him for that.

C. Clark: On behalf of the opposition, I would also like to extend a hearty welcome to the mayor of Burnaby, Doug Drummond, and, of course, to Elaine Golds, who is a tireless worker on behalf of the environment in my riding of Port Moody. She has done more to promote the protection of fish and the care of fish in our community than just about anyone at that end of Burrard Inlet. So I'd like to add our welcome to them, as well.

P. Calendino: The person I wish to introduce has already been introduced because he has received an environmental award. He's a good friend of mine, a resident of my constituency and a good supporter of mine. I would like the House to welcome Mayor Doug Drummond of Burnaby, for the second time, and his good wife Jean.

The Speaker: I think that concludes "Let's Celebrate Burnaby Day."

Oral Questions

COST OF HEALTH LABOUR ACCORD

Will the Minister of Health tell this House which version is the truth, the version the former minister was telling the public or the version the minister's staff was secretly telling the minister?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the health labour accord has been very successful in retaining the services of skilled workers in our health care system, which is the reason why we have the best health care system in all of Canada.

In an industry where services are 80 percent labour-intensive, it's unusual for the opposition to distinguish that somehow these services are delivered not attached to bodies, to human beings that are skilled and dedicated. That's what the health labour accord is all about. This year there is an allocation of funds for the wages attached to the labour component of my budget, and it has been well accounted for in the budget.

G. Campbell: This isn't about the skill of the health care professionals that are working in the system; it's about whether or not the government is telling the people of British Columbia the truth.

The Premier bragged about the accord, saying it would improve health services and save tax dollars. The fact of the matter is that the minister's own staff -- the Health ministry 

[ Page 3770 ]

-- has said very clearly that the health labour accord didn't save tax dollars. The net cost -- and it's a cost at the expense of patients across British Columbia -- is over $188 million. Does the Minister of Health stand by the statements of the Premier that health care has improved in British Columbia, that patient care has improved in British Columbia? Or will the minister admit the truth, which the document says? The cost is $188 million, and that is a cost at the direct expense of patients across the province of British Columbia.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: This is the minister's own document. This is a document that was provided to us, and I assume it has the truth in it when we get it. This is what the minister's officials have said: "As a result, the net cost of the accord is now estimated at $188.77 million."

My question is to the minister. Your staff has said it's $188.77 million, as a net cost. How much does the minister say the net cost is?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The savings. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. There are net savings as a result of the health accord. That's $50 million, and I'd say that's quite an achievement.

S. Hawkins: There's no doubt that the cost of the health care accord is being felt by patients across the province. Another ministry document that we received, written in February 1995, states: "The anticipated savings may not have been achieved, placing hospitals in further financial difficulty in the '95-96 year."

My question is to the Minister of Health. How can she say that the health accord has not hurt patients, when her own ministry says that the accord was bleeding hospitals dry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's about the same as what they're doing in estimates, hon. Speaker. They're going back two, three, four or five years in order to figure out some way of attacking the best record ever in health care in Canada. Our government this year didn't cut one cent out of the health care budget. In fact, we added $300 million to my health care budget, to this government's health care budget. Acute care hospitals get $83 million more in funding for health care, of which 80 percent goes into labour costs.

I know that this opposition doesn't care a whit about those on the front line in the health care system. I know that they don't value nursing or health care workers or lab technologists. I know they would support a two-tier health care system. We support it. . .and even in that context, we have saved $50 million because of the health care accord.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I would just caution members that saying "Order" and "Time" at. . . . An open-ended question tends to produce that kind of response.

S. Hawkins: This side of the House is the side that's standing up for patients, and this question is about telling the truth -- which this government has failed to do for the last three or four years, and that's why you're getting the questions. Last year the Health minister actually said: "The labour accord has improved our health care system."

I ask the minister: will the minister explain how draining $188 million from patient services -- which she says are only 20 percent of the hospital budget after labour costs -- has improved our health care system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Eighty-three million dollars into acute care services; half a billion dollars over the course of the last five years into community health care services; millions and millions into the reduction of wait lists for surgery -- all of this done in the context of 2,000 fewer FTEs working in the health care system, more efficiently and with higher skills, in the area that we need them. That's good planning; that's excellent planning. We've done it without strikes, and we've done it in the context of saving $246 million in costs that would have occurred without the health labour accord. I don't for a moment understand how this opposition party can turn that kind of cooperation into what they say is bad news for the health care system.

FORT ST. JOHN AMBULANCE SERVICE

Could the minister explain why it is necessary to spend in excess of $350,000 for an ambulance garage that nobody wants and nobody needs -- but CUPE? Can she explain why CUPE and the firehall unions aren't compatible enough to share the same building? And is she aware that her move has actually hurt ambulance service and hospital service in Fort St. John? Can she also explain how this move saves money in health care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, over the course of the last five years the provincial ambulance service has moved to take over all ambulance services throughout this province. We have, in most areas, worked very cooperatively with the firefighters and fire departments in this move. We've done it in a very cost-effective way. And we've done it in a way that doesn't add costs to health care services but actually provides a more enhanced, ambulance-oriented service -- and doesn't involve us getting involved in any jurisdictional disputes between firefighters and ambulance drivers. I would say that if anyone is getting involved in a jurisdictional dispute that doesn't offer any valuable contribution to the health care system, it's the hon. member across the way.

Interjections.

[ Page 3771 ]

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order!

R. Neufeld: For several years, the Fort St. John General Hospital has been trying to acquire funds to upgrade its facilities. It needs money for patient treatment and care more than it does to build a new ambulance garage. Again, I ask: why in heaven's name would the minister spend in excess of $350,000 on a new ambulance garage two blocks away from where they were housed before, when 3,000 people gave her a petition that they didn't want it to happen in Fort St. John? They were perfectly happy with the way things were being handled at the time, yet she made the move to appease her union buddies in CUPE. That's the reason, and I would say it's that minister that's bothering health care in Fort St. John, not the member for Peace River North. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Has the member not posed his question yet?

R. Neufeld: Everybody is far too exuberant today, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Could we have a less than exuberant question?

R. Neufeld: I want to ask: why would the minister waste all that money on a garage when the plaster is literally falling off the walls in the intensive care unit? I tell you, I have seen the plaster that has fallen off.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

R. Neufeld: You tell me how that makes sense. . .

The Speaker: Member, your question has been asked.

R. Neufeld: . . .to spend $350,000 on a garage.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This has absolutely nothing to do with appeasing anybody in any union whatsoever. We have a professional provincial ambulance service that is highly trained. The taxpayers invest hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in training for professional ambulance and emergency medical attendant services. The people of Fort St. John are absolutely benefiting from that. The hon. member knows full well that his acute care hospital received a substantial increase in its funding this year. There have been absolutely no complaints whatsoever out of Fort. St. John on this matter of hospital funding. And I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that if somehow this hon. member is undermining the value of our provincial ambulance service. . .he should do so now because he knows it's one of the best in the country.

PHOTO RADAR CONSULTATION

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can spend the rest of question period listening to the howls of the opposition, or we can hear the answer.

The protocol is working extremely well. In fact, I discussed the issue of photo radar and the implementation of it throughout the province with the president of the UBCM. The fact of the matter is that we are currently addressing the issue of photo radar at the joint council table, in particular around the areas of revenue-sharing. The bottom line, when it comes right down to it, is that photo radar is a safety issue, it is a law enforcement issue, and that is a decision up to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order! Excuse me, minister, just for a moment. Members, there is something terribly wrong in the chamber when one has to shout to either ask a question or to be heard answering. It shouldn't happen.

Hon. M. Farnworth: At the end of the day, safety in this province is an issue that should be addressed on a provincewide basis, not by a patchwork quilt, which the opposition seems to favour.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

This year we have special Environment Week activities taking place in communities across the province, ranging from a special Eco Education school program day to special Clean Air Day events taking place here in front of the Legislature tomorrow. This is also Bike to Work Week in a number of communities. Members may have noticed earlier today that we had a B.C. Transit bus outside, and it's just been fitted with a bike rack -- one more incentive for people to get on board with cleaner and healthier transportation alternatives. I encourage members to support and, where possible, participate in the Environment Week events being held in their constituencies.

Earlier I introduced the winners of this year's environmental awards. One of the reasons British Columbia is leading the way in environmental protection is because of the community leadership and hard work of people like these. The other essential ingredient is leadership and commitment from government. That's why this government is moving forward on fisheries renewal and conservation, and with further measures to preserve B.C.'s natural heritage and to ensure clean air and clean water. That's why Premier Glen Clark has taken a strong stand with the federal and U.S. governments to ensure that we get a salmon treaty that prevents. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 3772 ]

The Speaker: Minister, you know the error that you have committed, I hope. Please, just proceed.

[2:30]

That's why the Premier has taken a strong stand with the federal and U.S. governments to ensure that we get a salmon treaty which prevents American overharvests and which respects the principles of conservation and equity. That's why we've also introduced the Fish Protection Act, to ensure that our salmon stocks have the water and high-quality habitat they need to survive, in addition to quadrupling the dollars invested in fish habitat protection and restoration over the past year. That's why we're taking further measures to reduce waste by expanding the depot and refund system for beverage containers. That's why, during this session, we'll continue to move forward to protect this province's natural heritage by introducing legislation to create, expand or upgrade more than 20 provincial parks and confirm the boundaries of 70 others previously announced.

Hon. Speaker, citizens across the province, like the winners of the environmental awards here today, are making a 100 percent effort. They deserve nothing less than a government that's equally dedicated and acts on its commitments. That's what we're doing and will continue to do throughout this mandate.

C. Clark: On behalf of the opposition, I too would like join in celebrating Environment Week and congratulating the winners of the Environment Week awards, particularly since some of them come from my local community and have really made such an enormous contribution to protecting the environment. I'd also like to encourage every member of this House, when we go home on the weekend, to celebrate Environment Week with the people in our communities who have made a difference. As legislators it is important that each of us remembers that it is individuals who make change; it is individuals deciding that they are able to go out and make a difference that makes our society move forward. That's where progress begins.

I'd like to ask the government, as well, in this Environment Week, to think about making some new commitments -- some real, new commitments they can make to protect our environment. Perhaps go to B.C. Hydro and say: "We want you to do something about protecting fish habitat rather than destroying fish." B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation, and this is the week of the year when the government can really go out and do something about protecting fish habitat, not through a long negotiation process -- which certainly needs to happen with the Americans -- but tomorrow they can go to B.C. Hydro and ask them to protect fish.

I'd like to ask the government this week to think about the commitments they've made to cleaning up our air in British Columbia. We know that air quality in British Columbia is consistently getting worse. The government is consistently failing to meet its target to clean up our air quality. I would ask the government to think about making some real commitments to making sure that our air is cleaner. And perhaps with the big bus outside, the government might want the next time around, to think about leasing a bike rather than a car for the chair of B.C. Transit.

British Columbians do deserve a government that's serious about cleaning up the environment. British Columbians deserve a government that sees taking care of our environment as something that's useful for its own sake, not just for public relations purposes.

So I'd ask everyone in this House to consider carefully the commitment that we make to the environment, and I'd ask everyone to participate and to thank and congratulate those citizens who have made such an effort on behalf of the environment to make sure that this province is a beautiful and clean place to live, not just for us but for our children and our children's children as well.

R. Neufeld: I rise to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, you'll recall that in the introduction time, I very seldom get to introduce in the House anyone from the north. I couldn't resist the opportunity today to speak a little bit about a lady from a community that I lived in for many years and know quite well -- about her work in the community of Fort Nelson, a community that I represent here in the Legislature.

I think that all of us, regardless of what party we come from, have become a lot more cognizant of our environment and how we have to try to maintain it in its state or help it get better -- and I guess that is with riding bikes or buses, or all kinds of things. Maybe building fewer highways in the lower mainland, where cars congregate, and building some in the north might help, so we can continue to operate this province.

It is a week when I congratulate all the winners and all the participants. It's great to see people from all across the province, but especially Gerri Young from Fort Nelson, who actively supported environmental protection through her work on key local issues and her successful effort to encourage wider involvement by helping others. By helping develop effective environmental programs in local schools, she has helped encourage better environmental awareness and active participation among young people in her community, and that's basically where Gerri has worked. The community thanks Gerri very much. On behalf of the constituency of Peace River North, I thank Gerri Young very much for her work and congratulate her.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from the real salmon capital of British Columbia, Port Alberni, are 15 students from 

[ Page 3773 ]

Alberni District Secondary School, my old alma mater. With them is their teacher Mr. Frank Holm. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)

S. Hawkins: I have in my hand a document, and I'll pass it over if the minister wants it. Okay, she probably is aware of it. It is the document that was. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: The document in my hand, if I may continue, is the document that I was referring to in question period today, and it is entitled "1995-96 Ministry of Health Estimates Debate." I'm not tabling it; I'm just passing it over for information purposes. In this document, as the minister can see once she gets it, there are parts of it severed.

But this is where we get the information that, as a result, the net cost of the accord is $188.77 million. I heard the minister say that there were savings around this, and I'm wondering if she can go into a little more detail as to where those savings were achieved, when this document from her own ministry says that the cost of the accord as of the end of '95-96 was $188.77 million.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, this is a document that was prepared and that the opposition has used in quite a nefarious way, actually, to piecemeal on what has been a very successful accord. What this document talks about is the implications of what would happen if indeed the health care accord did not succeed in the end. This document was prepared very early on in the health care accord, and in fact it says that what it's talking about is what could happen if we didn't achieve what we said we were going to achieve in the health labour accord. That's good briefing material for a minister in preparing himself or herself for issues as they unfold.

However, we are now in June of 1997, and here are the facts: as of March 30, 1996, which was the conclusion of the health labour accord, there has been a reduction of 2,100 FTEs in the system. If indeed we had not achieved those reductions, if indeed the health care unions had not agreed to forgo their bargained and agreed-upon wage increases, if indeed there had not been a change in the hours of service delivered by health care workers, the costs. . . . If the health care accord had not been in place, the cost to the system under the old collective agreement, carrying on as the status quo, would have been $246 million.

We have projected that as a result of that, the final savings, after the cost of the health care accord and in terms of the retraining estimates, is a total of $49.1 million, and 2,153 fewer FTEs have led to. . . . Now, let me just make it clear, because I know that on the other side of the House, you have virtually no experience in collective bargaining and no experience in what it means to reach an agreement between an employer and a union.

The collective agreement was in place, was negotiated, and the cost of that collective agreement, if it had proceeded unfettered with no health labour accord, would have cost $246 million. What happened was that we sat down with the health care workers and the government and brought about a health labour accord. That health labour accord, including all the retraining costs, which for the first time puts trained health care workers in the system where they're needed, saved -- on the basis of $246 million cost to the status quo -- $50 million.

[2:45]

Now, attached to this document is also. . . . You know, it's interesting how the government's numbers keep changing. We're just looking for the truth, because the numbers keep changing. They keep playing with them. They keep saying that they're going to have this much in savings, and now they say they have this much. In a press release dated December 31, 1994, the minister of the day said: "Total savings by the end of the accord in March 1996 are estimated at $450 million." It is now spring or summer of '97, and the minister says. . . .

An Hon. Member: Ask your question.

The Chair: Hon. minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are in estimates for 1997. I certainly don't mind debating the savings to hospitals on labour adjustment for 1997, but we are now into the fourth week of our estimates, and the hon. member is back in 1994. There have been public accounts in '95-96 that dealt with this issue, as well as in '94-95. Hon. Chair, this member is totally out of order. If she has questions about '97-98 estimates, let her ask them.

The Chair: The point is well taken, and I offer to the opposition the point that we are in the estimates of 1997, so stick with those.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, this totally relates to '97 estimates because the health labour accord. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, then tie it. . . .

S. Hawkins: I will, hon. Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. It is very important that we tie the questions and comments that are made to the estimates, as opposed to some generalization. To the estimates, please, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, we know for a fact that hospitals this year and in the last few years have been saying that their funding has been reduced. It has been reduced, and it's effectively. . . . The government is putting more money into health care, so they say, but it's not coming into patient services. It's going somewhere else, and this document. . . .

[ Page 3774 ]

The Chair: To the budget, hon. member. Speak to the budget.

S. Hawkins: This document talks about budgeting for the next few years. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, to the budget.

S. Hawkins: Well, to the budget, then. In this year's budget, how much is the health labour accord going to cost patient care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, hon. Chair, this is so outrageous. This Health critic is so ill-informed about the health care system, it is stunning. The health labour accord ended March 31, 1996. That proves how little this hon. member understands about the health care system. The collective agreement was renegotiated last year. The health labour accord concluded in 1996.

But let's talk about the funding for acute care hospitals. Let's talk about the funding for nurses, for health care aides and for lab technologists. Let's talk about what those hospitals got: $83 million more this year into the acute care hospital sector. What did the B.C. Health Association do when we announced our funding this year? They issued a news release congratulating our government on the increased funding.

And you know what? Maybe this hon. opposition would like a lesson in health care labour relations. Maybe they would like a lesson in collective bargaining or a lesson in how many individual workers make up our health care system. You know what? It's not just doctors. It's not just specialists. It's not just big, rich lab clinics that make up the health care system. There are tens of thousands of health care workers working in this system, contributing in a valuable, unbelievably skilled way.

Our government invested in their training. Our government made sure that the right people were working in the right places in the health care system. Does that cost money? Yes, it does. Does our government fund the hospitals for what it costs in that way? Yes, we do. Did the hospitals say thank you? Yes, they did.

S. Hawkins: It couldn't have been a very good weekend for the minister.

On the $83 million that the minister says her ministry has invested in health care and that the B.C. Health Association thanked her for, she probably should have read the press release a little further, because they said that it wasn't very much when it's spread across. . . . How many hospitals across the province? When they say. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Show me where they said that.

S. Hawkins: Well, it was in their briefing document.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Read it aloud. No, no. Read it aloud.

S. Hawkins: Oh well, I will.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Put your money where your mouth is.

S. Hawkins: You know, as the minister always promises documents to me, I'll make sure she gets that one, too, in the same timely manner -- maybe next year -- that I get documents from the ministry.

Anyway, the minister has said that 80 percent of a hospital budget goes into wages and benefits, and some of that is sucked into inflation. When they say they're putting in $83 million, we know that a large portion of that is going to go into wages and benefits. That gets back to the labour accord and the deals that they negotiate with the health care unions, because that money in the deal that was made is still being paid for today. The deal that was made reduced hospital operating days by ten days. They were called EDOs -- extra days off. Can the minister explain how these extra days off, which continue today, are contributing to patient care and saving money?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, really. It is time for us to focus on the 1997-98 estimates. I don't mind giving this hon. member another briefing by every single person she would wish to have a briefing from, in terms of what estimates mean and in terms of what it means for the health care budget for 1997-98.

Acute care hospitals had their wage increases fully funded out of this budget -- fully funded, hon. Chair. How many more ways can I say that? Did the hospitals come to us and tell us what they needed to make sure patient care services were continued? Yes. Did we fund those requests? Yes. Did they say that that's good? Yes, they did. The information around how individual hospitals coped with that and how individual hospitals decided to cut their health care administration costs two or three years ago are good discussions for Public Accounts.

S. Hawkins: The minister knows very well that the funding that has gone into hospitals has translated into a very low percentage. When she says she gives hospitals what they are asking for, she knows that's wrong. I brought up in estimates last year, and today it continues at my hospital. . . . We had to close 20 beds. Last year she said that was a normal summer closure, and it wasn't. They never got the funding they needed to keep those 20 beds open. It continues today.

The percentage they got from the ministry. . . . This minister brags about $83 million. They say they're protecting health care for patients, but why do waiting lists keep continuing? Why do hospitals keep closing beds? They say they're protecting health care, and they know darn well they aren't.

That's why I say, when she talks about funding for hospitals. . . . I toured hospitals across the province. I took six weeks and toured hospitals. I saw old equipment and overcrowded emergency rooms, and everywhere I saw beds closed on wards. In fact, I saw a very cute cartoon at Shuswap General Hospital, which read: "Come and see Shuswap General Hospital. It's a historical site; same number of beds we had 40 years ago." The community has grown by 10, 20, 30, 40 percent or more, and they've never kept up to the need. That has happened everywhere.

They can say what they want about protecting health care in this province, but they know they're not doing it. They can throw around big numbers: $83 million, $6.5 million for cardiac wait-lists, or whatever. They know that that's hardly going to get them anywhere. The $83 million announced. . . . She knows darn well that $27 million or $28 million is going to Vancouver Hospital for their. . . . I understand it's going for capital equipment to one major hospital. So it's interesting for her to throw all these big numbers around, but they're not protecting health care. We know that places around the province are a mess.

This again brings to mind Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. I know there's a review going on there right now, 

[ Page 3775 ]

because that hospital has apparently not been able to function on the amount of money it has been getting. I understand the wait-list at that hospital is around 2,800 or 3,000 people. When the minister visited that hospital, there were patients strewn around in the cast room and sleeping overnight in the emergency wards, and she says she's giving enough money to hospitals to operate. That is outrageous! We see patients sleeping in hallways, we see them sleeping in cast rooms and we get letters about patients on waiting lists. They haven't been protecting health care; they haven't been doing it at all.

Frankly, it's unbelievable to say that the agreements they've made are protecting patient care, when she admitted herself that 80 percent of a hospital budget goes toward wages, so it leaves very little. When you only get a 2 percent increase in your hospital budget and it barely covers wages and benefits, and you've got inflation to add on top of that, how does that protect health care at the acute care level? No wonder hospitals are cutting back.

I want to ask the minister to break down the $83 million that she's bragging about giving to hospitals this year and tell us exactly where it's going. Tell us exactly how much of an increase each hospital is getting. Tell us what they're getting, if that is so much money.

The Chair: Member, to the budget.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps the minister would like to break down the $83 million that she says is going to acute care this year and tell us how much each hospital is getting.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The good news is that it's not $83 million; it's $92.4 million. Even better good news! And yes, we can break it down for you. The costs for wage increases are: HEU pay equity was $8.24 million for last year; for this year it's another $8.5 million across the system. Equipment is $27 million.

I know that the hon. member got confused between capital budget and operating budget, but I'm sure that will get straightened out soon and that she will learn the difference. For equipment, $27 million -- that's not wages; it's equipment. This isn't wages: new bed programs, $10 million. Tertiary care programs: $11 million; that's not wages. Funding for extended care: $2 million. Funding for special programs: $7.4 million. Funding allocation on models PG 1 to 7 and 10 is $11 million. Remoteness factor is $700,000. Inflation funding for tertiary care is $2.34 million. And across the system there is another $4.27 million for acute care contingencies.

[3:00]

When this hospital gets 0.68 percent, or 2 percent, that doesn't amount to very much. That doesn't protect patient care. The minister says that the hospitals can do what they want with the money. But they've kind of got their hands tied, don't they? When 80 percent of a hospital budget is salaries, wages and benefits and what have you on the labour side, that doesn't leave very much for patient care, does it? So you know what? That doesn't leave much for patient services. Then we see beds closed. We see patients sleeping in hallways, we see surgeries cancelled and we see capital equipment not being paid for because they don't have any kind of surplus.

In fact, this ministry promised money. I don't even know if they paid it back. This ministry promised money for a roof project at Cottonwoods in Kelowna, in my riding of Okanagan West. Because they are good managers -- not like the Ministry of Health -- the hospital had a surplus. They spent $300,000 out of their surplus to fix the roof on Cottonwoods, which was leaking on elderly patients -- it's a seniors home. And as far as I know, there is no money coming from the Ministry of Health to put it back. The ministry hasn't paid them back. That money came because they managed their budget well, and they put the surplus into their account for a rainy day. And I guess this was a rainy day, because the ministry certainly didn't come up with the money for them. Apparently the Ministry of Health has a commitment to put this $300,000 or $280,000 back into the budget in Kelowna General Hospital, but who knows? They don't keep their promises. We haven't seen promises kept here. So we'll just wait and see if they get that money.

There were beds closed in the hospital in my riding last year, and there were beds closed in hospitals around the province. There are beds closed everywhere. Now, how is that protecting patient services? Lineups and waiting lists are getting longer because of the EDOs in the contracts the government has imposed on health employers. The health employers themselves say they don't know where this money is going to come from. It certainly doesn't come from the Ministry of Health. So they have to cut back patient services. What are patient services? Well, rehab services, ICU services, cardiac services, cancer services -- all kinds of patient care services. There is no money. We saw surgery cancelled in Prince George because there were no sutures, for goodness' sake -- $7 sutures. That is absolutely ridiculous!

But this minister doesn't get the message. She can stand up and rant and rave all she wants about how we don't understand -- we don't understand collective agreements, and we don't understand this or that or whatever -- but she doesn't understand, because she has never worked on the front line and seen patients who are ill, patients who are dying. And do you know what? Look at a patient's face. Look at them when they're in the hallway getting bathed or getting fed, when they should be in a room being treated with some kind of dignity.

Maternity. This minister says she stands up for women, and in Quesnel we see maternities, women who have just delivered babies, being cared for in the hallway. Anyone can walk by, and they're breastfeeding their babies and everything in the hallways. Well, that is absolutely outrageous! People have to put up with that.

They say they're protecting health care. They say: "Oh, we're giving you money." But do you know what? They're not. They're not giving the money. They're putting it somewhere. Who knows where they're putting it? They certainly don't know, because none of their numbers add up. They never have. In fact, they say they're going to save $450 million here; now they say they're only saving $50 million here. We don't even know if those numbers are true. It just doesn't make sense.

[ Page 3776 ]

When I ask the minister how much of a percentage increase of the $80 million or $92 million -- now it's $92 million -- that each hospital got, she won't answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Did you ask?

S. Hawkins: I asked. This is the third time I'm asking: how much of a percentage increase did each hospital get?

Hon. J. MacPhail: What the hon. member asked, "What did that breakup go toward?" is exactly what I gave her. But let's just use some examples. And I'll tell you something, hon. Chair: if there's any waste going on here, it's the fact that this hon. member is raising one single incident of sutures not being available as an example of the health care system collapsing. She raised that one week ago. She raised it two weeks ago. She raised it three weeks ago. And she brings up. . . .

I guess the hon. member is actually so busy worrying about that one, single incident that she didn't have a chance to read the newspaper today. She didn't have a chance to read about the wonderful work that the B.C. Cancer Agency has done to eliminate wait-lists.

Do you know what? Somehow this member thinks, I guess, that these hospitals are funded out of. . . . I don't know. Maybe these aren't B.C. tax dollars that are going into the health care system, and somehow these hospitals. . . . Do they go to the Ford Agency? Did you have the Ford Agency, hon. member, coming to you and saying: "We'll fund a hospital"? Did Chev fund the hospitals? Did Nabisco fund the hospitals? Did RJR-MacDonald fund the hospitals? Or did the B.C. NDP government fund the hospitals? Yes, they did. Yes, they did. That's who funded the hospital increase.

How well did Kelowna General do? How well did Kelowna General do that this hon. member said. . . ? My goodness, they got funded so well, they had a $1.5 million surplus. Oh, my goodness. Kelowna General Hospital. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, and the hon. member says: "They budgeted for it." Oh, I guess hospitals aren't supposed to be responsible. Hospitals aren't supposed to use their tax dollars in a responsible way.

Why are they closing beds? Because they've done utilization improvements. This hon. member thinks that the way we do surgery now is the same way we did it ten years ago. This hon. member thinks the way that we do surgery is the same as we did it 40 years ago. And do you know what? Everyone but this hon. member has moved on. Everyone else in the health care industry knows how to utilize beds properly. In fact, Kelowna General is at the cutting edge. But somehow these things happen magically.

Do you know what? I'll actually wait for this opposition to tell us where the tax dollars come from for the improvements they want in the health care system. I'll actually wait for this hon. member to show us that somehow these hospitals get funded magically, separate and apart from the provincial government. I'll wait for this hon. member to stand up and show how it is that hospitals that have a $1.5 million surplus somehow do that in isolation from the rest of the system.

The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair has an introduction to make. May leave be granted?

Leave granted.

The Chair: In the gallery today -- and coming in in half an hour is another group -- are two groups of grade 6 students, and some adults, from Wellington Elementary School in Woodinville, Washington, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Sander. Would the House please make them welcome to our wonderful debate.

S. Hawkins: It's like pulling teeth to get an answer. This is the fourth time I'm asking. Before I ask the question. . . . Just wait for it; just take it in. On the $1.5 million surplus, let me remind the minister again that $280,000 went for a roof for Cottonwoods, and almost $1 million went to help build support services for the cancer clinic. And we don't have that money back in the accounting. . . . They brag. Honestly, they brag about building cancer centres and doing this and "We're doing. . . ." She ribbon-cuts everywhere and puts up backdrops and ignores everything else that's going on around her.

What's going on around the minister is that hospitals have budgeted wisely for rainy days, because they know that this ministry is not going to pay for projects. The money comes in. Yes, they are very good; they are models at utilization. Perhaps the ministry should take a lesson from them. They put away almost $1.5 million. Almost $300,000 went for a roof for Cottonwoods, which was promised by this ministry as a capital project. The money never got back there. And $900,000 was to build a parkade or a parking lot -- this is what Kelowna General was saving for -- but it went to provide and build support services for the cancer clinic.

Do you know what? If they hadn't done that, if they didn't have that surplus and didn't put that $900,000 there, we wouldn't have a cancer clinic opening next spring. We wouldn't, because this ministry didn't come up with the money for them last spring. They didn't. So the hospital board -- which she fired -- did the right thing and put that money towards building support systems for the cancer clinic.

First of all, the cancer clinic was delayed a year, because they couldn't decide. "Geez, we have an NDP MLA in Kamloops and we don't in Kelowna, so how can we get it to Kamloops?" When they finally did the studies, it did come to Kelowna -- a year delayed. Our cancer services in the southern interior are a year delayed because of this government.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: We'll get to that.

They brag about funding hospitals and everything. Hospitals that are responsible and build up a surplus. . . . Thank God they did. Thank God they were responsible. Thank goodness, in spite of the NDP, this hospital saved $1.5 million and was able to put that roof on Cottonwoods. They're expecting the money back, but I say: "Don't hold your breath, because it ain't coming from over there." And with $900,000 they built support services for the cancer clinic. The cancer clinic would not be built today if we had to wait for these guys to fund that. It just wouldn't be built.

Here's the question for the fourth time, and perhaps we'll hear an answer today. For the fourth time, what percentage increase did each hospital get? The minister now brags about $92 million going into the pool for all hospitals, but she doesn't say how much. . . . I submit to you that if you break it down, it's not going to be very much for each hospital. So how much did each hospital get?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's right here, hon. Chair. Every single hospital is listed. There are 122 facilities. If the hon. member 

[ Page 3777 ]

would rather, she could have the list herself, or I could read it into the record. I'd be more than happy to do it. The average increase is 1.28 percent. The range is from 0.28 to 4.97 percent across the system: a $92 million increase.

You know, I find it very unusual that our budget, which is $7 billion. . . . This opposition was going to spend -- I think it was $6 billion, wasn't it? -- $6 billion. How would they achieve that? Let's see. How would they achieve $6 billion across a system that now gets $7 billion? I guess they would say to the hospitals: "You have to manage even more, and I guess what you'll do is cut wages -- nurses' wages." Maybe we'd even have to cut doctors' wages. Oh, no. "Maybe we'd have to pay less to doctors," is what the opposition would say, because they'd have to find a billion dollars in the system, not a million. They would have to find $1 billion in savings in the system. So let's see. The Kelowna General Hospital got an increase of about -- let me just see where that is here -- 1.08 percent. I guess they would have to take a cut of 1.08 percent under the opposition's budget of $6 billion for health care.

I don't know, hon. members, how the $7 billion our government spends on health care somehow turns into bad news for 122 hospitals, for community health clinics, for public health, for the Pharmacare program, for doctors' wages, for nurses' wages, when this opposition here was going to spend $6 billion.

[3:15]

I do have a document in front of me. I understand from my assistant that it is the Ministry of Health regional programs hospital budgets allocation. I do read 1.08 percent on here. Now, I want the minister to think about this, put a little attention to this. Calm down; just think about this for a minute. When you have inflation and when you have wages and benefit increases every year. . . . Hospital staff, acute care people do tend to be quite loyal and stick to their jobs. They are good jobs. I nursed for years and I know it's a good job. It's a very rewarding job when you are able to provide the kind of quality care that you're trained to provide, which I understand is a problem these days.

Anyway, when you have wage inflation, benefits increases and seniority increases, does the minister think 1.08 percent is enough to carry it? Eighty percent of a hospital's budget is wages and inflation. For the life of me, I don't know how. . . . Most of the hospitals are telling me that that's not going to be enough. Perhaps they're telling the minister differently, because I know they don't like to hear. . . . They don't consult with people anyway; they don't like to hear what people say. But with inflation, wages, benefits, seniority. . .is that going to cover it? For the hospital that got 0.28 percent, is that going to cover it? Could the minister comment on that? Is that a reasonable amount?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, yes, it is. It's not the ministry that makes this up. We have a funding methodology committee. In fact, the vice-president of finance for the hon. member's own hospital sits on the funding methodology committee. We don't sit in our little rooms and say, "Hey, what do you think makes sense here"; we actually investigate. You know what the funding methodology committee said? They said 0.86 percent covers off all of the inflationary pressures on the health care system: 0.86 percent, funding methodology committee. Really, it is about time that this hon. member learns about the health care system, learns who's actually involved, learns who's making the decision. And 0.86 percent is what the funding methodology committee determined was the inflationary pressure.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps the minister wants to explain the funding formula, then.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we did this last year at length, but I certainly don't mind going over it again.

"This methodology is used to allocate new funds voted for acute services by the Legislature, after prior commitments, such as new programs, protection of smaller facilities and extended care units, etc., have been met."

"The model focuses on the expected weighted cases workload for each hospital. . . . By using provincial utilization rates and. . .a provincial average cost per weighted case, it provides incentives to hospitals to improve utilization management."

"Hospitals in areas where the utilization rate is below the provincial average will benefit to a greater extent than those in areas where the utilization rate is relatively high."

"Similarly, hospitals with lower costs per weighted case will benefit more than those whose costs per weighted case are high. Hospitals with extensive teaching activities have higher costs than similar non-teaching hospitals. The funding model recognizes this by increasing the estimated 1997-98 workload for these hospitals.

"The funding allocation model is based on the non-tertiary weighted cases workload. Beginning with [this] fiscal year, tertiary workload is funded separately through performance contracts between the ministry and the regions providing designated tertiary programs."

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. It goes through all of the steps: step one, calculation of population; step two, conversion to workload; step three, distribution of workloads to hospitals; step four, adjustment for teaching; step five, allocation.

Now, who sits on this funding methodology committee? Industry experts.

G. Janssen: I wonder if the minister could inform us how much these Health ministry estimates are costing us in lost time for the staff who have sat here hour after hour after hour, when they could be out delivering services to the Ministry of Health. Some four-odd weeks we've been here, listening to question after question from the opposition. Many of those questions could be answered by a simple letter. They could be answered by executive or ministerial assistants with a very simple phone call. Dollars could be going into health care, into shortening surgery lists and providing health care in hospitals to people that are wanting to access services.

Instead we've been in this House for going on four weeks, now, with questions that are asked time and time again by different members of the opposition. They are repetitive. 

[ Page 3778 ]

They deal with things that happened back in 1994, '96, on issues that, as we've just heard . . . on health care accords that expired over a year ago.

Could the minister inform us: how much health care budget money is the opposition wasting that could be going into patient services?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I understand the member's frustration, but the estimates process is a very useful process. It's part of the democratic process, and I support it fully. What I do find important, though, is that we not be repetitive.

It is true that it requires a great deal of expertise to run a very complicated system. I happen to think that the staff in the Ministry of Health -- unlike the opposition, who deride them and berate them each and every day -- are some of the best in the country in terms of the public service, and I value them greatly. They are here to assist in making sure that the opposition gets each and every point of information that they have asked for. The only thing I would ask of this Legislature is that when an answer is given, they actually absorb it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been sitting and listening, too. I seem to recall a question being asked five times -- four times, anyways, before I left the chamber; I don't know if it was asked subsequent to that -- on some specific numbers on hospitals, and I understand that it was finally given. Had that information been given the first time it was asked, I think the process would have moved a lot more quickly.

It is important that these issues be raised. The member for Alberni raises an issue of the past. Well, I would advise the hon. member that the health care accord and the impact of the health care accord persists to this day. We just determined today, in fact, that there is a substantial net cost to the health accord, as opposed to the savings that the minister and the Premier promised everyone before the last election.

I think the truth is always in order when we're dealing with estimates, even if that member doesn't think it is.

S. Hawkins: If the member opposite doesn't have any more questions, maybe we could move along with estimates, here, and get out of here like he would like to.

I think this is a very important process. This is where we hold the government to account for what they do. We're trying to get answers, and when we don't get answers, we have to ask the question over and over again till we're satisfied we get an answer.

Now, the minister went through quite a complicated formula for hospital funding. She went through quite a few factors that they use to determine how much each hospital will get. And that was one of the issues that was raised by administrators at hospitals when I did my provincial tour. One thing that came at the top of all their minds was how fair this formula was. They felt there was room for manipulation in this formula; they felt that there was room for adjustments in this formula; and they felt that the special needs of their communities weren't always taken into consideration. So I ask, with the greatest amount of respect: how much input do the acute care facilities get as far as funding for their own facilities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, we went through this in last year's estimates, but I certainly don't mind repeating it. Peer groups are from the hospitals themselves and are represented on the funding methodology committee.

I also just want to remind this hon. member that we would like the truth from the opposition, as well, when she brings forward a fact like somehow the Kelowna General Hospital had to fund a roof because our government wouldn't fund it. Let me give her the facts. This item, which was referred to by the opposition member, was funded out of an accumulated previous year's surplus. The $1.5 million that I referred to is just this year's surplus after all expenditures. The hospital asked permission to spend their previous surplus on the roof while the Treasury Board review was underway. We've committed it to a refund. So it is very important that we all speak the truth in this House.

S. Hawkins: I'm glad the minister put it on record that they are going to pay the hospital back. That is good news. I appreciate that. I was asked to bring it up to make sure we did get a commitment. I hope the minister can stand up and also. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, I'll ask the minister. Will she commit to paying back the $900,000 that they used to build support services for the cancer clinic?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, I am stunned at this opposition's view of the health care system: that they're little feudal institutions that don't have to work together; that somehow the money comes out of -- I don't know -- thin air; and that there shouldn't be any integrated approach to the health care system.

Let me answer the opposition member's question on this point. Our ministry, responsible for the overall health care purse, was well aware of the huge surpluses that the Kelowna General Hospital was running up. Now, this is a hospital that, I guess, the hon. member represents. "But it's a part of the health care system that is grossly underfunded," says she. This hospital has been running up huge surpluses. We're already in discussions with them about how they have committed money to the B.C. Cancer. . .the support services. We're already in discussions with them about paying that back, as we are in discussions with them about where the surplus has come from and what to do with the surplus.

S. Hawkins: I hope that means they will pay that money back. I didn't hear that from the minister, but I hope the negotiations lead to something, because in the past -- and I always judge future performance by past behaviour -- this government wasn't one to keep commitments. So I hope somewhere in there was an answer that yes, we will pay that back.

Anyway, last year we covered the funding formula, and I asked this before. I understand there's still a problem out there with different rules being applied to some teaching hospitals than to non-teaching hospitals. Has that changed? Why do teaching hospitals continue to get more money than non-teaching hospitals? Again, it is a concern that was raised as I travelled around the province.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just answered that question five minutes ago.

S. Hawkins: Well, there are not very many answers coming. The minister seems to think that estimates are over and she doesn't need to answer any questions. She might be tired of sitting there and doesn't want to answer any more 

[ Page 3779 ]

questions or wants to get out of the House. But do you know what? This is the only chance we get to ask this government questions from people around the province and from our constituents.

[3:30]

S. Hawkins: She can say, "We just answered," but she didn't answer. Last year I brought up the same thing. Teaching hospitals seem to have a different standard formula than non-teaching hospitals. They get more money. When we talk about responsible hospitals, Kelowna General is a very responsible hospital. Like I said, maybe this ministry should take some lessons from it on how they end up with surpluses.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hospitals that don't end up with surpluses -- and some of the teaching hospitals don't end up with surpluses but get into deficit situations -- the ministry bails out. There seems to be a double standard. That seems to be a concern of hospitals, which say: "We're very good managers, we try to live within our limits and we budget for patient care. Obviously, we have to cut back in some places, but there may be a day when the ministry doesn't fund us." And obviously there was a day, because the roof at Cottonwoods and certainly the support services for the cancer clinic were that rainy day, and they used that money. But other hospitals that don't, seem to get funded, regardless of how good or bad they are as managers. And we're not really getting any answers from the other side.

I'll talk about the article that the minister held up on the cancer patients not going to Bellingham anymore. I understand the money that was used to send patients to Bellingham has now been used to extend hours at the three cancer centres. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, some of it will be used in that way.

I'd just like to read into the record the recommendation from the B.C. Health Association for funding to protect health care. "Recommendation No. 1: That the government provide an adequate funding lift to protect health services for fiscal year 1997-98, which for acute and extended care would be a minimum of $72 million for operating. . . ." We did $92 million.

S. Hawkins: How much money was there in the Bellingham project that is now going to extended hours for cancer services?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We can get the actual figure for the member. We have been working with the B.C. Cancer Agency on an overall plan for funding the agency and for funding increased services, and that is being demonstrated by what is coming to fruition now.

S. Hawkins: Yes, I would like to know how much money went towards funding patients who were going to Bellingham and how much of that money is now being used to extend hours at clinics. I would also like to know from the minister how much money is still being channelled to Bellingham. I understand that even though patients are not being sent there as of now, there are patients that fall into the category of still needing to go down there because there are cancer line-ups, apparently, that are still not being alleviated. So how much is being budgeted for that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: None. We are able to deliver all of the services here in British Columbia. We were spending about $750,000 on patients going to Bellingham, and that money is now in British Columbia.

S. Hawkins: Well, I do understand -- and this is as of last week, when I was talking to a spokesperson at the B.C. Cancer Agency -- that there will be patients who will still need to go to Bellingham. So perhaps the minister wants to check on that. There will be radiotherapy patients who will still be required to go, and there's one physician at the B.C. Cancer Agency who okays that.

G. Janssen: Name names.

S. Hawkins: Dr. Tom Keane is the doctor who apparently will okay patients to go down to Bellingham if they need to go.

I understand that the cancer clinic on Vancouver Island is apparently going to be built now. It is on extended hours. What are the extended hours of each clinic?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Ten hours per day.

S. Hawkins: I did have the opportunity to tour these clinics, and I understand that for the extended hours the machines are running longer, obviously. There's a higher maintenance factor for those machines, as well. I understand that the machines at the cancer clinic here are old. They're 13, 14 years old. I wonder if the ministry has a backup plan for the machines if they fail, because they are on their last legs. A clinic here was promised I don't know how many times. I believe that the announcement for a Vancouver Island clinic was made at least four times. We'll believe it when we finally see a building going up, I suppose, and patients going through the door. Is there a backup plan for patients if the machines here fail?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the B.C. Cancer Agency has a plan. One of the people that I met with around the plan was Dr. Tom Keane, of the B.C. Cancer Agency. The hon. member mentioned his name in kind of a negative way, so I just want to make it clear that I certainly think he's doing a valuable service in bringing forward a plan for a made-in-B.C. solution. But yes, the B.C. Cancer Agency not only has a contingency plan but also estimates that the life span of the machines has been well taken into account.

S. Hawkins: For the record, I want to say that I never use health care providers in a negative way. I've worked on the front line. Cancer nursing is my background. Why would I put down a physician who says that if patients need to go to Bellingham, he will approve them? I would never do that. So the minister reads whatever she wants into it, but it was not in any way a negative connotation when I mentioned his name -- not at all. In fact, there are some people who care for patients -- unlike the government member sitting opposite, unfortunately.

Radiotherapy machines last year. . . . There was an article in the paper saying that the radiotherapy machines here -- and I mentioned it before -- were on their last legs. It isn't like 

[ Page 3780 ]

you just order a stove or a toaster or something. These machines take a while. To go out, get the right one, buy it, set it up, build the vault and all that kind of stuff at a cost of. . . . I understand it was estimated at around $1.5 million. Now, these are on their last legs. The minister says there's a contingency plan. Can she share the contingency plan with us?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The machines are not on their last legs. The machines are all maintained and are absolutely viable.

S. Hawkins: I hope the minister doesn't live to regret her words. I was just in conversation with representatives of the clinic a week or two ago, and I understand that about three weeks to a month ago one of the machines went down, and patients had to be cancelled. The person I spoke to says that it's a very scary situation. That's what he said: "It's a very scary situation." It appears that this government, as always, has no plan. If they had a plan, they'd share it with us here, but they have no plan. Last year the minister's own ministry official talked in the paper about the machines being old and said that they would replace them if they failed. The cancer agency spokesperson said in that same article that these are not like toasters or stoves. If one fails and it goes, it takes about 18 months to replace.

All we expect is that you're planning ahead. We know that cancer services are being stressed in this province. For the last few years people had to go to Bellingham. We know that's still an option if people need to go. We know that the ministry has taken that money and extended hours at clinics so that patients can be treated closer to home.

Now, I'm not saying that they're going to get better service doing that, because the patients who go to the cancer clinic during normal working hours will get the benefits of people who work those normal working days. They'll get the benefits of the social worker, the psychologist and the dietician -- all those kinds of workers. The ones that will be treated after hours will get the benefit of those workers if they're called in and if they can arrange to meet those patients.

I worked in a radiation therapy department as a radiation therapy nurse, and I know that the best time to see those patients is when they're actually being treated and you can look at their skin, you can check them for hydration, you can check them for burns, you can check them for diet. The patients that are being treated in extended hours might not get the benefit of that. But they are being treated closer to home.

All I'm asking is. . . . About a month ago there was a very scary situation. A machine went down at the cancer centre, and patients know it, because they had to be cancelled. If a machine breaks down here, we know that's 100 patient treatments a week, or maybe more. Where are they going to be absorbed? They can't be absorbed by the other machine here. We have already extended the hours in Vancouver and in the Fraser Valley clinic. What is the backup plan? What is the contingency plan? Perhaps the minister will stand up and say that they're buying a new machine and they're going to install it here. That would be wonderful news for cancer patients in the province. What is the backup plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've been through this several times. The B.C. Cancer Agency has a plan for expansion of services. I think that they've done an admirable job in terms of reducing wait-lists and having a made-in-B.C. solution. In fact, part of their plan deals with the replacement of machines from now until the year 2000.

I would just suggest that it is inappropriate to use these estimates as an opportunity to fearmonger amongst those who are most vulnerable. It really is shameful, if you ask me, to somehow suggest that there is not the regular maintenance and repair of machines as needed. Even brand-new machines require some sort of maintenance and go out of operation for a while.

S. Hawkins: I think it's shameful for the minister to suggest that we're fearmongering when she darned well knows that this is the only time we can raise issues for patients. We get cancer patients phoning us, calling us and writing us all the time. They have the gall to say it's fearmongering. It's asking for a plan. We know that this government has no plan. They go from crisis to crisis. We're going to wait until a machine goes down and until we have a hundred or more patient treatments a week that are going to have to be cancelled -- to find them scrambling and looking for a plan. So I suggest to you that you do get a plan, because what we've seen in the last year is that there is no plan. The plan is just crisis to crisis to crisis -- knee-jerk reactions.

What we're putting to you is -- and this government has heard it from the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre -- that they're in dire straits. They're cramped for space, they've got long waiting lists -- up until extended hours -- and they're extending hours, I would remind the minister, on machines that are old. They went to the media -- very, very unusual. I'll tell you, it's very, very unusual for health care providers to go to the media and talk to them about the state of patient care, because no one likes to scare patients.

[3:45]

What we're doing is raising the issue and bringing it to government's attention, because obviously they're not listening to anybody else. Hopefully, they're listening here. We have patients saying to us: "Please raise this issue because they're not listening. My doctor is telling me this; my nurse is telling me this; my chiropractor is telling me this." They're not listening, because you know what? They don't listen, and they have no plan.

This is about the third or fourth time I've asked, and the minister goes back to: "Well, the cancer agency has a plan." I bet their plan is to ask you what your plan is, and you guys don't have a plan. Why doesn't the minister just stand up and say, "These patients will be able to go to X" -- Bellingham again, or whatever -- just so we know that patients are comforted in case the machine does break down here? They are old machines; they're on their last legs. That's what we were told. We were told that last year, but this minister doesn't want to listen. This minister should go and talk to the representatives of the Vancouver. . . . Obviously she doesn't listen to them, because this was old news last year. It was very, very well publicized last year that those machines were old, that they needed to be replaced, that that clinic needed to be built, that it was lacking space and that it was very cramped.

Those patients were having to be moved around out of country, and now she's asking for evidence. Perhaps she should take the little tour. I don't even know if she's been there. Perhaps she had a photo op; I don't know. I'm not saying whether she did or not; perhaps she did. Perhaps she should go without photographers. Perhaps she 

[ Page 3781 ]

should just walk in patient areas and take a tour with people who will actually talk to her. Perhaps she'll listen, for a change.

We're extending hours on old machines. That's what I've been told. I understand that the situation is very scary. That's the way it was described to me, and I'm passing that on to the minister. She sits there and laughs and makes fun of it. It is not funny. That is an absolutely ridiculous reaction from a Health minister; that is absolutely ridiculous.

We have a situation in this province where we have three cancer clinics -- one that's being built -- and we have evidence from the B.C. Cancer Agency that the problem with sick patients and cancer patients is not going to go away. In fact, growth in this province is increasing. The aging population is increasing. In-migration is increasing. This is not a problem that's going away, and that's why we asked the ministry to plan for it.

When I toured the Fraser Valley clinic, they have a vault there which they're hoping will house a new machine -- a new radiotherapy machine. They're hoping that the Vancouver Island clinic, if it ever gets built, will also have a third machine, because the population here is increasing. They hope -- this is what B.C. Cancer Agency people tell me -- that the new southern interior cancer centre that's being built will also have a third machine.

But what I understand is that there are only two budgeted for Vancouver Island, and the problem is not going to go away. There's not another one being budgeted for the Surrey-Fraser Valley Cancer Centre in Surrey -- and certainly not in Kelowna. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what she knows about the numbers increasing and if she's been briefed by the Cancer Agency on their request for more equipment to handle the need. Perhaps they wouldn't have to go into extended hours if they had the proper equipment to handle the cancer patients' needs.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the hon. member has the facts wrong again. In the Victoria area the existing three will be expanded to six brand-new machines, so I don't know where her facts are coming from.

I would also like to say that when the hon. member stands up and says there is no plan, it is the B.C. Cancer Agency that she's attacking directly. We have met with them, and they have put in place, through the wonderful leadership of Dr. Don Carlow and his staff, a plan that excels in all of Canada. The details of the plan have been outlined not only in the story today but in the estimates of last year and are committed to us by the funding that we've put in place this year.

For instance, it was at the suggestion of the staff of the B.C. Cancer Agency that the machine hours be extended, and it was their advice that the maintenance and repair of the machines could more than well withstand this. The replacement program for the machines has been budgeted for up to the year 2000 and funded completely, and it is on that basis that the machines will be replaced. By the year 2000 there will be six brand-new machines in Victoria and others in Kelowna, and there are new machines in Surrey. The B.C. Cancer Agency got an annual increase of $3.7 million directly this year alone for their budget.

The Chair: I would just like to say, before I recognize the hon. members in the House, that this issue has been raised repeatedly, and the minister has in fact responded. The exchange, I find, has been very repetitious throughout the discussion. The exchange of the issues has been noted, and I'd like the member to go on to another issue.

M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm just going to spend a few minutes speaking about a number of things. You know, hon. Chair, I've had the privilege of being in this House and sitting through, I think, my eleventh or twelfth estimates of the Ministry of Health. I've never seen such an ineffective and futile effort on the part of the opposition. There has been much discussion during the course of the last few hours. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Let's talk about plans. The opposition, during the course of the last election campaign, put forward a plan in front of British Columbians. They said that they would plan to spend $6 billion on health care -- an inadequate amount. British Columbians rejected that plan of the opposition, because they put their faith in this side of the House to protect health care.

Interjections.

The Chair: I'd like to call the member to order, and I'd also like to remind all members in the chamber to please pay attention to what the hon. member is in fact saying.

M. Sihota: Then the opposition. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member. I would also like to remind the member to please be relevant.

M. Sihota: I will be, hon. Chair.

Then the opposition conceived of a new plan, and their plan was to come into this House and try to spend as much time as they possibly could to try to get a political hit during the course of estimates in Health. We've been here for four going on five weeks in this House, and the opposition have not only failed to get their political hit, but in so doing have demonstrated how ineffective and futile they really are.

I know it's easy to pick a fight, and it's always difficult to get out of one. Let me offer the opposition a plan. The opposition needs to develop a plan to get out of these estimates, and because the hon. member who is leading this debate for the opposition is new, let me take a few minutes to advise the House and all hon. members of what other steps the hon. member could take to. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd like to call you to order. If you're rising to speak, we're on the discussion of the estimates.

M. Sihota: I will, hon. Chair. I have a question to the minister. I would like to ask the minister if she would agree if the following devices are also available to the hon. critic to ask questions with regard to health care.

The hon. member can put issues on the order paper. I'd like to ask the Minister of Health if she would be prepared to answer questions through the order paper so as to expedite this process, because that process exists. I would like to ask the minister if she's prepared to make her deputy available from time to time, so as to better educate the critic opposite on matters of health, so that we could have a more informed 

[ Page 3782 ]

debate. I'd like to ask the minister if she would be agreeable to having her ministerial assistant -- a fine chap, at that -- meet quarterly with the critic of the Liberal Party with regard to health care matters, so that the member could become educated and informed with regard to health care matters.

The Chair: Hon. member. . . .

M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, my point -- and I'm ending on this point -- is that there are many venues available, not just this venue, to ask questions with regard to health care. I am sure that the Minister of Health would agree with me, would she not?

The Chair: Hon. member, could I have you take your seat for a moment, please. The comments being made are out of order. I would ask that the comments and the questions that are being put be made to the estimates of the Ministry of Health. If there is a different line of questions that is going to be coming out of this to the Minister of Health, I would encourage you to please put them forward.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would just say once again that I very much value the process of estimates. I think they are useful. I think it is the time for the opposition to ask their questions. I think it's a process that is based in democracy, and it's very useful. It complements other matters that we've brought forward, like freedom of information. As a government, we have actually brought public accounts into the twenty-first century, as well. I very much find our estimates process useful, and for questions that have already been answered, the reading of Hansard is useful as well.

G. Plant: Dare I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

G. Plant: In the precincts this afternoon is a class from Charles E. London Secondary School in my constituency of Richmond-Steveston. With them is their teacher Mr. Sandy Bucifal and two assistants, Jeff Mah and Rebeca Rubio. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: I've been listening to this questioning for some time, and it's interesting. I've been listening to the member mention time and time again that there's not enough money to purchase various types of machinery, that hospitals don't have enough money, that there hasn't been enough money put into the system. I've heard her say that the increases in spending have only been 2 percent -- that only 2 percent has gone into an actual increase in a budget. As somebody that. . . . We've seen a 19 percent decrease in my budget in order to sustain a 2 percent increase in this budget.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, they don't seem to want to listen, but I would like. . . . A 19 percent decrease in this budget so that we could in fact put money into health care, so that we could protect those services there. . . .

[4:00]

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, isn't this interesting, hon. Chair?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Order!

Hon. L. Boone: They were extremely upset with the negative comments she made in the paper about the hospital. And yes, you can point at any different time to any area -- as we've seen in the ten years that I've been in this Legislature -- and there will be some times when you have people in hallways. That's the nature of the health care system. It has happened that way for ten years.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, please take your seat for a moment. Members, could we have order, please, in the chamber. The hon. member is trying to speak.

Hon. L. Boone: What the member didn't point out was that she didn't go to see our wonderful new hospice. She didn't see the travelling mammography unit that provides services to women throughout northern British Columbia. She didn't talk about the mobile clinics that are coming through and the transplant clinics that are there. She didn't talk about any of the wonderful things that are in fact going on in the Prince George region with regard to health care, and it really disturbs me.

Time and time again I listen to the members opposite demand more and more services, at the same time demanding that we cut everywhere. I'm sure this same group of people will come into my estimates and demand that we spend more money on highways when, in fact, they are expecting us to cut. So I find it very frustrating to listen to this type of stuff going on.

I guess my question to the minister is: can she tell me what. . . ? I know that last time we did a running count, and we found at the end of the Transportation and Highways estimates that they had asked for $2.6 billion worth of proposals, at the same time telling us that we needed to cut and get budgets in line. Does the Minister of Health have any idea of the cost that would come as a result of the various things that have been requested from the members opposite in terms of additional services and additional moneys going into provincial health care or into our hospital system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I haven't done that. The opposition members are one area that I receive advice from, and I receive it from a wide range of other sources as well.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

[ Page 3783 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it amazing that at the same time the Minister of Health is complaining about the length of time her estimates are taking, we're getting this exuberant input. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the House, a few moments ago.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: We have these exuberant interjections by the Minister of Transportation and the exuberant interjections from the government Whip.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order, hon. members!

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair has called for order, and order shall happen.

Hon. member, continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate your intervention.

The incredible interjection of the member opposite, the member from Costco, who has the gall to talk about people trying to get media hits -- Mr. Media himself. . . . It's interesting to hear the comments from the Minister of Transportation and Highways. She talks about the requests from the opposition members about expenditure of funds on various issues. In particular, she refers to her own ministry. I'd remind that minister, and indeed the Minister of Health, that it was the members on that side of the House -- in particular, the Premier -- who went around this province for 90 days in the lead-up to the election. I believe they called it "90 Days of Decision"; it was more like "90 Days of Deception," because the government went around to every single community, set up their little photo op and announced whatever it was that the community wanted, told them they were going to get it and told them that all they had to do was vote NDP and they'd get that cancer clinic -- a cancer clinic for every community. All they had to do was to stand up and vote for the NDP, and they'd get that highway expansion that the Minister of Highways talked about. All they had to do was stand up and vote for the NDP, and they'd get a hospice, they'd get extended care and they'd get whatever it is that they asked for -- anything they wanted.

All they had to do was vote for the NDP. I remember the press conferences. Every single day, for three months, the Premier went around this province and promised people absolutely everything. Then, the day after the election, he had the gall, the nerve, to hold a press conference and say: "I'm going to need a little bit of wriggle room here." Well, he had no intention of keeping those promises. So when the Health critic stands up. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I didn't notice one interjection from the Chair during the intervention by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I expect to be accorded the same respect and the same time to finish my comments.

The Chair: I nonetheless remind hon. members that this is on vote 40, which is the Minister of Health's estimates. I would encourage all members to focus on vote 40, the Ministry of Health estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll be thrilled to see the first time that that interjection comes when it's the members opposite who are making their comments on vote 40. I'll wait for it.

The Premier went around this province and promised everything to everybody in every community, when he had no intention of keeping even one of those promises. He had no intention because he knew he couldn't and because he knew his budget wasn't balanced. He knew he was half a billion dollars out.

So when the minister gets upset because members opposite stand up to hold this government to account for the way they misled the people of this province during the election campaign, I think it's the minister and the members opposite who should start telling the people of British Columbia the truth about the budget expenditures in this province, not just during the estimates process but every day of the year and even including -- I know it sounds terrible -- the 90 days leading up to the election campaign.

The Chair: Hon. member. . . . Again I remind everyone -- everyone -- that this is about vote 40. It is not about past elections; it's not about current ones. It's about vote 40.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, it is not about past elections; it is about vote 40. I encourage all members to talk about vote 40.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know that as a member, you've been here as long as I have and that you understand there is a period of about 15 minutes accorded to members to make their point, and then they can ask their question. Hon. Chair, it's hard for you, I know, to understand where my question is leading to, but I promise you that I'll get there and that it will be on vote 40.

When I hear the members opposite stand up and complain that the members of the opposition would ask the government to account for their promises, for the things that they said they were going to do for British Columbians during the election campaign, I know it's shocking. I know it's uncomfortable for all members of the New Democratic Party -- all members sitting over there and at the table. . . . I know how difficult it is for them to have to face the truth, to have to realize that the people of British Columbia are calling for some accountability and that they were promised something in the last election, they were promised something last year in the budget, and they were promised something again this year.

You have to understand, and you have to sympathize with the voters of British Columbia when they're a little bit suspicious about what it is that's being offered to them by this government, when they're being told that they're going to get planning money for their schools or for the expansion of their hospitals, or being told: "Don't worry about it. We're actually getting rid of the wait-lists. Don't worry, we will. It's coming."

I can't remember the number of times I've had to sit here in question period and listen to a minister of the Crown -- particularly the Minister of Health, and the one before her and the one before him -- stand up in this House and tell us that 

[ Page 3784 ]

waiting lists were gone in British Columbia. "That's it, they're done; there are no more waiting lists. We're dealing with it." I've probably heard it five or six times, yet it comes back every year. Every year it comes back, and we've got another horror story, another case, another 20 cases, another 30 cases -- whether it's dialysis, whether it's cardiac wait-lists, whether it's hip replacements, whether it's orthopedic surgeons, whatever it is.

You know, if it was tough to deal with the dollars, if it was tough decisions the government was making about where the health dollars were having to go, that's one thing. The people would probably be willing to help the government with those decisions and to get involved and help at the community level with those decisions and those allocations of dollars -- only to find out shortly thereafter that they were fired by the government because they didn't agree with what they said. But you could understand that the people of British Columbia, the taxpayers, would be glad to participate in that process if they felt they were being told the truth, and if they felt that the dollars were there and the government's commitments to them were the truth.

But the fact of the matter is that these members all stood up in their ridings in the last election, and again at budget time, and told everybody how wonderful everything was. They told everybody how incredible things were in health care, and what a great government they were for health care. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the added dollars going into health care are going to pay off the health accord. They're not going into patient care directly; they're not going into added infrastructures; they're not going into added services.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Chair, the minister says. . . . Maybe the minister can tell us how many new nurses this government has hired, how many new lab techs this government has hired and how many new dollars they have put into front-line services to health care.

The fact is that they've cut front-line services to health care, and they've put those dollars into the pockets of the people that are running the unions for this province. That's how they win an election. They go out and buy the votes from interest groups in the province and forget about the patients, who are the ones we're supposed to be providing the system for. We just had the member for Peace River North ask a question -- a very long question, I might say, but a very good one -- in question period today about the services in his riding and about the added dollars that have gone into his riding, spending -- what is it? -- $300,000 to build a garage to put an ambulance in, when it was at the fire hall two blocks away before.

So that's the problem: this government figures that all you do is throw money at the special groups, the friends of the government, and forget about measuring health care. Has this government started yet to measure the outcomes, to actually measure the impact they're having on patient care in this province? Are British Columbians getting healthier or are they getting sicker? Are they getting better service or are they getting worse service?

The reality is that virtually every added dollar this government has put into health care has gone into pay. It has gone into increased pay for the health care workers, because they were terrified during the last election that there was going to be a strike. So they bought them off in the second week, I think it was, of the election campaign.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister can't wait to get up in estimates. She's had three weeks to answer all this stuff. I'm just talking about this issue, and she can't wait to get up and answer questions. I suspect that with the enthusiasm of the Minister of Health, we could go at this for days and days. So when we hear the minister and the members opposite talk about the opposition, saying that the opposition is somehow asking the government to spend money on health care and on patient care, they're right; we are. We're asking them to spend the money they've got wisely, and to make sure that the money they invest is going into patient care and not into special deals to help the government get through an election campaign, only to find out after the campaign that all the promises and commitments that they made have fallen by the wayside because the Premier needs some more wriggle room.

The people of British Columbia are tired of having this government, this minister and, more importantly, that Premier tell them stories, only to find out after the fact that those stories they were being told weren't of the reality kind; they were of the fiction kind. People are tired of hearing that. They want to know. When they're asked by the critic where the dollars are going, where these supposed added dollars in health care are going. . . . Are they going to patient care, or are they going to buy off unions in time for an election campaign? I think we know the answer, but I can't wait to hear it from the minister.

[4:15]

But let's talk about what we mean by health care services. I still can't understand, in an industry where it is 80 percent labour-intensive, that somehow it's a building that delivers the service; or that it's this radiotherapy machine that somehow operates on its own; or that an operating room, as a building, gets operated on its own; or that someone who has to be served food each and every day or have the laundry done -- that somehow that isn't a valuable service, that somehow it doesn't contribute to the well-being of patients. But you know what? I personally value each and every one of those services offered by a laundry worker, by a dietary aide, by a health care worker, by a lab technologist or by a nurse. I value every single one of them.

Let's talk about how many people we have in the acute care health care system. Somehow, earlier on today, the health labour accord was being held up as this waste of money, this horrible waste to the system. And somehow, even though they got their facts entirely wrong about it -- because they had to go back to 1995, an estimates document, where the health labour accord had just been introduced -- they're now saying that because we use our services and we've moved our health care workers into the community as opposed to the acute care sector, that's paying off our labour friends and that that's bad.

Yes, there are 2,000 fewer FTEs in the acute care system. But you know what? Somehow that's used as a bad item by this opposition, and somehow that's a waste of money. But the health care system is changing. There are better health outcomes 

[ Page 3785 ]

in the system, and we've talked about those over the last three weeks. I feel badly that the hon. member hasn't had the time to pay attention to that, but those services are now in the community. What the health labour accord did was move it out of the acute care system and into the community services sector. Over the last five years, funding into the community services sector has increased by half a billion dollars. That's "b" for billion; that's $546 million. That's where our health care workers are working, and that's where they're improving the health outcomes of our population.

We have also put performance measures in place. It's the first time ever in North America, actually, where there will be performance measures for health outcomes. We've gone over those, as well, for the last three weeks -- in detail. But what I can't understand -- and, actually, I would appreciate an explanation -- is how, when we actually pay a decent wage to health care workers, when we actually train health care workers for the emerging issues in the health care system, and when we actually utilize our health care workers in a way that makes sense to the public, where they get their services in the community and not necessarily just in the acute care sector. . . . How is that somehow paying off union friends?

Is it that the opposition members object that health care workers have a collective bargaining process? Is it somehow that they object that there's a way we can make sure workers are treated fairly, that not only employers but workers also are held accountable for standards of performance, responsibilities and wages and benefits?

I'm serious about this. I do not understand the opposition's denigration of front-line health care workers. I do not understand how paying people a decent wage and at the same time making efficiency initiatives in the acute care sector is somehow paying off friends and insiders. I do hope that over the course of these estimates, which actually. . . . Never once have I ever said they're anything but valuable -- ever. Not once. I would actually appreciate the opposition's explanation of why they don't value front-line health care workers.

S. Hawkins: The minister continues with this putting of words into the opposition's mouth, when she knows that we do value front-line workers. The minister herself said earlier this afternoon that they had cut 2,700 FTEs. The member who was just up before me asked: "How many did you hire?" When hospitals are cutting back and cutting back beds, and you say that you're putting more into community care, but we know you're not because people are on waiting lists. . . . There are waiting lists in the community for extended care, for home care, and they keep saying that they're hiring all these people, and that they're out in the community and they're working. Where are they?

The minister gets the same letters I do. I know, because they come to her and they c.c. them to me. She gets the same stuff I do.

The minister says that she is putting money into health care, that this health labour accord, which we talked about before, actually saved money, when we know that their documents say the opposite. We don't know whether to believe. . . . Do you believe what the Premier says? Do you believe what the minister says? Do you believe what the official. . . ? Or do you believe none of them? They've never, never been able to give a straight answer.

A while ago she said that they were protecting health care, that they've got enough workers in the hospital and that they value health care workers. Then, a little while later, she says that they've reduced 2,700 FTEs. Well, which is it? Are you protecting the health care system and putting up front-line workers, or are you getting rid of them?

What we're saying is that you're getting rid of them. We had always said that we would add front-line workers, and she knows it. If she actually took the time to read, she would see that we were going to hire more nurses, because we do value front-line workers. We don't go out there trying to make special deals just to stay in power, which is what this government has a track record of doing. They know it. That's what the health labour accord and all the imposed agreements on health employers were about, and they know it. The truth hurts, doesn't it? The truth hurts because. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: The minister has to resort to that. That's just a case in point.

We were talking earlier about cancer clinics, and I want to get into wait-lists for cancer, because the minister is bragging about how much money they're putting into the cancer program.

I do want to say for the record, as well, that the minister said I was attacking front-line care workers and people at the B.C. Cancer Agency. I want to say very clearly that I've never done that. I communicate with those people, I get advice from those people, and I bring their concerns to the House -- unlike the minister. She doesn't even listen to what they're saying.

When the minister says they have a plan and the cancer agency has a plan, I have to remind her that they can only plan within the resources that they're given. Guess who provides them with resources. It's the Ministry of Health. So if the Ministry of Health doesn't give them enough resources, then they come up with the best available plan that they have. And we still haven't heard what the plan is in case cancer services at one clinic or the other are shut down for whatever reason.

In no way, shape or form am I attacking any of the caregivers or people that plan for cancer services at the cancer agency. Not at all. If this minister wants to say that, she can say that, but it's not the truth. We know they never speak the truth, so no one is going to believe that, anyway.

I was a cancer nurse for ten years, and I know that we plan with the resources we're given and with the best possible plan that we can, given those resources. When this minister says that they have a plan, I'll tell you it's within what this ministry is able to provide to them, which at this time -- I'm bringing their issues to the House; that's what I'm doing -- is not a heck of a lot. I don't know what plan they've come up with, but it's within what this ministry will provide to them, and what they're telling me is: it's not very good.

What I was told about the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre here is: "It's a scary situation." Those were the actual words. It's very scary. The waiting lists are long. Patients are now coming during extended hours. Those machines are overworked. I know we talked about that before. That's what's happening out there.

We talked about the funding. We talked about equipment and the lack of equipment, which the minister again says that they're going to address, as they've budgeted for it. Again, we'll see it if it happens.

[ Page 3786 ]

What I want to know about is the wait-lists. Hopefully, the numbers are up to date. I want to know the wait-lists for cancer by disease group and for each clinic. The minister says they're reducing the wait-lists and they're getting better. I want to know how many patients, in what disease groups, are waiting for their different types of treatment -- for prostate cancer, for breast cancer, for brain cancer. What are the numbers? Can we get some up-to-date numbers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The B.C. Cancer Agency keeps it by disease category. I'll ask the B.C. Cancer Agency to provide it to the hon. member. Victoria has a wait-list of about 135 people, Surrey has a wait-list of about 35 people, and Vancouver has a wait-list of about 200 people in total.

S. Hawkins: The wait-lists still seem to be rather long, considering that hours are extended. How long, on average -- and again, it will have to be by disease group; hopefully, I can get that information -- are these people waiting for treatment?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two waiting times that are kept track of: breast cancer and prostate cancer. The waiting times for breast cancer patients and. . . . I fully understand that any waiting time is tough on the family -- fully understand. But in terms of medical outcome, we are working toward a two-week waiting period. In the meantime, the B.C. Cancer Agency has managed to reduce the waiting time for breast cancer treatment to four weeks in Vancouver and eight weeks in Victoria. For prostate cancer waiting time is about eight weeks in Vancouver and about four months in Victoria.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister explain why they're waiting different times in different clinics?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The extra pressures were in Victoria because of the aging population. Part of the B.C. Cancer Agency plan that is in place is to shift the treatment for patients away from Victoria. Northern Vancouver Island patients are going to Vancouver, for instance, to take the pressure off the population- and age-driven pressures in the Victoria area. This is a part of the B.C. Cancer Agency's plan, which is working astonishingly effectively in reducing the wait times.

I must say that I fully understand, as a human being, that waiting any time is hard on a family. But I also know that in the context of waiting times, the B.C. Cancer Agency's plan. . . . I have heard this hon. member say over and over again that there is no plan. There is a very concerted plan, all of which has been documented publicly.

[4:30]

S. Hawkins: I certainly understand the suffering of those patients who have to wait. I understand that the minister's reason for patients having to wait longer than the ideal waiting period is lack of resources. There's an aging population; the clinic here cannot handle that load.

I want to know if the B.C. Cancer Agency came to the ministry and asked for resources and what specifically they asked for that would help alleviate these waiting times.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they came. I'll ask the hon. member to listen to this. The B.C. Cancer Agency did come forward and ask for resources, and we gave them every single thing they requested.

S. Hawkins: I'll ask the minister again: did they ask for new machines for the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre as soon as possible, because these machines are aging?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll repeat it. Every single thing that the B.C. Cancer Agency asked for, we delivered, including their request for new equipment and the timing of the request for that equipment.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the B.C. Cancer Agency is quite concerned about the wait-list, about population growth and about the increase in cancers because we do have an aging population. That's not going to change. People will continue to get sick; people will continue to need treatment. I understand that there have been negotiations around equipment at this clinic and that the Cancer Agency has asked for this clinic to be looked at for equipment. I'll ask the minister: when will this clinic be up and functional with the new equipment that she says her ministry is promising?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've answered this question before in estimates, and I'll answer it again. The clinic is a total replacement of the current operation. This current operation continues to function until the new, complete top-to-bottom replacement clinic is open by the year 2000.

S. Hawkins: The new clinic with new equipment is going to open in the year 2000. In the meantime the treatment machines continue to age. I'm told that the treatment machines are 13 or 14 years old. One, as I mentioned, broke down just a few weeks ago, and that was very scary for patients. Can the minister reassure patients on Vancouver Island that they will continue to get treatment here and that there is a backup plan on the Island for patients to get their treatment close to home if the machines break down?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a provincial radiation therapy committee of the B.C. Cancer Agency. They have developed a contingency plan to deal with a sudden, unexpected breakdown of equipment. They have a plan in place. The B.C. Cancer Agency also stated today that the physics staff at the Vancouver Island cancer clinic has been taking great care of radiotherapy machines and that a complete breakdown of these machines before the opening of the new clinic is not expected. They've estimated it as a very low risk. And you know what? These aren't the bureaucrats for which this opposition has so little respect. This is the B.C. Cancer Agency making this statement and reassuring the population of British Columbia.

S. Hawkins: Well, it's nice to hear that the minister is able to read something like that. That's what we were asking: is there a backup plan? Obviously, there is some kind of a plan, but the machines are going to continue to age. They can be looked after; they can be cared for; there can be maintenance and all that kind of thing. One day they're just going to conk out. That happens. They just go. It appears to me that there is no budget for new machines until the new clinic opens in the year 2000.

What I understand from the planning around this clinic is that a lot of money went into planning and that the clinic was 

[ Page 3787 ]

actually going to be expanded on the site where it is right now. But due to the growth in the population, the aging and the treatment requirements needed for patients at this clinic, they're now looking at a new site and a brand-new building. So that's more planning dollars.

This government. . . . I don't know how many times this clinic was announced -- a new photo op every time. I don't know how many ministers announced it -- perhaps a new photo op for this minister, too. Maybe it's three or four times that this clinic has been announced. I mean, lots and lots of money goes into planning. At a time when health care dollars are so scarce, we have a minister sitting here telling us that now we're going to plan for a new clinic on a new site. This is not a new government. This is a government that has been in power for six years. And six years later, we still don't have a plan for a new clinic on Vancouver Island. We know that the waiting lists are growing, that there are patients suffering and that they're asking questions -- they write to us. The Cancer Agency has discussions with us, as well, and I know for a fact that they're worried. I just spoke to a spokesperson last week. The minister can read all she wants off a piece of paper that comes from the agency, but perhaps the government should realize that sometimes they only get what they like to hear, too.

Again, the contingency plan is only as good as the resources that this government is willing to put into it. I put it to you that you're not willing to put in a lot. They may have got everything they asked for, but probably within the means that you extended to them. So I want to ask the minister: how much in planning dollars is this clinic on the new site going to cost, over and above what's been done already for planning this clinic on Vancouver Island?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, again we're shifting to capital. Because there's no order to these estimates, they'll have to wait for the answer. I'll get that for them.

C. Hansen: Several months ago I wrote to the minister regarding a constituent of mine who was on a two-month wait-list to have breast biopsy surgery performed. Needless to say, she was extremely distraught. Her physician felt that she was high risk and that the surgery was important. I want to quote from the minister's reply to this constituent, which she signed:

"In British Columbia the priority of treatment is determined by the physician providing care and the options available to them to refer to other specialists with shorter waiting lists and waiting times. The priority is based on their assessment of the mammogram results and the medical needs of the patient. If you require further clarification as to the urgency of your case, I suggest you contact [your doctor. Your doctor] could also refer you to another surgeon who has a shorter waiting list."

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, certainly I have no idea of the letter to which this hon. member refers, and I know that he doesn't want to raise the name of the patient in the House, as well. So I would be more than happy to answer his question outside the House, after I've had a chance to see the correspondence that was received.

But let me just say this. I have to speak very personally about this right now. When I was assigned what I thought was an honour, the portfolio of Health, I didn't come to it with the idea that somehow we were going to use individual victims of an unhealthy population in a political way. I didn't come to it suggesting in some way that our government was going to prioritize on the basis of some political need of our own about how we make people healthy and how we cure illness. And I've sat here day after day hearing from the opposition that somehow we use the illnesses and the misfortunes of patients in a way that is politically motivated.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for patients -- maybe the hon. member would actually like to listen to my answer -- and families who have to cope with illness. I also have nothing but the utmost respect for physicians in the way that they treat patients. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the way physicians use our available health care resources to have the best possible health outcomes.

I also know that there are failings in the system with how patients are referred and how patients get treated and how patients and doctors choose who they want best to perform their surgeries. That's fair enough. What we are doing in our health care system is making sure that the physicians use the resources available amongst themselves, and we are working with the physicians each and every day to do that. What we're doing is putting money on the front line to reduce the waiting times for people who have to get surgery, and we're doing that. The opposition stands up and says that the wait-lists are increasing, and the fact of the matter is that they aren't. They're simply not increasing; they're decreasing.

But I must tell you that it is extremely disturbing for any opposition member to get up here and make a personal accusation -- with his lip curling -- about me, as the minister, in some way abusing the services that the health care system offers. That is politically motivated. I would be more than happy, in the proper outside forum -- unless the member wishes to reveal this on behalf of his constituent, which I'm sure he doesn't -- to discuss the contents of the letter that I sent to the patient.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I listened with interest to the minister's comments about using individual cases in this House. First of all, I want to say that I worked in health care as a front-line worker for over ten years -- almost a dozen years -- looking after patients. And when I think back about working in the health care system as a front-line worker, and I think of how decisions were made -- for patients and for resources, how we used them, what we could ask for and what we couldn't, and how we set our budgets -- I never thought I'd be standing here in this House and debating this kind of issue.

You know, I've learned a lot in the year that I've been here. I've come to respect that what we do here really does affect people out there in a very real way -- real people and real individuals -- and this government doesn't seem to understand that. Every day I come here thinking that what we do here, legislation we pass, estimates questions we raise. . . . Issues we raise here do affect people in a real way. We have patients and we have constituents writing to us and asking us to raise these issues in the House.

[4:45]

[ Page 3788 ]

says it's despicable. Well that's despicable, because every decision this minister makes, every penny that her ministry spends, affects people in a real way. We know waiting lists are increasing. That's not a lie; that's the truth. The truth hurts and they don't like hearing it. But we know that waiting lists have been increasing every year that we have been here.

What I ask for is the minister's list, because I'll go back and compare it with what the clinics actually give me. Hopefully, they're the same. But you know what? They haven't always been. Numbers are very easy to manipulate, and it seems the government is getting very good at doing that.

When this member raises an issue and asks the minister for an explanation of why the waiting lists for a biopsy for a breast cancer patient is so long and why that answer is given. . . . That is something we're raising in Health estimates on behalf of that constituent, and I think it's a very fair question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You do? All right. Sit down and I'll answer it.

S. Hawkins: Okay, I'll ask the minister to answer it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Dealing with individual cases in the Legislature is what I think. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Patients for donors? I see. They would object to the fact that parents came forward on behalf of the transplant society and suggested that that be appropriate.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll answer the hon. member's question if she'd like to give me. . . . What's the date of the letter? Just give me the date of the letter.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. minister, I wonder if you'd take your seat for just a minute.

Hon. members on all sides, please. A lot of latitude has been allowed today -- a lot of latitude. Events outside this building have somehow had some effect on all of us. I would like to suggest that we leave those outside and focus on vote 40. The question has been asked; the minister wishes to answer. Let us have some order here, hon. members.

C. Hansen: I'd like to go back and restate my original question. I was not raising a specific case. I was using this example of the wording that the minister is using in the letters she is sending out to individuals around this province. My understanding is that the quote I read from this particular letter is similar to the quotes in other letters that go out.

My question to the minister -- which I will repeat -- is: before she sends a letter to an individual who is anxious about wait-lists, and before she implies in that letter that it is somehow the doctor's fault for not referring to a physician that has a shorter wait-list, does she check, before she passes that blame on to the physician, that there are in fact doctors in this field who have shorter wait-lists? Or does she send letters out with this type of wording to imply that this isn't the minister's or the ministry's fault, that somehow this is the fault of the doctors who are not referring patients to other doctors with shorter wait-lists? I'm asking whether or not those facts are checked.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Of course they are. The fact exists -- and it's not unique to our province; this happens across the country -- that physicians, for whatever reason, most of them admirable and probably valuable, refer in a certain pattern. In fact, the hon. member refers to a case where the doctor had one of the longest wait-lists in the province. Of course we check; of course we do. The fact is that we are working with physicians now, through an expert committee, to develop a protocol. In fact, we're well on the way. It will be the first time ever where physicians develop a protocol among themselves for referral patterns of doctors, some of whom have shorter wait-lists.

But at the end of the day, it's the call of the physician. We know that. Every day this opposition stands up and accuses us of making political decisions that are really medical decisions. We know that that's a medical decision. But we also know we can assist the practice by using our available resources in the development of protocols among physicians, so that patients are given the option -- only an option -- of being referred to a physician with a shorter wait-list, to alleviate some of that anxiety and some of that concern. That's all. I think that's valuable advice we give to patients. That is our job here.

For this hon. member to somehow stand up and say that's to abscond from blame. . . . You know what? I say it's exactly the opposite. We've giving the patients the most information possible to allow them to make their choices -- the full range of choices -- so that they get the best health care. But you know what? At the end of the day, I know it's still the patient's right -- and the physician's right -- to proceed to get the services they want from whomever they want.

C. Hansen: I spoke to this doctor after the patient received the letter. Nobody from the minister's office spoke to that doctor; nobody from the ministry spoke to that doctor before this statement was put in this letter. The minister said that they checked and that this physician has one of the longest wait-lists.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: How do you determine that? In this particular field of medicine, it so happens that this doctor has one of the shortest wait-lists. I would like to ask the minister, then, when she says, "Of course they check. . . ." Could the minister please tell me how they check?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a registry kept for the physicians in the hospitals in which they work.

C. Hansen: I guess the point that I would like to make to the minister is that in this particular field of medicine, it's not a question of whether you look at all the surgeons in the whole province and say: "What's the average wait-list that all these surgeons have?" Surgeons have specialties. This particular surgeon has a specialty in terms of breast biopsy. In that particular field, I am told that this physician has the shortest wait-list in Vancouver. My question is: are you looking at the average wait-list for the entire province for all surgeons, or are you looking at the field of specialization?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The lists are kept specialty-specific, surgeon-specific, hospital-specific, region-specific.

[ Page 3789 ]

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell me: would it be a normal practice before they send out a letter like this to consult the actual physician?

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a practice kept by the ministry, and I would be more than happy for the hon. member to talk to the staff person directly about it. There is a practice, and it is a practice that varies according to patient wishes, the letter written and the information required. But I would be more than happy for the hon. member to have a full briefing on that instead of raising a specific situation.

C. Hansen: I guess the whole point I'm trying to make is that I'm using a specific example of a problem that is much bigger. I have talked to many people who have received similar letters that imply that somehow they should go back to their doctor. And I am saying -- I'm making this suggestion to the minister -- that before they send those kinds of letters to patients who are on a wait-list, who are anxious about their own personal situation, they should check with the physician involved to make sure they are not raising false expectations on the part of patients who are in very serious and very anxious situations themselves. I'm wondering if the minister would adopt that as a policy in her office before she signs these letters.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I appreciate the hon. member's advice, but I would just advise him that these situations are handled in a very sensitive fashion. I have received numerous requests from opposition members to investigate individual situations, and I always -- always -- refer them to the ministry staff so that there is no interference from my office. I always do. I have nothing but the utmost confidence in the Ministry of Health staff in this area to handle it in a sensitive way, in a way that meets the needs of the physician, the hospital in which the physician has privileges, and the patient. It's a sensitive balance, and -- you're right -- we get many, many letters of request. I have absolutely full confidence that in a very complex system, these matters are handled in a sensitive way.

C. Hansen: If I can change the tone for a minute, there's another reference in this letter that the minister sent to the provincial breast assessment and diagnostic partnership pilot program. In the phoning and in the research I did on this, I heard nothing but praise for this particular program. So I would like to pass that feedback on to the minister and to the ministry.

My question in this area is: given the initial success that this program has had, is there a possibility that this program will now be expanded? My understanding is that it is extremely limited and that there are only two or three patients a week that can be dealt with under the pilot program. Is there a possibility that we can move ahead to other centres and to broader availability?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The breast assessment and diagnostic partnership program, which began operating in 1996, is a pilot project, and we are assessing it. To date, the program has been very successful from a human point of view as well as from a medical point of view, and at the completion of the pilot an evaluation will be done. Future funding is contingent upon that evaluation. To date, kudos have been coming from all around.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[5:00]

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

Hon. C. Evans: I rise to move second reading of the bill. This bill amends a number of statutes administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Brands. The majority of the bill concerns three livestock statutes: the Animal Disease Control Act, the Livestock Brand Act and the Livestock Public Sale Act. It makes amendments to the Animal Disease Control Act and the Livestock Brand Act, and repeals the Livestock Public Sale Act.

Last year my ministry reviewed all of its programs to see how more efficient use could be made of our resources. It was decided that some services that government provides to the livestock industry could actually be delivered by the industry itself. We identified the livestock brand program as one which industry could take over from government and run efficiently and effectively.

The livestock brand program does two important things. It keeps an up-to-date registry of brands to determine ownership, and it undertakes an inspection system to track the movement of livestock to deter theft. Government has provided the livestock brand program to the livestock industry for many years. However, times have changed since the program was set up. Government no longer has the resources to be able to continue to do everything that it's always done, nor should it. The industry has changed, too. It doesn't need government to continue to do things that it can actually do for itself.

This bill will authorize government to empower the livestock industry organizations to deliver brand registry and inspection programs directly to their members. The livestock brand program costs taxpayers approximately $600,000 per year to operate. Some of that cost is recovered through fees charged to ranchers for brand registrations and inspections.

However, budget savings isn't the only thing that this bill is intended to accomplish. It will also support the ministry's and government's longstanding policy objective of industry self-sufficiency. We are encouraging the agriculture industry to take a greater responsibility for industry matters generally, and particularly for matters of special benefit to the industry. The staff of my ministry have worked with representatives of the livestock industry on this initiative and will continue to work with the industry to ensure a smooth transition of these programs.

[ Page 3790 ]

Licensing of sales facilities and agents and hide dealers is being shifted to the Animal Disease Control Act. This will ensure that information about animal movements is available to track animals and to take action in instances of disease outbreak. This information will also support an industry-operated brand inspection program.

Municipal Act amendments. The bill also amends sections 918 and 919 of the Municipal Act. These provisions were added to the Municipal Act in 1995 by the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. Sections 918 and 919 of the act establish a three-year review process for local government zoning and land use bylaws protecting agriculture.

One of the issues that has come up as my ministry has been preparing to implement the Farm Practices Protection Act is how to conduct this three-year review process in the most effective way possible. At the moment, the review process can only be triggered on a regional district-wide basis as soon as the act is brought into force.

These amendments will give government more flexibility in how the process is brought into force, to ensure that the process can be done in the most efficient and effective manner possible, and make best use of both provincial government and local government resources. In addition, the amendments will enable local governments to access the new farm bylaw powers of the Farm Practices Protection Act without first having to review all bylaws affecting farming as required by the current wording.

My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for using the word "access" as a verb; I never would have done it had it not been written here.

B.C. Marketing Board and Farm Practices Board. Finally, this bill makes a number of technical housekeeping amendments to the Natural Products Marketing Act and the Farm Practices Protection Act. At the moment, both acts restrict the ability of the boards to conduct their appeal functions as efficiently as possible by requiring the boards to perform certain operations, through either the full board or a panel of the board. The amendments will give the boards greater flexibility in their operations by allowing them to operate through smaller units. Where the full board used to be required for certain operations, now a panel of the board will be authorized to act; and where a panel was required, the chair will be authorized to act. The boards will not have to operate through the smaller units if they don't think it's appropriate in a particular case, but now they will at least have the option.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to respond today to the minister's presentation in second reading of Bill 11, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. I must say that the minister's soft speaking style today has sharpened up my hearing, but I think I caught most of what he said.

I think this bill deals with four major areas, as the minister has said, the major one being the withdrawal by the province from the brands inspection program and, at the same time, the establishment of a new legislative framework for an industry-operated livestock identification system.

The second area deals with changes relating to getting more flexibility in the management and administration of complaints and appeals by the Farm Practices Board. Those are fairly straightforward. I certainly don't have any problem with that area.

Third, the bill deals with amendments to the Municipal Act to allow a more gradual implementation of the right-to-farm legislation passed a few years ago. Finally, again, there are some housekeeping amendments to provide a little more flexibility and practicality in dealing with appeals under the Natural Products Marketing Act.

So those are the four areas; two of those areas are housekeeping areas. I do want to spend a few minutes talking about the other two areas.

First of all, brands inspection. This is a fairly major initiative for the Ministry of Agriculture to undertake; that is, the decision made as part of the budget considerations last November, 1996, to get out of brands inspection. There's been a lot of discussion, as the minister has said, with the beef cattle industry and some of the other players in the dairy industry and in the horse sector -- a lot of discussion, both by the ministry staff and ourselves.

I think it's fair to say that the ministry and the minister have done a reasonable job of consultation with the industry. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association and other parties hired a consultant to do a study and develop a plan for the stakeholders to operate their own livestock identification system. Certainly in the discussions and the reports that we had recently at the annual general meeting of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, there was good discussion there of the consultant's report. I think that report actually set out some potential opportunities down the road that may not have existed under a government-run system. I understand that the executive of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association did meet with the minister after their annual general meeting, and that they were satisfied with his responses to their requests in terms of some of the details in the government's decision to get out of the brands inspection system.

I want to say that I'm supportive of the general approach taken in this bill, which sets up a legislative framework for the industry running their own livestock identification system. I think that having some continuing involvement by the minister in terms of authorizing a livestock industry body to run the system, and having inspectors appointed who are authorized to inspect and monitor the movement of cattle under the minister's jurisdiction. . . . I support the way that is designed in the legislation.

Also, I think it's very good that there's a review mechanism to deal with complaints with respect to the performance of inspectors. Some of that will be up to the industry to establish under the legislation, but I think it's good that it's in there.

The original motivation for this decision was to save money. It's interesting that while it will save 14 FTEs, or thereabouts, the savings will not be as great as might have been reflected in those numbers in that there is a significant amount of revenue already being generated from user fees that will now go into the privatized system. So the dollar savings will not be as great.

I think it's fair to say that a great deal of time and energy has gone into making this change, but not for a huge net saving to government. I mention that because when I look across the range of government activities, particularly government cost-cutting activities throughout all of government, I think some of the savings that are being generated with a great deal of management time and effort in a ministry like Agriculture are pretty minuscule. There are other areas that I think would be much more cost-effective in terms of actually cutting overall costs of government.

I want to express a concern about the establishment of regulated areas. There is a concern which has been expressed 

[ Page 3791 ]

by way of a letter to the minister -- which I haven't, at this point, had an opportunity to follow up with the minister -- from the lower mainland, the Fraser Valley. It expresses concern about the establishment of a regulated area in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. I simply want to put that concern on the record and indicate that I hope we can work that out. I presume that the minister is already working on that issue.

Finally, the other area that I want to make a few comments on is section 22, which deals with amendments to the Municipal Act. This will allow the minister and the ministry flexibility with respect to farm bylaws and bylaws of local governments that need to be reviewed from the right-to-farm perspective.

As the minister said, when that legislation was passed originally, it was contemplated that it would be implemented across the province. As I understand it, staffing requirements to implement that all at once would create some difficulties for the ministry, hence the amendments being proposed in this bill to allow the ministry to implement the right-to-farm legislation -- at least, the bylaw review part of it -- on a more gradual basis.

[5:15]

I think it's critical that the minister gets on top of that situation and tries to get us back to a situation where we do have similarity in the bylaws throughout areas like the lower mainland and throughout British Columbia. We cannot afford to have a piecemeal situation where we've got all kinds of different impacts and bylaws for farm construction and farm operations every time you go over a municipal boundary. From that perspective, I'm pleased.

I also want to mention specifically that I had some real concerns, probably a year ago now, when the mushroom composting issue became a very major public issue in the lower mainland. I think it's fair to say -- and certainly I want to put it on the record -- that I feel that the Ministry of Agriculture misjudged the public reaction and the potential public reaction to the issue of mushroom composting. I simply want to say that to put it on the record. I have a lot of respect for the people working for the ministry, but I want to put that on the record because I think that's the way it is and the way it was.

We currently have in the municipality of Delta and particularly Langley and Abbotsford a lot of activity involving bylaw issues. Langley, for example, has hired a facilitator -- a former municipal employee of some stature, I'm told -- to review all their bylaws. There are a lot of farm applications in terms of new construction that are open to question right now because of the various events that have been triggered in that municipality by the mushroom composting issue. Similarly, Abbotsford together with ministry staff and public citizens who have a concern about composting issues have a committee in operation that is reviewing all the issues surrounding mushroom composting.

I guess I would have felt a bit better if there had been a little more leadership from the ministry on these committees. I know that the staff is working with them, and I'm confident that we're going to make progress on it. But if we're going to succeed in achieving the goal of having some standardization of farm bylaws, then I think it's going to be important that the ministry staff and the minister continue to lead in this whole area.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to indicate my support for this bill and to continue to work with the minister, with his staff and with farmers to ensure that we get maximum value for ministry dollars and the best possible results for the public and for farmers as a result of this bill.

T. Stevenson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Stevenson: I have two introductions. One is for 20 grade 6 students and adults who have come from D.G. Wolfle School in Kingston, Washington, with their teacher Mr. Seffinger. They are somewhere in the Legislature. They were due to be here at 5 o'clock but possibly aren't here yet. They wanted to be recorded in Hansard. I'd also like to introduce Marshall Smith, who is with the corrections branch. He has come to visit today and is in the gallery. Would all members make them welcome.

J. Wilson: I would like to say a few words on Bill 11. I must say that I'm going to have to support this bill, under a bit of duress. I'm not happy with it, but the situation that the ministry has placed this industry in is not good, and without this bill being in place they could be -- or the possibility exists that they could be -- put in jeopardy within the coming year.

Having said that, there are some things in here that I am not happy with. At a time when the industry has never had more stress or problems financially, with the downturn in the market, it was a rather heavy blow when the Minister of Agriculture, whom they have come to count on over the years, pulled the funding for brand inspection and laid it on their shoulders. Now, that means costs go up. It will have to become a cost-recovery program; it was partial cost-recovery before. I believe that rather than 50 cents a unit for brand inspection, we're now probably looking at something like $1.30 -- which is a considerable increase at a time when we can least afford it.

I guess my colleague has not had a lot of harsh words to say about this bill, and I won't either, except that. . . . There's been some complaining and some grumbling coming from the industry, of course. You'd expect that. But really, what's happening is that they have been forced for the last five years to do so much for so long with so little that today they feel they can do anything with nothing. This is one of the reasons there hasn't been a lot of complaining or dissension, and they've been working with the ministry. Being that there are a great many optimists in this business of agriculture, they have taken it upon themselves to try and do a job that will work and that will be satisfactory, even though it is an added burden.

There are some parts to this bill that I personally do not agree with. We'll look at section 14. It allows the minister to appoint inspectors who need not be public service employees but who remain accountable to the minister even if they are employed by other organizations. Now, if I am running an organization or am in charge of it, I would like to have some say as to who my employees are -- whether they are qualified, whether they have had proper training. What the minister should have done here, in my mind, is set the standards 

[ Page 3792 ]

and the rules that anyone applying for this job would have to meet. There are educational requirements; there's certain training, certain courses, that they may have to take to qualify for the job. If applicants come to the organization that is in charge of brand inspection, it should be up to them to pick the applicants that they feel would do the best job for the organization. But this leaves the door open, and as we've seen so many times with this government. . . . They have put people in positions of authority in Crown corporations that really do not have the proper qualifications. That's exactly what's happening here, and unless we have something to go by -- some ground rules, some educational standards -- the potential exists for the same thing to happen.

It is an enforcement agency. Even though the RCMP have the ability to go out and do the same job, they are running into problems around the province with manpower in this respect. In the past, the brands department has worked hand in hand with the RCMP to see that the job is done. It has been a combined effort. In certain areas, there may be the loss of this enforcement, and that will mean that it will fall on the shoulders of the RCMP to do any enforcement work out there. At present there is one RCMP officer in the province who has the job of going around and training detachment members as to how to approach enforcement in this area. It is totally inadequate. Without enforcement from the brands department, we are looking at some problems. To my knowledge, this has not been addressed yet, and it's something that desperately needs to be ironed out before this agreement comes into effect.

Under "Complaints," in the new section 4.1, we have a body floating around. It doesn't identify the body or how it is going to be identified. It just says that we have a body that we're referred to if we have a complaint. It's not really specific enough.

On the issue of provisions, through categories of livestock or brands or identification of brands. . . . If you allow various categories of brands or identification brands to exist within the province, it leaves the door open for a lot of confusion to arise. It should be one set of rules that cover brands -- whether they be in the north, the interior, the lower mainland or on the Island. There should be no variations, because stuff has a habit of moving around, and people learn what the rules are in the area they live in but they don't bother to take the time to understand what exists in other areas, and you can't really expect them to. They're too busy trying to make a living out there and exist, without having to dig into the archives and come up with all the legislation that they need to understand this. So it should be one set of rules that is provincewide.

There is one point in here. . . . And I must say that the ministry did have the ability to recognize it. It's something that's been an ongoing concern for a number of years. When livestock is detained awaiting inspection -- because the inspector doesn't feel like getting out there at the designated time, he may show up a few hours later -- it puts the truck driver and his load to a lot of inconvenience. He may have to unload cattle or hogs or whatever, then feed, water and take care of them. Up until now, the cost has been carried by the shipper or the trucker. I see here that they've made an allowance to compensate for any expenses incurred during the transportation of livestock by the organization that is taking over the brand inspection. Now, this is a step in the right direction. It's too bad that this government didn't enforce that while they were in charge of the brand inspection for the last few years. I can't think of one instance where they have paid compensation to a shipper when one of their employees didn't show up at the designated time.

With that, hon. Speaker, I say again that I will support this bill. Even though I am not happy with it, it is necessary. We must get on with our lives and make the best of it.

[5:30]

Mushroom composting is important, as well, and it provides a significant amount of economic development in the province. As the minister knows, one of the difficulties in my riding -- more to the point, it's in Surrey, in the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's riding -- is Money's Mushrooms composting, which has caused a significant amount of grief for my community. I'm hopeful that the minister is going to find a way for us deal with this, and I'm hopeful that perhaps this is part of that. But again, I want to talk to the minister about that in more detail during third reading.

What our residents are concerned about are property values, groundwater contamination, traffic and air quality, and also health issues. There was a report done by the Boundary health unit about the Money's Mushrooms composting plant that showed that people have significant concerns around health. We don't want to see those kinds of problems develop in the municipality of Langley or in the city, for that matter. So what the township has done is place a temporary moratorium on mushroom composting. They are in the process now, as the member for Abbotsford has said, of holding some public hearings into trying to find ways to amend our official community plan and zoning bylaws, to look at possibly designating development permit areas to protect the environment, farming and residential people.

I simply want to say that this is a huge concern to residents of Langley, both in the township that is dealing with mushroom composting facilities and to the residents of Langley city who are enduring the dreadful smell from Money's Mushrooms composting in Surrey. And I want to say that before we really look at expanding opportunities for this kind of farming endeavour, I think we have to put in place the strict environmental standards that are necessary, that are required, for individuals who are conducting this type of farming operation.

There are a number of studies and examples available around the world of high technology being used to make sure that mushroom composting does not disrupt residential users around farms and to make sure that farming smells are not any more difficult than what they need to be. Plus, health is always an issue, particularly around chemicals that are used for various farming practices.

So I simply want to say that section 22 is something that I want to explore more fully with the minister in third reading 

[ Page 3793 ]

and find out exactly how our particular community can be protected from excessive smells and odours and health risks and so that our municipality has the ability to make bylaws that are in the best interests of the citizens of Langley.

D. Symons: There are just a few questions, really, in a sense, that I'd like to ask, although I am speaking to second reading. There are things that I raised during the passage of Bill 4, I think it was -- the SPCA amendment act a few years back. Some of the concerns I raised at that time dealt with the welfare of animals and the transportation of them, particularly on their way to slaughterhouses. I was hoping that maybe somewhere within this amendment act, there would be something that would bring those issues in, but I don't see it here. I'm basically just giving the minister a heads-up and asking if maybe section 20 of the Animal Disease Control Act would cover an animal that is I think referred to as a downer. Would they be covered in that?

I think this is something that should be brought in somewhere in provincial legislation. I don't believe the federal acts really cover the issue of animals that much. Supposedly there are rules there, but they seem to be neglected more than they are enforced. So I am just trying to bring that issue up at this time and ask whether those particular things will be covered within the act and the amendments that you're making. If I'm unduly concerned on this issue, because it is covered there, I'd ask the minister to maybe meet me after and point that out to me. It's something that I think should be covered, and I'm curious whether it is here -- the treatment of animals.

I know we end up slaughtering them and using them for food, but to the point where they are slaughtered, I think there should be some degree of treatment of those animals in a humane way. I gather that some of the trucking practices leave something to be desired in many cases, and there doesn't seem to be an authority that takes responsibility for seeing that there is some degree of regulation and enforcement of those regulations, to see that animals receive adequate food and water while they're in transport, that they aren't overly crowded, or down or frozen to the sides of the trucks in winter -- that these particular treatments aren't done. Does the act cover it in any way?

G. Wilson: I want to limit my comments in second reading strictly to section 22. I think that much of what we've seen in the first part of this bill, with the exception possibly of the need for licensing -- which obviously adds some costs and has been referred to already by another member -- is somewhat housekeeping. But section 22 speaks to the introduction of a regulation and the use of regulation with respect to its impact or effect on local government and the land use bylaw.

As a matter of public policy and as to how we as legislators have to try to decide where the lines are drawn between provincial authority and municipal authority, I think it does bear comment to look at the introduction of regulation in terms of application for a trigger mechanism to have local bylaws reviewed or changed. In some cases, there may even be a requirement for amendment or change.

I think the issue around mushroom composting that's already been raised by the member for Langley is well documented and well known, and I think that many people are very concerned about what happens when you have urban development or suburban development occurring in areas that have traditionally been farm areas. That's why, in the right-to-farm legislation, when it was brought in, there were some reasonable protections put in place with respect to legitimate farming interests. The difficulty with it is that we are finding, through the introduction of local land use bylaws now, greater and greater restrictions and greater changes occurring, as I think the member for Abbotsford alluded to, from municipality to municipality. As a result, the opportunity for farmers to have some level of consistency becomes more complicated and more difficult.

Where I take issue with what the government is proposing here -- and I think perhaps in committee stage we'll have a chance to explore this in a little more detail -- is the extent of the three-year review process, which it suggests has to occur after a regulation commences to apply to the board. It's interesting that when you look at the regional district or local trust and at the application and the interpretation of when that application may take place, we may find ourselves, through this provision, in a situation to compound the problem that we have within the local jurisdictions rather than to try to improve it.

I'm concerned about the way the language reads in this section, because what I think we're attempting to accomplish -- and I think most people in this House can agree -- is that we want to have some level of consistency and fairness in the application of regulations and/or law, whether it's through a local bylaw or through legislation, that provides reasonable protection for farmers who have a legitimate farming enterprise when they're surrounded by increased urbanization and residential development.

There is a strong issue to be made here, I think. As we start to look at various changes to farming technique, at the way we are starting to amend or change the process of farming and at how we proceed with farming, there is some issue to be made here on the need to have provincial regulation that will bind local government, to a degree, with respect to its ability to provide, through local land use zoning, non-conformity to existing operating farms. Now, that's kind of tough language for me. Having come out of local government, the last thing I would want to see is a precedent that sets the opportunity for this level of government to come down and constrain local government with respect to land use zoning.

But what happens when you get a relatively small turnout at a municipal election and/or you get a block of people who run for office on a development-funded slate, and they're elected into office with a single purpose -- to entertain rezoning at the local level that will render non-conforming the existing farming opportunities, so that they have an opportunity to expand their development interests? And that happens. In fact, we know that happens because it has happened even recently -- within the last 18 months or so -- after the last round of municipal elections. There's some concern about it. At that point, I think farmers have to have some provision for protection.

It may be argued that their protection falls within the definition of the agricultural land reserve and that therefore -- because we have the broader Agricultural Land Commission, which sets out and identifies farmland and therefore prevents that kind of incursion occurring on farmland -- that's the protection farmers need. I don't think that's true, because not all agriculture and agricultural farming technology we see today is taking place on agricultural land. In fact, much of what we're seeing -- in terms of the movement toward hothouse, greenhouse, mushroom culture and other kinds of farming endeavours -- is starting to take place on what might be considered marginal farmlands or lands that have not necessarily been suited to falling within the reserve. As a result, we find that through local land use bylaw changes, farmers will find themselves in a non-conforming use, and 

[ Page 3794 ]

that makes their operation impossible. You can't get bank funding, you can't get insurance, and you can't get all kinds of things you need.

The notion that we're now going to move to a regulation by which the three-year review of bylaws affecting farming areas is going to be triggered in terms of how that application is made is a dangerous one to look at, unless there are some pretty strict measures by which those regulations (a) can be introduced and (b) can apply. What we have to spend some time talking about in committee stage on this section is what level of protection we can find with respect to legitimate farming interests, if those regulations are introduced by a government opposite that is perhaps less keen on farming than maybe this one is. I mean, it's a rare opportunity that we speak about farming in this chamber anyway, and I'm delighted to have an opportunity to do it. I think it's a very, very important part of our economy. It's an important part of our whole social and cultural evolution as a nation -- the whole notion of farming -- and it's important.

[5:45]

With those comments, I look forward to the committee stage on this section and on this bill generally. I'm delighted to see that we are moving toward some amendments to the agricultural industry that will help British Columbia farmers succeed.

Hon. C. Evans: I think I actually have only one comment: thanks, everybody, for participating.

If somebody refers to you as a sympathetic minister, does that mean that once again, for the first time since Social Credit, we're operating under sympathetic administration? Is that the implication?

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Oh, that's good. I appreciate that.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Evans: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:48 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
(continued)

R. Coleman: Good afternoon. I hope everybody had a good weekend. Of course, we all pored over the Hansards all weekend to see if there were any questions we might have missed last week, wanting to create a whole new series of questions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Even I don't think you had that dull of a weekend.

R. Coleman: You can bet that I didn't have that dull of a weekend.

I wanted to move on from where we were last week when we finished up with the strategic plan. I just wanted to finish commenting on the strategic plan. As I said last week, I believe planning is important. I think the commission's strategic plan is heading in the right direction, and I think I pretty well canvassed any concerns. I don't think there's any point in beating it to death this afternoon.

I'd like to move on to a concern that was brought to me, and I'd like to know some of the background behind it for the purposes of some discussion. There was a cut that was made with regard to the housing registry which was. . . . Basically, there was a report done by the company Western Management, commissioned by BCHMC, about the registry and its relocating services. The first comment I got in one of the letters was that that wasn't read before the decision was made to shut down the registry. The housing registry was run by the YWCA Vancouver Housing Registry -- Downtown Eastside Residents Association, I believe. Could I just get some background on the shutting down of that registry, please?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That was under the CHI program, which was to provide grants to agencies and groups doing things in the housing sector, particularly around such things as housing registries. The particular registry that the hon. member talked about. . . . Their grant expired at the end of May this year, I think. We informed them earlier on that we were not sure of exactly how much money would be available for the coming year, at which time they made the decision to 

[ Page 3795 ]

shut down in May. When we got our allocation for this year, we approached them to see if they were interested in continuing. In fact, we were informed that they were not.

[2:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of points I'd like to make. The first is that in terms of the report itself, it basically said that the registries were doing a good job and were meeting their objectives. In terms of why they closed, we did inform the agencies that there would be a budget cut to the CHI program. The CHI programm looked at funding on a year-to-year basis. When the YWCA was informed there was a cut to the CHI budget and we couldn't guarantee funding for the coming year -- that they had funding until the end of May -- they made the decision at that time to close down. When we made our allocations for the coming year and asked if they would be interested, they said no. So what has happened is that the work that was being done by them has been picked up by other registries.

R. Coleman: Could you maybe tell me what other registries are providing this service? The information I have is that. . . I think the ones that I found the most interesting, as far as the people they serviced, were the services to first nations in the urban registry and to illiterate or dyslexic people -- to people who have been released from hospital and that sort of thing -- the people who are probably somewhat disenfranchised in the downtown east side of Vancouver. I'm just wondering which services have filled the gap in the downtown east side that was obviously left behind by this agency.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of agencies: DERA has an agency that does a lot of the work in terms of housing registry; there's the Options housing registry based in Surrey; there's a seniors registry based in Burnaby; and there's another one that, I think -- I'm trying to remember -- is called the greater Vancouver housing registry, and it's based in New Westminster. I may be wrong on the name, but it's based in New Westminster.

R. Coleman: So is DERA receiving a CHI grant at this point in time to provide relocating services in the downtown east side similar to what this agency was providing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Their grant is just finished, and they will be invited along with all the other agencies to come in and renew for the coming year.

R. Coleman: As I go through this with these different tracking agencies -- there's the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, there's the Downtown Eastside Residents Association and there's the YW/YMCA. . . . These different people seem to have tracking on housing, and they're tracking everything in Vancouver from listings of affordable market housing which has been screened for safety, right through other uses such as phones, newspapers, pens, papers, referrals to interpretation services -- that sort of thing. It would seem to me that there are a number of agencies providing services to the same clientele.

At the same time, we were talking earlier about our own screening processes and computerization -- setting up the controls where we control our own housing stock and are able to track it. Has there been any proposal or thought that B.C. Housing will make a proposal to itself to actually provide a services blanket for everybody rather than having all these agencies involved in doing the same thing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The main function of many of these agencies is to act as relocator agencies, which is something that B.C. Housing doesn't do. What we have been doing is encouraging them to get together in terms of looking at what each one does and how they do it -- and if there's duplication, to try and eliminate that. In terms of where budget allocations will be made for the coming year, one of the messages that has taken place is that there is a limited supply of dollars. We want to make the most efficient use of it that we can. To that end, we've held a number of meetings with many of the groups to look at the best way of allocating the resource -- encouraging them, again, to make sure that what they're doing is what they're best at. If we can eliminate duplication, then we've got more money to spread around. That's currently what's taking place.

R. Coleman: It seems interesting. I'm going to want to know a time line on this to understand what your time line is with regards to that, because the Tenants Rights Action Coalition claims that it receives over 10,000 calls a year on its tenant hot line, and it trains local advocates around the province on the Residential Tenancy Act. If that particular service disappears, then the pressure is going to fall either on the people at the residential tenancy branch -- which, frankly, I don't think has the staff to handle the volume -- or on the shoulders of the staff at the commission, who are not set up to handle this.

I guess that would be a concern -- basically, that the lack of provincial funding would cause them to close some of their hot line and limit their hours. They're estimating that 2,000 tenants will get an answering machine rather than an advocate, which also leads me to believe that there's a callback problem, which is going to take more staff time in actual fact. In retrospect, we'll end up servicing even less people than the 2,000 that we'll miss. I'm just wondering: when this decision was made, was anybody. . . ? And Western Management reports that these people are providing a good service. If that's the case, then what's the plan and what's the time frame to put this in place, so that we have the ability to handle the calls we're dealing with in regards to this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises some valid concerns. We are concerned about them, as well, which is one of the reasons why we sat down with the groups earlier on this year in order to explain what the funding's going to be like for the coming year. A couple of points. One, many of the groups get funds from other sources. We're aware of the requirements in terms of what they need for the coming year, and I expect that we will be able to make the announcements within the next couple of weeks as to what funding is coming for this year. Currently, I'm not aware of any agencies that it will have an undue impact on. I fully expect that the services being provided will continue to be provided in the coming year.

R. Coleman: So we're talking two weeks. Have all these groups been put in one room to discuss their services? Has 

[ Page 3796 ]

that actually taken place, where you put DERA, the YWCA, TRAC and these different organizations in a room and say: "Listen, what are you doing, what are you doing, and what are you doing? How many telephone lines do you have? How many staff do you have? What office space are you occupying? Maybe we should all put this in one office on one telephone system with one set of volunteers or staff, instead of having four or five agencies providing the same service"? I'm just wondering if that has taken place.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, we did get them all together in one room to talk about exactly those sorts of things. "What are you doing, and what are you doing? How are you doing it? We had this amount of money last year. We've got this amount of money this year: how do we ensure that it gets spread effectively?" We are actively encouraging them, and I expect that this is going to continue.

R. Coleman: I'd like to move on to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. The Provincial Rental Housing Corporation is basically a body that holds property and assets on behalf of various agencies of government. I'd like to know, first of all, who the members of the board of directors of the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation are this year, and whether there have been any changes from last year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's the executive of B.C. Housing. The positions are the same, though some of the individuals may have changed.

R. Coleman: Could I get a list of the board of directors, so I can see who has changed from last year? I believe a former general manager was on the board last year, and it wouldn't be an employee of B.C. Housing. Maybe you have it there now, seeing as you have a piece of paper handed to you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Here's the membership of the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation: Richard Peddie, Peter Robinson, Agnes Ross, Jim Woodward, Shayne Ramsay, Dan Maxwell, Peter Stobie and Yvonne Liljefors.

R. Coleman: Could you just tell me how many different ministries PRHC holds the property for, and which they are?

Hon. M. Farnworth: PRHC holds the land in the name of the Crown. But the ministries involved are: Health, Human Resources, Children and Families, Attorney General and Women's Equality.

R. Coleman: Plus, of course, your ministry, I would assume.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

R. Coleman: Just a couple of other questions quickly on PRHC. Is it the actual borrower with regards to properties each time a package of loan funds rolls over? Basically, I would suspect that every year you have a package of funds that's been borrowed against a group of social housing projects on an annualized basis from one year to the next -- it could be 500 units, 300 units or 1,000 units, whatever the case may be -- as it comes up for renewal. Is it the PRHC that does that? And if they do, are you still borrowing in bulk, basically putting it out in some sort of proposal call to financial institutions so you're getting a better rate than a bulk renewal?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes to both questions.

R. Coleman: I'm just wondering what the budget is for the coming fiscal year for property acquisition, and what you anticipate PRHC acquiring in assets in the next 12-month cycle.

[3:00]

R. Coleman: Where does the cash flow come from that you use? Does the cash flow from the Minister of Finance? It can't be cash flow from your own operations, because you don't have part of the cash flow from your operations.

Hon. M. Farnworth: At any one time, we have about $50 million in cash revenues coming through the Housing Corporation, and that comes from tenant revenues, the Ministry of Finance and CMHC.

R. Coleman: That's good use of cash flow. Running a month ahead, you pay the bills before they come in. That's also done in other aspects of business.

That's all I really need to discuss on PRHC today. I think the board of directors and everything is clear. The only thing I would like to see is a solution at some point in time to the Campbell Valley Centre lands. I would like to see it go to some benefit within that community. I know that there's a variety of groups that have looked at it for a home for children -- street kids -- and also some people have looked at it for some other community recreation uses. I would hope that the ministry will have some consultation with the Ministry of Human Resources, I guess it would be, and that B.C. Housing has some consultation with the community before disposal to see if there's a positive use of that property for the future of the community.

I'd like to move on now. I came across an article, and I just want to get an update on it. . . . There are some forms of housing that are extremely difficult to get approved in communities, and we all know that. We know that we end up with what we call the NIMBY syndrome, where people just don't want things in their back yard. People will prejudge uses and the people who make use of certain types of housing. I know that we've had halfway houses in neighbourhoods, where we're not using them anymore -- they've just gone into the rental market -- and we'll probably dispose of them.

The one I want to discuss today is the Surrey men's shelters program. It's an organization that's been operating since 1993, providing temporary accommodation, counselling, support and referrals to at-risk men in their community. I believe they had an approval, an allocation on a property, which seems to have run out or lost its way at some point. I'd just like to get an update on it. The project was quite controversial, even after its public hearing and some of its rezoning, and it now appears -- if I'm reading the article right -- that it's either suspended or lost. I'd like to get an update on that project.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Ministry of Human Resources is doing a review of all its programs and has currently pulled the funding on the project.

[ Page 3797 ]

R. Coleman: Is the zoning, the design and the ownership or control of the property still in the hands of somebody, so that if they reinstate the funding, this project can go ahead? Or has the funding pull actually made it impossible to make this project go ahead in the future?

Hon. M. Farnworth: PRHC still owns the land. In terms of the zoning, it has passed third reading. If at some future date it were to be given fourth reading, then it could go ahead.

R. Coleman: Other than a review of funding, was there any other reason for the ministry to pull this particular project? Was it just strictly funding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the best answer to that question would be obtained by asking the Minister of Human Resources.

R. Coleman: That is on my list for a series of questions to another ministry later on in estimates, but I just thought you might know something about it.

Just to comment to the ministry itself, this is a really difficult type of project to get approved. It's very difficult to get any level of acceptance for this type of project from any community so that you can get it to happen. And the message back to the minister -- with the initiative belonging to the Ministry of Housing -- should be that you got lucky on this one and that maybe you shouldn't be walking away. Maybe you should reconsider where you're at, because you could wait another three to five years if you try to rezone somewhere else, and end up with a real hassle -- changes of council, changes of philosophy or whatever. You can lose great options that you may be trying to seek in the housing industry -- this being one of them.

When you look at the primary purpose and objective of this particular project, it was basically to meet the emergency housing needs of men in the community who would otherwise be at risk -- without shelter due to economic, family or other unforeseen circumstances -- to assist these men in finding long-term accommodation, and to support and encourage their development as contributing members of their community. A number of other counselling services were tied in with this -- alcohol, drug abuse, that sort of counselling with regard to getting people back on their feet and what have you -- and I just found it to be a rarity that we actually had some success in even getting approval of a project like this outside of Vancouver. I think it's very important for us to recognize that this is an opportunity we should try to hold on to.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his comments. I just want to clarify. . . . I made a mistake when I said that the PRHC still own the land. In fact, the option expired and it's still owned by the private landowner.

R. Coleman: So theoretically this one could be gone, because if the option has expired, and another opportunity to sell or rezone this land for multi-family use were to come along, I'm sure the owner would move. That's a shame. I will chastise the Ministry of Human Resources in that regard.

I'd like to move on now to a discussion of single-room occupancies. The first thing I will ask the minister is. . . . I have heard rumours that there's legislation coming forward with regard to single-room occupancies. Is there anything anticipated to deal with some of the concerns about the older hotel stock in downtown Vancouver? How are we going to deal with this particular situation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm extremely concerned about this particular issue, and I recognize there is a need for legislation to deal with the problem. Beyond that, I can't confirm at this time that legislation will be going in in the next couple of days.

R. Coleman: We look forward to seeing that on Thursday.

There is some concern, and philosophically, I think it's important that we have a discussion about SROs so that legislation can be supported if it makes sense -- if it makes sense to the marketplace and what have you.

I'm wondering if in the upcoming year we're dedicating any capital to SROs and to developing some new SROs in the downtown core of Vancouver, as we watch some of our stock disappear. I'm wondering if we've actually taken a portion of our commitment to look at that particular problem and how we're going to deal with it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Although no decisions have been made, it is one of the options that I am actively considering.

R. Coleman: Let's just deal with some of the SRO policies that have been recommended. First of all, is one of them to discourage the demolition of SRO units unless there's a one-to-one replacement with self-contained units -- to pay for in lieu of fees? How would you go about discouraging the demolition of SROs and replacing them with single-room occupancies and payment in lieu of fees?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are looking at a whole range of options right now. As I said earlier, this is an issue that we are very concerned about. Unfortunately, I am not right now in a position to give you much more information than that.

R. Coleman: Having said that you are looking at options, do you see it as the provincial government's role to discourage demolition, or is it a municipal role to stop that demolition?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd have to say that it's primarily a municipal responsibility. I think one of the key things that need to be addressed is what tools municipalities have available to them, and if there are gaps, maybe they need to be provided with tools. If it's encouragement or the support of the province, maybe they need that as well. But in terms of it being a local issue, municipalities certainly have a great responsibility there.

R. Coleman: Has the ministry looked at SROs that are run down or at older locations, like some of the hotels that are supplying a certain type of housing stock? We have to be aware of the fact that this type of housing stock is there, is actually used, and that some people have lived in it for many years. Has the ministry looked -- with the capital cost to improve these particular locations -- to the owners of the building, versus demolition? Have we looked at a rent supplement program, or some other subsidy program, with regard to SROs, in order to maintain the existing stock?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The provincial rental housing advisory committee. . . . One of its members, Tex Enemark, has submitted a proposal to me which I have asked my staff in the ministry to look at. It addresses that particular issue, and it has a number of interesting ideas which I think might be quite workable.

R. Coleman: Did I hear the minister offer to get me a copy of that particular report so I can look at it, as well?

[ Page 3798 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. I would say that it's a proposal more than a report, but I would be more than glad to share it with the member.

R. Coleman: A lot of these are municipal issues, of course, but because it's Municipal Affairs and Housing there has to be some cooperation between the different agencies. Single-room-occupancy housing units are obviously an important stock to a certain area of our particular province.

The second recommendation of the report that I'm dealing with, which was done by some people on behalf of the government, was "to discourage the construction of new SRO units by withholding funding of new construction for proposals that do not include self-contained units." I realize that's a recommendation. But there is and there has been. . . . I've reviewed a number of projects on the east side that are not self-contained units that are run by organizations with regards to a particular user group. Do we see the additional cost of having them self-contained in every single unit as something that actually is going to discourage the replacement of the stock, just because of the capital cost delivery of a particular unit?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to make a couple of points. One is that, yes, the ministry's policy is to move to self-contained units. But I also recognize that the SROs are going to be around for a considerable amount of time.

In terms of what's happening, I mentioned the housing advisory committee a few minutes ago. I will be meeting with them at the end of June. They are going to have a number of recommendations to deal with some of the recommendations that we're discussing here today. That should be taking place before the end of this month.

[3:15]

I'm assuming that when you say "a self-contained unit," looking at the criteria that we've dealt with in the past, we're not even talking about bachelors; we're talking about a one-bedroom suite. Would that be a safe assumption on my part, or are we talking about bachelor units?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are looking at a range of options. But no, bachelors are included.

R. Coleman: The contradiction to me in this discussion, looking at an SRO, is very simple. We're going to get to the point where we say that you can't demolish it; and we're going to encourage its replacement with stock that is going to be self-contained -- if we take it down, it has to be self-contained. The question is: who pays for the self-contained unit if we do demolish? That's my first question. I guess we'll just deal with that question first.

Are we anticipating that the owner of the physical property, if they demolish, is going to replace it with self-contained units at their expense and then rent them back out again? If that's the case, who's subsidizing the rental place to cover the capital?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess, in terms of the criteria and how you would work that, those are the sorts of things that are being anticipated in terms of what legislative change might be required. So that work is underway. That's why I would suggest that when I said it's not coming in a couple of days, I didn't think I'd be holding my breath for Thursday, either.

R. Coleman: I'm not holding my breath on any of this; I was just being a bit facetious.

I find the only thing with me is that the contradiction is this. We're saying that we have to retain our SRO stock. Right now, our SRO stock is not self-contained. But the SRO stock will deteriorate because the revenues that are coming in from the residents of the SRO stock do not meet the overheads and capital costs of the operation of the facility. So what happens is that we end up with deteriorating housing stock to the point where the housing stock will either have to be demolished or fixed up. It will have to be fixed up at the cost of somebody. If we demand that somebody maintain stock, if we say they have to maintain stock, then we're also assuming some responsibility for the maintenance of that stock. If we demolish the stock, somebody has to pay for the cost of reconstruction. Do we have in our budgets the ability to replace the SRO stock in the downtown east side of Vancouver over the next three to five years with self-contained units?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member has raised some of the key points that need to be addressed in dealing with this issue. I think there's going to be a whole series of considerations, not just the one-size-fits-all range that can be put in place. Some SROs could quite conceivably stay as SROs and may just need an upgrade. Others may need a different type of use -- for example, rehabilitation or something like that, in which case they don't need to be self-contained. In fact, others, depending on the site and what you can do with it, may be moving to self-contained. It is the best option, and one that should be encouraged. It depends on who's going to be doing the upgrading; it depends on how it's going to be done.

One of the things we've talked about has been partnerships. That certainly is an opportunity. There's an opportunity for involvement by the municipality. There's a whole range of factors going into this. That's why, yes, you're going to see changes over the coming years. The policy is to move to self-contained units. At the end of the day, I still think you're going to see a mix of uses, and you're still going to see a number of different forms, whether they're bachelors, single bedrooms or just SROs in place. I think it's going to depend a lot on the site, who's involved in the site and where you get some of the funding from. If there's private participation, I think the opportunities are going to increase even more dramatically than they currently can.

R. Coleman: The concern with that wonderful dissertation with regards to SROs is this. As we deal with SROs, we have to recognize that we are bound by certain criteria that are going to kill us on some of these things. The criteria that we're bound by are the building codes and regulations to building codes, or local building codes with regards to construction, upgrades and applications.

Having some experience with renovations -- changing things over from one use to another -- they can be absolutely, mammothly expensive. They end up costing you far more than you'll ever estimate, particularly when you get into older buildings. You really don't know what's inside a lot of the walls sometimes, as far as the concerns you'll run into.

The second problem, of course, is that the upgrade to things like sprinkler systems and what have you will also 

[ Page 3799 ]

bring extraordinary additional costs as we try to maintain this housing stock. I notice that one of the recommendations was to provide capital grants to public-private partnerships and that type of thing with regard to this. I hope that if we're anticipating any legislation, we're not going to anticipate legislation that's just going to choke the marketplace to the point where we end up creating for ourselves a large headache with regards to how we are going to deal with this particular stock.

This is a very critical stock to a certain segment of the marketplace. If we don't maintain it in some way and we don't maintain it in an economic way, we'll lose it. When we lose it, that means we have more people on the street, because they will have nowhere else to go.

We've had experiences with some of the other partnerships, some things with the 20 percent requirement. We just had one where another organization in Vancouver bought out theirs on a project. As far as their 20 percent commitment to social housing being paid -- frankly, at a dollar value that I find to be absolutely cheap -- back into a municipality, not only are we losing the capital benefit of the housing stock, we're not even getting the revenue side of it that was replaced somewhere else in that community. I have a great concern that as you go through this legislation, you deal with those specific issues, and you don't create something that becomes an albatross around our necks.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely right.

R. Coleman: I'm going to take a break for a minute from my questioning. I'm going to turn this over to one of my colleagues, who has some other questions with regard to that report and some other forms of housing. And then, of course, I will be back to continue some other discussion.

V. Anderson: When we talk about housing, there's a great deal of single-family housing, of seniors housing, of housing for the handicapped. So there's a great variation in people. One of the most significant groups of people that often gets overlooked. . . . We even have housing for people in poverty. But one of the conversations that doesn't very often come to the surface is housing that is suitable for children. We have about 530,000 families with children in our province, and it's estimated that about 25 to 35 percent of those children are in need of housing, which somehow has to be provided as part of community planning and community activities. What I'd like to ask the minister is: in the overall housing development planning, what particular awareness does he have of the specific needs and opportunities of children?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to make a number of points. The first is that in terms of B.C. Housing, whether it's social housing or public housing, families are the number one priority. So that's part of B.C. Housing's mission, if you like.

The second is that there are a number of innovative projects underway. The first one that comes to mind is Oaklands, which has just opened up this past weekend. That includes a family day care, so we're taking into account those sorts of needs.

As well, it's policy within the ministry to encourage fostering and to take that into account. We also recognize the importance of transition houses and the role that they have to play, particularly because most of the clients involved in going to transition houses have children with them. So in terms of where children fit into the scheme of things, that's at the top of the priority list.

V. Anderson: In specific cases. But I'm wondering what kind of policy the minister has for developing housing plans and housing studies and housing programs that take into account the needs of children.

Let me give an illustration from a number of years ago. The Raymur housing development in Vancouver, which was built beside one of the most active railroad tracks in the community, so much so that finally the parents literally had to get out and stop the trains. . . . They stood on the track and refused the opportunity for the trains to go by, because not only was it unsafe and noisy but across the track on the other side was the school that the children went to. The only way to get to the school was to go many blocks around or to cross the track, and on a busy track this was impossible.

Many housing developments, at least in the past, were built in areas where nobody else wanted to build, in effect. In my own community, there are a number of housing co-ops which were built at Marine Drive and 70th Avenue, which is on a railroad track on one side, with trains going by regularly. . . . The main thoroughfare from the university to the south goes in front, and across the other side is a highway, in effect, that does not even have a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit on it. Because it's a semi-highway going through, it has trucks and everything else all the way around this building. So on three sides it's hemmed in by the heaviest traffic that we have in this city. And that's a relatively new development.

It seems to me that the needs of children were not taken into account in that undertaking, other than having a roof over their heads -- and I could make some comments about that afterwards. But what kind of planning. . . ? Who's doing the planning to promote and work with municipalities in developing safe and affordable but child-friendly and child-useful facilities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a whole range of points that I'd like to make. First, all aspects of site attenuation now are of prime importance within the ministry in terms of the siting of a particular project, because there are far more proposals now than there are projects that can be built. Sites are assessed on all those bases: closeness to schools, closeness to parks, what amenities are close, traffic and those sorts of things. The specific project the member outlined is probably very true of a lot of older projects. I would include those from the seventies and earlier on, when social housing was best out of sight, out of mind. We try and encourage communities. . .about the importance of social housing within their community. Many communities are extremely progressive; some, unfortunately, are not. So we look at all stages of design now.

I know, for example, in my own community of Port Coquitlam on Prairie Avenue, which is a major thoroughfare on the north side of town, there is a social housing project that went through the council stage. One of the concerns that was raised was about it being next to such a busy road. The fact is that the design was done in such a way that all the units face in on a large internal courtyard. Parents have a complete view of this courtyard. It's grassed and treed, so that's the play area for children. It acts as a natural focal point for children, as well as for the residents within the development, so it creates a sense of community. I think we try and get away from the standard of a block here and a block there, and blacktopping everything in between.

So all those things are taking place. In the same way as with the discussion we had on some seniors housing and 

[ Page 3800 ]

putting in things so that they can be adaptable over time, the needs of people -- and children in particular -- take a very high priority at all stages, particularly around planning and site location of projects.

[3:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the key policies is to have users work with the ministry in terms of design and design guidelines. So that takes place. We're seeing more things, such as the family day care in the one that I've mentioned, as an encouragement in terms of policies within the ministry that place the focus, the number one priority, on families. With that come certain things, such as the requirement for playgrounds, closeness to schools, transportation -- all those things -- and the ability to create as much as possible, I think, a sense of community where you encourage an interaction, as opposed to going in, closing the door, and that's it. So I think there's a number of a policies in place, the key one being user participation, particularly at the design stage.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments about the playgrounds and the day care in all of those facilities. Fortunately, they have been highlighted over the last few years, and trade-offs can be made with developers to bring in some of those amenities.

But let me follow up on one other point first. Many of the co-op houses within the communities -- co-op and partly owned in a variety of arrangements at the moment -- are in the situation in my own community and others. . . . There are two situations, and I'll raise both of them.

One is that they have water damage because of the way they were built, say, ten years ago. One in my own area -- and there are others like it around there -- is totally covered with plastic, inside and outside. You can't operate in there. I mean, everywhere. . . . The elevator, the stairs are closed off. You've got to find a way around to get up there. It's a war zone in there. It's just impossible. Everybody's there with hardhats. There's no place within that complex for the children to play. And there's not only the cost of that, but then. . . . That's one area. Is it possible for that kind of a unit to come to the minister and say: "Hey, we need some help. We need some outside guidance. We need some people to help us know where to go with this?" I know the managers within these buildings are going crazy trying to deal with this.

And the other part is that the money they were kind of building up -- a process over the year to meet those emergencies -- is now being challenged by Canada Mortgage and Housing, which is saying to them: "We want that reserve put back to us." So they have no reserve. When something happens, even an insignificant thing like the furnace going out or the washer system or the roof leaking, there's no way to go. So these people are dreadfully afraid and very insecure, and the stress on them is terrific. These are all family units or for persons with disabilities and others who are there. Is there a place for these people to go to raise. . . ? Who could I refer them to in my own community for guidance and support?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If, in fact, the units fall under or are run by the non-profits, then they can come to B.C. Housing because B.C. Housing does ongoing maintenance and ongoing repairs.

But in terms of the co-ops, unfortunately, at this time there is nothing. Basically, their only recourse is to CMHC, and we know what they're like. There are a number of preliminary discussions taking place with CMHC that may over time -- and I stress "may" -- result in some stock coming over to us. They are anxious to reach an agreement. But until such time as something like that were to happen, and appropriate safeguards and mechanisms and interests were addressed to everybody's satisfaction, it is an unfortunate situation with no easy answer.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, I appreciate the minister's comment and understand some of the difficulties involved. I'm glad to know that there are some discussions underway. Two things would be my assumption: it's the very nature of this government to be supportive of the co-op movement and activity, so that gives at least one bit of encouragement.

Is it helpful to the minister, as well as maybe giving some encouragement to the community, that they be encouraged to write and give you their problems and concerns in order that you can have firsthand knowledge of what the problems really are -- and maybe some hope of somebody sitting down with them and saying: "We're in discussion. We've come to hear you so that we can really understand what's going on in the discussion"?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We do meet regularly with the co-op sector. In fact, I recently met with, I think, the provincial presidents as well as the national president. But, certainly, if people want to write to the ministry to make us aware of particular problems or how they see things that need to be done, or with their ideas of solutions, that's fine by me.

V. Anderson: Going back to the concern about children in particular, we talk about the outside design in the day cares and the playgrounds, but has the ministry done any work on models, suggestions or principles of designing the houses internally with children in mind so that groups who are getting into this process will have some principles and ideas that have gone before? The tendency is that everybody who has done it hasn't done it before, so they go to their developers. Unless their developers happen to have that kind of perspective, they get an adult-oriented facility that's efficient and effective but doesn't necessarily meet the needs of children. It could meet the needs of children for the same cost if it were planned differently, if there were some models or principles to put before them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, within B.C. Housing itself, there's a great deal of experience. They have been doing this now for over 30 years, and so they're very acutely aware of the needs of families and of children. Second, I'd come back to how we get user groups involved at the design stage, so that 

[ Page 3801 ]

they're able to sit down and say: "Look, this is what's needed. This is the type of project we envision, and these are particular problems we think need to be addressed." That work is taking place.

V. Anderson: When he's talking about user groups, has the minister had anything to do with the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. and their concerns about children, particularly in relationship to housing as well as other areas, and to community development? I just attended their annual meeting on Monday -- yesterday -- and I know that it has been a longstanding concern. They have met with families with children throughout the province, but in the past at least, they have seen very little effort for priority of children produced. So I'm asking the minister if he's aware if there has there been cooperation with that group, which represents many organizations in its umbrella society, the Society for Children and Youth of B.C.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not aware of this particular group, hon. member, but if they wish to meet with the ministry, I'm more than willing to do that.

V. Anderson: I would be delighted to let them know, and I will bring to the minister's attention the reference book, Child-Friendly Housing, which has been produced by the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. It's a guide for housing professionals and deals with these concerns. They have made this available, and they have a great deal of research and background behind this. I know they would be delighted to hear from you, and I will advise them right away. I'm sure you'll hear from them very quickly. If you would like me to sit with you when you meet with them, I'd be happy to join you in that undertaking. So I understand that I have your permission to pass on that invitation to them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I will do so.

R. Coleman: I have a comment on my colleague's statements here a minute ago. I remember saying -- I believe in the Housing estimates last year, or in one of the ministry estimates last year -- that there exist in this province a number of day care spaces that sit empty. If we look at all the amenity buildings and every project we've ever built in the province that isn't being used between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., we have day care spaces sitting there that licensed operators would be more than happy to enter into a rental arrangement for and to produce and provide day care spaces with in the community.

It's something I know a number of organizations have been successful with. They have entered into low-rent accommodations with a contracted operator, who then goes out and fills the space, giving priority to the residents of the facility first and then to the community as a whole. I know that one organization has actually managed to produce about 125 day care spaces in the Fraser Valley as a result of that type of arrangement. That arrangement was encouraged by the commission at that time, and I would encourage that if there's any empty space out there, we should be looking at it and making use of it.

I just want to move on. Sometimes it's good to look back to look forward and just see how we're doing. We have had a number of commissions and a number of studies done on housing in the province, and a number of recommendations. They have come in various forms, and I want to sort of take a quick review of a number of them.

One of them was the report of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. I believe some of its recommendations were further incorporated in the "Strategy for Affordable Housing" -- which I see you both have, and you're just drooling over the fact that it's in front of you and you want to discuss it today. I'm going to go back to the provincial housing options report first, because I think the incorporation of it is important. A lot of work was done on this particular report, and I think that some of the strategies in it were well laid out. I also have opinions on some that I thought were a little weak, but I'm not going to criticize the people who did the work. I'm not going to tear the report apart. I just want to deal with how we did with some of the recommendations we may have looked at.

The first portion of the report dealt with residential land. The residential land portion I found interesting because there were some recommendations in there, and I'm just wondering if we've ever moved toward their implementation. Basically, the first one was on provincial Crown land in urban areas and whether it should be developed for housing. I know we've done that with some of our properties now through BCBC and with, for instance, the Woodlands site and what have you. That's something that probably came out of this report, and I would encourage us to continue to make use of Crown lands as best we can to reduce the cost of housing so we can deliver our product at a more affordable rate.

There were three other recommendations on residential land that I found curious. One was that the authority of regional planning should be reintroduced to the capital regional district and the greater Vancouver regional district, and I wonder if there has been any discussion on that. The second one is that the Municipal Act should set out more specific rules for the public hearing process for rezoning land, and that the province should ensure that guidelines are developed. I'm wondering what our status is on those.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of regional planning, I think it's now called -- it's something we introduced -- the growth strategies act.

R. Coleman: The second part of my question is with regard to the Municipal Act and a recommendation that it should set out more specific rules for public hearings. I'm wondering if we have dealt with any of that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has been no real change to the public hearing process. In terms of any change that would take place, that's going to come up with the municipalities, and none is sort of anticipated in the near future.

[3:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: You're good -- very good.

R. Coleman: There were some other recommendations with regard to this, and I'm just wondering where we're at with looking at these things. Obviously the discussions should be taking place in the ministry and in the Housing Commission with regard to these. One is the requirement of municipalities to establish annual housing production targets. They 

[ Page 3802 ]

should require municipalities to adopt plans and strategies and ensure that there's an adequate supply of serviced residential land available to meet future housing needs.

The Municipal Act should also establish reasonable time frames for municipalities to review and process residential development applications and should require a municipal level development cost to be charged equitably on the basis of habitable floor area rather than on a per-dwelling basis. These were recommendations of the committee. They were also a couple on including targets for affordable housing, and I'm just wondering how we're doing with those targets with regard to reviewing how development cost charges are analyzed and levied and with regard to being on a habitable floor-area ratio rather than on a per-dwelling-unit ratio and that sort of thing.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of your first three questions, a whole series of bills went through in '94 to encourage municipalities to deal with those particular problems, as opposed to sort of saying: "Thou shalt do. . . ." In terms of the question around DCCs, that is a rather controversial topic, but what's currently being worked on with industry, with local government and with the ministry is the development of a best-practices guide to try and bring some sort of commonality, some sort of uniformity, to DCCs and how they're levied throughout the province and particularly within regions. As you know, there is considerable variation between communities, and they are quite often right next door. So that work is currently ongoing.

In terms of targets, some communities have set targets for social housing and some communities have not, but all communities are encouraged to make social housing part of their community plans. So that's taking place. At the end of the day, you know, part of that in terms of the provision of housing -- whether it's for single market housing or for social housing -- is to get the message out about the importance of it, and to get more communities to do the right thing.

R. Coleman: One of the other recommendations of the report was to pre-zone land in advance of construction. Some municipalities basically had their entire land base rezoned for their uses. Other ones go through the community plan process and then wait for individual rezoning applications to come through.

The other part of the report I'm interested in is "Options in Home-Ownership." Basically, there is a recommendation with regards to a mortgage assistance plan to make it easier for first-time homebuyers. I know we've had a number of programs over the years, and I don't want to canvass each one of them. I'm just wondering if there are any now afoot to meet that need within our marketplace to encourage first-time homebuyers or for new options in home-ownership, other than the Homes B.C. situation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're currently reviewing the NOHO program. In terms of programs for market-based housing, there are none at this time, nor do I anticipate any in the near future.

R. Coleman: The other area that is encouraged is the development of a strategic plan for older non-profit projects, to use them more effectively through updating, conversion and densification. There was a recommended budget figure -- it was $7.5 million in this report, which was recommended as a budget figure in 1992 -- towards that particular program. I'm not asking whether the $7.5 million was spent but if we have moved towards densification and upgrading.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There hasn't been any densification actually take place, but it is part of the strategic plan. I think it will become an area of major focus over the coming years. There are some tremendous opportunities, particularly with a lot of the older projects that are around and that are coming to the end of their normal shelf life, if you like. They have rather low densities. I think there are some great opportunities, from government's point of view, in terms of redevelopment, for partnerships or for a whole range of opportunities. So I expect that will be a major focus, and indeed, it is a part of the strategic plan.

R. Coleman: There's another interesting recommendation. I know we haven't touched on the Condominium Act for some time. I'm sure that when we get to the Ministry of Finance, I'm going to have to spend some time on that particular act. One of the recommendations was that the Condominium Act actually ensure that condominium dwellings can be rented by their owners, just like they could if they were single-family residences and not controlled by a strata council's bylaws. If you want to walk into a minefield of a controversy, that's a good one to go into.

The other area that I want to canvass -- prior to going into this particular report and discussing how we're making out and where we're going -- is secondary suites. There's a number of issues surrounding secondary suites as an alternative form of housing. There have been some very, very good reports done by various municipalities on alternative forms of housing with regards to secondary suites. However, I'm not sure that there's been any initiative taken on the provincial level with regards to secondary suites. I'd like to know the stand of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regards to secondary suites.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess there's a number of key issues here. One is the issue of secondary suites themselves. Philosophically, I think there is a role for secondary suites -- a substantial role -- for a whole host of reasons. It does provide affordable housing, it does provide community-based housing, and it does provide an option for a great number of people in a whole variety of things.

For example, near educational institutions it's probably one of cheapest forms of housing available for students. In educational-institution areas there is a high concentration of students making use of secondary suites. I think that's of critical importance.

Another one where it's taking place is in regards to seniors. Many seniors live in their own home -- the kids have moved on -- and they don't want to move out. They like the fact that they have a student in the basement or another person living in a secondary suite. They have some extra income, plus an added sense of security from having someone else around the place. For many people, sharing is quite often the only way that they can afford to rent a place. So in terms of philosophy, secondary suites are here, they're here to stay, and I think they make a valuable addition to the housing stock.

Having said that, the other issue that needs to be raised is that secondary suites are primarily a municipal issue. The province has taken a number of measures. One is to provide handbooks in terms of what tools are available to municipalities on how to deal with secondary suites through measures that are available to them. We have amended the Building Code on secondary suites specifically, so you're not caught in the same problem of requiring standards that may make it onerous or not economic for suites.

Municipalities have approached the issue in a variety of ways. Some want to encourage suites; some want to discourage 

[ Page 3803 ]

suites. It is a two-sided coin, and it's one that municipalities have been dealing with in a variety of ways and will continue to do so.

Most municipalities -- I know, for example, my own community of Port Coquitlam -- would prosecute for a secondary suite on a complaint basis; otherwise, they accept the fact that they're there and that they're going to continue to be there. Vancouver went and tried a policy to rezone neighbourhoods for secondary suites. I don't know if that was the most successful approach. And recently we've seen a recognition by many municipalities that secondary suites are here and that there is a higher service charge, so recognize that and try and recover some of the extra cost. In the case of Port Coquitlam, I think it's about $500 a year -- and in Surrey it's maybe somewhere around that -- to recognize additional water, power, those sorts of things. Secondary suites are here, and I don't have a problem with them.

R. Coleman: I don't either. My first rental apartment was a basement suite, and I think it provides an affordable form of housing. My concern is whether we are going to get to the point where we're going to either over-regulate or make them impossible for people to deal with. Some of the recommendations in this report were that we don't do that, that we don't over-regulate, that we make sure that. . . .

One of the recommendations is that the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter should ensure that local governments do not establish policies or regulations which unreasonably impede the ability of homeowners to create secondary suites. It also went on to recommend that you lend people that want to create a secondary suite $7,500 per unit, and set up a fund to do so.

There has been a number of reports. I'm pleased to see that the minister is up on it a little bit with regard to it. Having been a councillor probably helped him a great deal.

One of the best reports I've seen with regard to secondary suites, which I would recommend for your reading -- if you ever have time to read anything in addition to what your staff gives you -- is the one that was completed by a task force in Surrey. I thought it did a reasonable job in addressing the issue with regard to secondary suites. Some of their recommendations would be onerous or hard to follow, but the overall emphasis of the report on the recognition of housing stock and the recognition of how it impacted on the community was very important.

The particular impacts we have to be aware of is always that when we're trying to plan for schools and what have you, but particularly community facilities, we have at least some idea of what our stock or inventory is. Otherwise, we end up with over-crowding in some other place that the taxpayers end up paying for. It has always been a concern with municipalities that somehow they can claw back or there's some ability to recognize additional costs of infrastructure through the secondary-suite inventory. Some municipalities have been successful with it and some haven't. I think it's important that we be aware of it, as well.

The other thing I would like to discuss. . . . I've made the recommendation on that report. There were three or four other reports that I read, but I found that one was probably the best that I came across.

I want to deal with this "Strategy for Affordable Housing" report for a few minutes, just to see how we're doing. This is one of the most recent strategic reports. I know we have a strategic plan, and I hope that we're not just going to answer that everything's in the new strategic plan and that we've actually implemented some of this in the past 12 to 18 months with regards to it. The first recommendation or plan I find is based on the generic situation where you're encouraging, developing and engaging in discussion, etc., and I don't really think we need to deal with that.

The second one, though, is the reduction of land costs. I'd like to know how we're making out with this recommendation. The goals were basically to reduce the impact of land costs on housing development. It's basically laid out in only four points:

". . .make public land available at below market value for affordable housing projects; give local governments powers and incentives to ensure a reliable supply of serviced land and promote more effective use of already serviced land; work with local government and industry to find a mutually accepted means of allocating infrastructure costs of urban growth; keep housing affordability a high profile issue in provincial and regional planning initiatives."

[4:00]

In terms of keeping housing affordability a high profile issue, I'd say that's taking place. We've encouraged municipalities to incorporate social housing into their community plans, to recognize the importance of it. Many communities are doing that. Some need to be more enlightened, but that will happen over time.

R. Coleman: How are you measuring that success with the municipalities with regards to this? Usually the answer is: "Some communities are incorporating this, and some communities are incorporating. . . ." Do we have a measurement that says where we're being successful and where we're not being successful within the marketplace?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know one community that's particularly enlightened, and that's Port Coquitlam. Since 1983 I cannot remember one social housing project that has ever been turned down by the city of Port Coquitlam, and there have been quite a few projects built over the last ten or 15 years. Not one has ever been turned down. That cannot be said for some other communities in the area.

As well, one of the key things is to recognize that the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act -- which was introduced in 1995 -- requires established goals for regional and local government planning. Housing is a mandatory element of regional growth strategy. Adequate, affordable and appropriate housing is explicitly identified as a goal of strategies aimed at ensuring that urban growth is socially, economically and environmentally healthy.

Density bonus is another area. Other municipalities are making use of that. In Surrey, for example, where there's an opportunity for. . .developers who provide social housing to put density in another part of the site. That has taken place.

[ Page 3804 ]

There are a number of ways of measuring success. At the end of the day, another key area is the government continuing to commit to building units. If there is a commitment from the province, then I think it's much easier to push for that commitment by the municipalities.

R. Coleman: The increase in affordable ownership was another one of the goals, and we canvassed that back when I was discussing this other. . . . Obviously there isn't anything in place at this point other than what's in the marketplace, and as we look into some private-public partnerships and uses in the future with equity co-ops, we may be able to find some alternatives for that.

Probably the most concern I have is with regard to the expansion of affordable rental stock. I have already iterated the fact that I have some concerns about the loss of rental stock in the marketplace simply because of some of the problems with the Residential Tenancy Act, particularly in dealing with small groups of landlords. That was actually something that was pointed out in a number of reports which have been prepared for the commission over the years with regards to that. What happens is that the small investors walk away from the marketplace and the other investors just hold stock that they're finding hard to deal with.

It is basically establishing an approach to addressing the rental housing needs of lower-income individuals living in urban centres. That approach obviously could not be fulfilled only by social housing projects, because we couldn't build enough to keep up with influx.

The interesting one is that in 1996. . . . This was a recognition on behalf of the commission -- I don't know if there's been a recognition on behalf of the AG's ministry -- to promote fair business practice between landlords and tenants, especially where landlords have small holdings. This brings me back to the issue of the smallholding landlord who's starting to walk away from the marketplace because of the difficulty in operating a small landholding. I know we had some discussion with regards to residential tenancy, and I'm sure by now you've already spoken to the AG with regards to it. If you haven't, I will remind you again to do so.

Then, of course, there is the special needs side. In actual fact we've done a pretty good job with special needs housing in the province. You'll never, ever supply the entire stock. You'll never, ever take care of it all, because it just won't happen. But I think we've done a pretty good job.

There are two things that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. Do you get the opportunity to read the materials that are produced all the time by your ministry or your housing commission? I wanted to bring a couple of things to the attention of the minister, because I wanted to compliment the commission on them.

We used to have a binder that was management information for non-profit housing societies, and we've expanded that with the new guides for housing societies. The detail and. . . . I don't know who the author was of the plain English, but if we had acts with regards to residential tenancy that read this easily for non-profit societies, I think it would be excellent. I actually tried this -- and the maintenance guide -- out on some students with regards to this to see how their understanding would be of the financial responsibilities of a society. I found that they had a good understanding as a result of reviewing this and having been questioned on it.

I would encourage you to continue to expand on this material, because this material is a valuable asset not just for societies but also for property owners as a whole -- and that goes back to some of the discussions with residential tenancy. It'd be nice even if they paid for it. If some landlords could have the opportunity to avail themselves of these materials. . . . It also lays out a pretty good maintenance and responsibility guide for the operation of any piece of rental property. That's important, and I'd just like to compliment the commission on that.

The Chair: With the agreement of the committee, we'll take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:09 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[G. Abbott in the chair.]

The Chair: I recognize the hon. member for. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

R. Coleman: It's discouraging that the Speaker can't get it right, then some of the colleagues across the floor and now my own colleague has difficulty with it.

I'd like to go over the Woodward's project. I'd like to discuss it to find out basically what happened and what we were really proposing. I have a number of press releases over a period of about three or four years. I think it was about three years ago that we announced the project. I believe the Premier announced that it was going ahead twice. But really, that's not the issue here. The issue is that we had a project where, basically, Fama Holdings was going to redevelop the Woodward's building. The building was going to be developed with commercial space on the first two floors and 375,000 square feet of residential space on the remaining six floors. Half the residential space was going to be market condominiums and the other was going to be 210 units of non-profit cooperative housing. The final unit count and mix was going to be determined as we went through the design phase, etc. So it could have been 205, 210, 215, or whatever the case might be.

One backgrounder is a partnership agreement from the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. This one is from February 15, 1995: the province of British Columbia announced a new downtown housing partnership in Vancouver. The total cost of the new downtown project partnership was more than $33 million. It took a year to try to negotiate a contract. I know the background -- the developer and B.C. Housing not being able to come to an agreement. My first question is: what were our 210 units? The different figures I've read were anywhere from $30 million to $35 million of commitment on behalf of the province for the project. So I'd like to know, first of all: what were the 210 units we were trying to contribute to? Were they a mix of social and co-op? And what were the numbers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The original plan was for 210, but after discussions with the co-op, it was actually put down to 197 units. The total capital cost for the units with everything all in -- soft costs, holding costs, interest, land -- was $29 million.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

[ Page 3805 ]

R. Coleman: The $29 million -- was that for subsidized units or was that for a mixture of co-op and subsidized units? Was some going to be recovered back from ownership by co-op members through mortgaging?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was all rental -- 60 percent non-market, 40 percent market.

R. Coleman: So, close to 120 units, for argument's sake, of subsidizing housing in the downtown core is what we really lost, and in addition to that, about 80 units of market rental property.

I'd like to go through the correspondence I received with regard to this. I'd like to know the process for how this one came off the rails and what we're doing with that type of commitment now -- how we're going to try and relocate some additional housing stock to fill this void, considering that 20 percent of another project was just bought out by the developer and paid to the city of Vancouver.

One of the comments made by the proponents of the project in a letter to the mayor of the city of Vancouver on April 4, 1997, was that they took 380 days of negotiation time with B.C. Housing and the co-op in an attempt to formalize letters of intent that they signed with former Premier Mike Harcourt in February 1996.

The letter referred to significant costs arising from prolonged delays. I'd like to know what our side of this particular discussion is with regard to the negotiations and what happened here. I would assume that this site is obviously going to go ahead in some other form now, and we're losing some housing stock. I'd like to know: why 380 days? It's referred to in the letter. Was it indeed 380 days? Who was conducting negotiations on behalf of the co-op, and who was conducting negotiations on behalf of the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The initial memorandum was signed on February 15, 1996, and from there we proceeded to agreement of purchase and sale, which was supposed to have been fairly standard procedure. At that time, the developer wanted a considerable number of safeguards built in. It took approximately six months to deal with all the particular issues that were raised and that had to be negotiated. That brought us to October 1996. At that time, everything was signed, and it went to the next step, which was for the co-op to negotiate a construction procedure, which was normal for them to do that. We thought that everything was going to be straightforward. B.C. Housing had bent over backwards on a number of things.

It is a very complex project. B.C. Housing was very much behind it and the city was very much behind it, and we felt the developer was behind it. In fact, while the delay was there in terms of negotiating the construction agreement, the developer was moving along quite happily in terms of dealing with the city, and in terms of design and getting approvals in place. So all that work was taking place and everything was proceeding.

The construction contract required bonding. I guess that was where the. . .in terms of B.C. Housing having to say: "Look, we bent over backwards. This is a requirement. This is one we can't waiver from." That was the key event, if you like. We required construction bonding. The project was being built by construction management. We recognize that he wouldn't be able to get bonding because it was being done this way. We suggested that -- and this was a big concession on the part of B.C. Housing -- a corporate guarantee would be in order. That guarantee would be his accountant saying that he's got the net worth to proceed with the project. This was something unique that B.C. Housing had done. I think it represented a big leap on the part of B.C. Housing. It was understood from the developer that that was satisfactory to us. In fact, we were expecting that to take place -- the developer would be bringing in the guarantee to sign the final deal -- but instead he came and delivered the letter that said the project would not take place.

[4:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We were financing the project through B.C. Housing. The bond that was required was 50 percent performance and 50 percent materials and labour.

R. Coleman: That's pretty well standard within the industry: 50 percent and 50 percent. You're saying that because they were dealing with construction management, they couldn't get the bonding on the project, so no bonding company would insure the project based on construction management? What did they want? Did they want a CCDC fixed-price contract, like a general contractor - type arrangement? Is that what they were looking for?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's right.

R. Coleman: Was the developer doing his own construction management, or was a separate company going to be doing that? Had that been somehow tendered out, or was it strictly in-house?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was internal. It was a separate company, but he had chosen the company internally.

R. Coleman: It sounds to me that there was a normal process in place with regard to this negotiation with this particular project; it's just its complexities that took the time. I don't know if that's the case. There may have been some difficulties with some of the requirements of the co-op. If there were, I would like to hear them.

The interesting thing I found about this particular project was that the land cost was $19,700 per unit. I don't know where in the city of Vancouver you can get $19,700-per-unit property. I think that was probably a pretty good price. The thing that scares me about that price. . . . That may explain to me why, on the. . . . I think it was the Concord Pacific development that was able to pay the city in reparation of a per-unit cost, and they may have based their price per unit on this particular project to only pay the amount that they did pay. I do know that in my experience, the price per unit for housing in the city of Vancouver has been substantially higher than that. With regard to that, if you had your construction costs at $110,000 and your soft costs at $15,300, I'm just wondering how close you were to your MUP with regard to this project.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We would have $1 million per MUP.

R. Coleman: Is there any opportunity in the ongoing negotiations to resurrect this project with the developer? Or is this one basically done, and we're now looking for another site to do the size of co-op in the city of Vancouver?

[ Page 3806 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't want to say that it's completely written off, but if we're to get it back on track, I think all of us have to recognize the problems the project has faced and the hurdles that are in place. To my mind, if it doesn't go ahead, it's important that we find a way of getting the units that were going to be built in the downtown east side.

R. Coleman: Has there been any thought to approaching either the people on the north or south shore of False Creek that have large development tracts and are required to put 20 percent of their land into some form of social housing -- or the city of Vancouver -- and let them know the availability of this particular level of numbers of units, that we could find an alternative location for the project and move something ahead in this regard?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of notifying either the north or south shore of False Creek, I think that would probably be a bit premature at this time. I think we've got to work closely with the city and work closely with the downtown east side and look at alternatives. I think it's still far too early to sort of be going out to proposal or looking at other areas. As I say, I haven't entirely written the project off, but in terms of what's taking place, we are looking at all the different options within the ministry.

R. Coleman: My understanding is that there's an alternative site that this particular group also has -- which is the Woolworth site, I believe -- that's in a similar neighbourhood. Am I correct or incorrect on that? Have there been discussions around that particular site or a portion of the site?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Woolworth site is owned by the same developer that owns the Woodward site. So I would say that that's kind of premature at this time.

R. Coleman: One of the press releases or letters that I read stated that that site had been offered to B.C. Housing as an alternative site as a result of this deal collapsing. I'm just wondering if that was the case. What does the old Woolworth site entail? Does it have an ability to provide a project of a similar size?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, the Woolworth site was not offered to B.C. Housing.

R. Coleman: I think that covers that topic.

I'd like to move on to the CMHC download -- download is probably the wrong word, but the off-loading or sending . . . management dumping their inventory onto the province of British Columbia. I understand that the inventory is about 55,000 units of housing. According to a colleague, just before estimates were made to B.C. Housing. . . . I know that in Saskatchewan 33,000 units of housing were moved across. I'm just wondering what we're dealing with in regard to inventory with regard to CMHC -- what our estimates of inventory are in numbers, and basically the state of negotiations at this particular point in time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your last question first, we have not started formal negotiations, so I can tell the hon. member that. In terms of the stock that is potentially up for discussion, there are 44,548 units and beds, of which 3,113 units are aboriginal units and not up for discussion, and 10,481 are beds that are also not up for discussion, which means there is a potential of 23,130 units that could be up for discussion.

R. Coleman: What the CMHC is telling me is that there are 52,124 units -- which is not completely up to date -- and 238 co-ops that they have under management in B.C. Have they also provided you with a number of co-ops? That wouldn't be units; I would imagine that's projects.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are 9,346, in terms of section 95 co-ops from before 1986; as for section 61 co-ops, there are 819 units.

R. Coleman: Have we established terms of reference for our negotiations and discussions with CMHC? Basically, could I get a brief outline of what they are?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, we have not established terms of reference. Currently B.C. has been reviewing the offer made from a business-case point of view. It's analyzing the programs managed by CMHC and the resources required to continue managing the federal stock while still ensuring that safe and healthy housing standards are met.

R. Coleman: If we haven't established terms of reference. . . . Seeing as I have reviewed in detail the entire agreement that the government of Saskatchewan signed with CMHC, and looked at some of the directions that they took with this particular thing, I guess what I'd like to do is canvass a few questions with regard to our thinking on it, because I think it's really important. If you start to run the numbers with regard to this housing stock, this is a multibillion-dollar asset being moved across. It's obviously going to have some warts, some very significant warts, with regard to its capital reserves and what have you.

But having reviewed the Saskatchewan contract, there seem to be some safeguards in there. In the Saskatchewan contract, there are some areas which I would find to be somewhat vague with regard to who actually owns the asset in the long term and the flexibility that the province that has taken over the asset has with regard to that. Having looked at the value of private-public partnerships with Crown lands and the redevelopment of densities, I think it should be an absolute criterion of our negotiations that if we're taking over the stock, we're taking over title. When we take over title, we actually take over control, so that we can make the future decisions on the development. There should be a crossover within the agreement that allows us to do that, with some cooperation from CMHC.

I guess I can go over the key points in the Canada-Saskatchewan social housing agreement: "The federal government is continuing to maintain its financial commitment for assisted housing nationally, which is currently $1.9 billion per year, and to uphold national principles and require provinces to adhere to an accountability framework." That, I would assume, is the framework we're actually running any guidelines with with regard to our social housing projects now, so we must have some. . . . Well, obviously, the accountability. . . . On the two-thirds of the money that they're sending us, we're sending them the audited financial statements and what have you, so I would assume that's the framework.

The second is: "The federal subsidy is to continue to be used for housing and will serve to assist low-income households." One of the things I was concerned about with regard to this particular agreement was the level of agreement, where I really felt it wasn't strong enough on the commitment to the management side of it when you take over this housing stock, increase the staff and what have you. I'm just wondering what the commission has thought about that with regard to assuming 

[ Page 3807 ]

some 40,000 units of housing, and to how many staff and what type of situation they would have to implement to be able to manage that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right now we're doing a risk analysis, assessing the proposal from CMHC. That sort of work is being done because we haven't even gone forward to cabinet yet for a negotiating mandate. So that tells you how very early on we are. Basically all that stuff has to be developed: take it to cabinet, get a negotiating mandate and then go forward and try to negotiate some sort of agreement.

R. Coleman: So it would be safe to say that my information is a bit ahead of your information in this regard, as far as the knowledge is. . . . I'm not saying your knowledge, but certainly my information, because I've had the opportunity to review these agreements. Because they haven't gone to cabinet and you haven't set up your framework for negotiation, there's still some work to be done. I would like to encourage the minister, if it's possible, to involve the opposition in these negotiations to some degree, because of our knowledge of housing and of some of this housing stock, so that we would have the opportunity. . . .

Because of the size of the inventory and its future use, I think it's critical to our province that this stock be analyzed correctly and that the criteria be established for each particular project and then for what it is. We've had some experience in that regard analyzing large numbers of projects. I think it's important that we establish our opportunities for future redevelopment with CMHC and with these properties. If we're going to have the management, we're also going to want to have the benefit to our province with regard to future options that we can create. The opportunity here is probably beyond most people's understanding and scope, with the exception of the people at the commission and some other people who might be in the industry.

Seldom will you see this size of portfolio move in any direction whatsoever, and I think the criteria and the changeover of that portfolio is absolutely critical to our future housing stock with regard to our social aspect, to our rental aspect and even to some of our affordability and home ownership. I think there's a huge opportunity here. I know that I have had some discussions with the manager of B.C. Housing with regard to that, but it's very important that we address that. It's such a level of movement that there should be some involvement of all parties in the House.

[4:45]

R. Coleman: That would be appreciated, I'm sure, because I think it's important that we realize just what we're dealing with here. In dealing with such items to do with housing, we are probably afforded few opportunities for innovation. This is one of those opportunities. It's also an opportunity for disaster, because if we deal with it wrong and we end up with the stock and we don't have our contracts the way we want to, we end up with some stock that could end up costing us a great deal of money. That's a major concern.

If you review the variety of contracts that are in the appendices to the agreement in Saskatchewan -- as the people of B.C. Housing will know, and as the people at CMHC know -- there are a number of different operating agreements and funding formulas that have been in place over a number of years. There are a lot of people with expertise in that industry, and certainly we should be making absolute use of that expertise as we go through this particular negotiation.

I think that it's important to also recognize that the portfolio being assumed by us -- and that assumption requires significant staff input as well as significant management input with regards to it. . . . I'd be happy to make copies of what I have been able to get from Saskatchewan available to the commission. But I'm sure you may even have a lot of that stuff, as well, with regards to this.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Anything the member wishes to provide, we're more than willing. . . . We'll set up a meeting with him and the staff, because I think this is an important issue. I recognize the member has expertise in this area, and I welcome his comments and suggestions.

R. Coleman: We haven't gone far enough along in our negotiations. There's no point in beating this to death. I had ready a number of projects as examples of different ages, different uses, different cares and what have you, and the demographics of their tenants. But there's really no point in bringing that out if we're not far enough along the road. Hopefully, we'll have some participation in this particular process. Otherwise, a year from now, in estimates, I think the review will be quite substantive, because we'll be dealing with the stock, its age, its capital reserves and its management on an individual and a unit basis. I think it's very important that we're aware of that.

That really concludes my end for the purposes of the Housing Commission.

There are still some other housing issues I would like to deal with and to just have some quick discussion on. One of them is with regards to manufactured homes and manufactured home parks. But what I'd like to do, if it's possible, is turn you back to my colleague for a few minutes while we sort of get that together, and you can have your staff on that particular issue leave. I'll come back on the manufactured home parks and standards and what have you, because there's no sense in tying up staff any longer than necessary.

G. Abbott: I'll leap into action here. The issue I want to start with -- and the minister is perhaps half expecting it, given that my colleague, the critic for Transportation and Highways, was able to raise it a little earlier today in question period. . . . That is the issue of the joint council and those matters which should properly come to the attention of the joint council prior to their release to the outside world -- if we can characterize the world beyond this Legislature as that.

I thought we had had -- and perhaps did have -- a very good discussion around the whole question of the joint council and consultation. I thought we had quite thoroughly canvassed that issue. Perhaps we hadn't, though, because I was very surprised when I saw the press release from the Attorney General -- I guess it would have been last Wednesday afternoon -- with respect to the province's change of policy on whether photo radar was optional or mandatory across the province. I was surprised, because it was my understanding from our discussion during estimates -- and, I think, during the discussion surrounding Bill 2 -- that any issues, regardless 

[ Page 3808 ]

of how controversial or unpleasant they might be, would become the subject of discussion and thorough consideration at the joint council if they, in some substantial or fundamental way, were to impact one or other of the partners in the joint council.

I know that most recently in estimates we have discussed consultation in the joint council using the example of traffic fines from photo radar. We had a good discussion surrounding that, and it's very clear. The minister pointed it out in the House today that the issue of the distribution of traffic fines is a topic which the joint council has taken under consideration.

We also discussed the courthouse closure and how in the future that might be the kind of thing that would come before the joint council as an appropriate item to be discussed. So frankly, I am puzzled -- and I'm sure the minister will set the record straight for me here -- as to something which in my view is very fundamental: whether photo radar would be mandatory or optional across the province. When the province makes a very significant change in policy, why would that not come before the joint council? Perhaps the minister can solve my puzzlement here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to have this opportunity. I guess a couple of key points that I'd like to raise. . . . First, in terms of the joint council, we've had a thorough discussion around the issue of revenue-sharing and the work that's being done with municipalities on that around regular traffic fines and around the issue of photo radar. As far as the municipalities have been concerned at the joint council, that's been the key issue.

In terms of the protocol, I think we have acted within the terms of the protocol. I spoke to Gillian Trumper before the announcement was made. The key issue, again, is around fines. There's recognition within the protocol -- and I'll just read it -- that "the objectives of both parties is to ensure a clear division of responsibilities which leaves the province and local governments accountable for specific policies and gives them the authority and financial capacity to effectively perform their roles." The issue of photo radar is an issue of law enforcement, and that is clearly within the purview and within the role of the province to make decisions. From the municipalities' point of view, from discussions to date, the impact on municipalities has always centred around the issue of revenue-sharing. That issue has been addressed at the joint council.

But in terms of the decision to say, "Look, this is going to be a provincewide program," that is the role of the province, that is the responsibility of the province and that is the duty of the province. Hopefully that will clarify for the member where that issue fits in terms of the protocol.

G. Abbott: I appreciate -- as I think I noted in my initial comments -- that certainly the issue of fines has been appropriately the topic of discussion at the joint council. The minister makes a distinction between the issue of the distribution of fines and what he terms a "broad provincial interest" in the way in which justice -- i.e., photo radar -- is going to be administered in the province.

The point I would make in response to that is that for better or worse, up until last Wednesday, when in the late afternoon the Attorney General released his press release advising otherwise, the province had taken the position very clearly -- because both the Premier and the Attorney General have been challenged on a number of occasions on this point -- that photo radar was going to be a voluntary opt-in program for municipalities across the province. So it seems to me that this is very much something that should have been the topic of at least a superficial consultation at the joint council level. The province -- for whatever period of time; I guess it's over a year, two years, whatever it's been -- had taken one position with respect to how photo radar would be implemented in communities across British Columbia. Last Wednesday they reversed that. I think in fairness, if this protocol of recognition is going to be genuine and going to work properly, this is exactly the kind of unpleasant, unhappy news which indeed should be shared with the joint council prior to it becoming a public policy in British Columbia.

We used the example of the courthouse closures when we were discussing this in estimates. If we were in the post-joint council days and we were talking about the closure of courthouses, we would have a model whereby the province might advise the representatives of UBCM on joint council: "Look, we are considering, for a variety of reasons, the closure of a number of courthouses. What's your view on that?" There would be discussions, both parties would go back and talk to their respective sides and before the policy was implemented, there would be further discussion of it at the joint council.

It seems to me pretty much irrelevant whether a particular mayor -- whether she is the president of UBCM or not -- endorses a position. I think it's very fundamental here that if a process is going to work then whether the news is happy or unhappy, it should be going to the joint council. So I think that when the province is shifting a position that is going to affect municipalities -- and I think the minister has to accept that for at least half a dozen or more quite substantial municipalities in this province, it's going to involve a change in the way a provincial program is administered in their municipalities -- in fairness and in accordance with the protocol recognition, it should at least have received the superficial attention of the joint council.

[5:00]

We've addressed the key issue of the municipalities through previous discussions. The fact that a decision was made by the Attorney General to say that a program is to be run provincewide. . . . The member's correct: there was some discussion early on saying this might be optional or not, but there was considerable debate after that and considerable evidence from the law enforcement authorities that that was the wrong thing to do. Consequently, the government, which is responsible for law enforcement and for public safety, made a decision.

It's perfectly within the government's right to do that, even within the terms of the protocol of recognition. What has taken place to date has been the discussion of the issues concerning municipalities around the effect or the impact of photo radar on their municipalities -- which has been around the question of revenue-sharing. Okay? The province committed to undertake to look at options, to report back to the joint council and to go forward from there. So in that sense, the protocol has been followed and the protocol is going forward. I guess that's all I can tell you at this time.

[ Page 3809 ]

G. Abbott: My understanding from the folks I have talked to from UBCM is that while certainly the distribution of traffic fines has been the subject of discussion, the broader issues surrounding mandatory versus voluntary opt-in were not the subject of discussion at joint council. That having been said, I suspect I'm probably not going to be able -- even though I am highly persuasive -- to convince the minister today to admit that they fundamentally erred in not taking this subject through the joint council. This is just a suspicion I have. Perhaps I will move the minister to make such a startling admission, but I doubt it. But I do want to make the point for the record that I think. . . . Again, it seems like we're constantly talking in terms of the future: "Well, tomorrow we'll do it right; we'll get it right." With the boundless optimism that I am so thoroughly associated with, I'll try again to convince the minister that indeed this is the kind of thing which -- at least out of courtesy to the joint council and to UBCM -- they ought to be informed of prior to it being announced to the public.

I base that on three points. In particular, I call the minister's attention to the "Principles" section of the protocol of recognition. Point 2, the second sentence, reads: "To maximize efficiency and effectiveness, the parties are committed to cooperate in the spirit of partnership, particularly in the harmonization of legislation, regulations, policies, programs and projects." It would seem to me that this is precisely the case with the implementation of the photo radar program in municipalities where it has not been used previously or where those municipalities have opted out.

I think that it would be in the interests of the province to use the consultative process to alert those municipalities as they plan for their speed enforcement projects in the future and that in fact a significant change is coming, so that those kinds of programs can be harmonized with those of the province. It just seems to me fairly commonsensical, based on point 2.

Principle 3, under responsibilities and resources: "Any party proposing a significant change in legislation, regulations, policies or programs that affects another party will ensure that a full evaluation is done of the costs and revenues associated with the proposed change." In this case, certainly in terms of the revenues, discussions are underway, and that's commendable. Again, I have to think that what the province proposed on Wednesday was a significant change in policy -- and, I guess, regulation -- with respect to the photo radar program. Again, in fairness to the joint council, to UBCM and to the process of consultation, I think that more could have been done by the province to alert their partners with respect to the change in policy about whether photo radar was mandatory or optional.

Under the fifth principle, notification and consultation: "In the spirit of fairness, openness and good faith, any proposed significant change in legislation, regulations, standards, policies or programs will be preceded by appropriate consultation among the affected parties, including timely notification of the proposed change." It's here, I think, where we have most precisely. . . . I think the definitive point with respect to this is whether the province should have consulted the joint council on this issue. I think this really goes to the heart of it: that if we're going to have a genuine partnership through the joint council between municipalities and the provincial government, we use that spirit of fairness, openness and good faith to advise others of significant changes in legislation, policies, programs or whatever.

I guess it would be up to the province to decide what appropriate consultation would be in that case. If the province chose to take the position that they have -- that there is a provincewide justice issue that has to be addressed -- fair enough. At least deal with the consultation on that basis, rather than not using the process; rather than not having consultation, period, the province at least consults, and consults to a level that they consider appropriate. Here, consultation has not occurred; I think it should have. Again, I may not be able to convince the minister of that, but perhaps he can address those three points in the principles section of the protocol that I outlined. In particular, I would like him to explain why principle 5, "Notification and Consultation," would not apply in this case.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I come back to my original answer. I think this is one where my colleague and I are going to disagree. The fact of the matter is that the province has a responsibility around the issue of law enforcement and public safety, and that is not up for negotiation. It's the province's role and it's the province's mandate. It's not up for negotiation. It's not up for abrogation. It's the province's duty -- end of story. The province makes those decisions.

What the province has said it would do is respond to the concerns of municipalities around the issue of revenue-sharing. Those issues are being discussed. That's what the protocol commits us to. It says: what are your policy changes; what are you proposing to do; what are the impacts on municipalities?

The impacts on municipalities have been addressed right from the start. They were outlined clearly; that is, the issue of revenue-sharing, traffic fines, where the money goes and the fact that municipalities want some of that. We've said: "Yes, there's a case for that."

That's been raised at the joint council in a broader context. I can't remember everything that was said there, but that is the key issue that was been identified by the municipalities in terms of their concerns with photo radar. We said: "Yes, you've made a good point. We'll go back and do the work within the ministry to find out what the options are and how we can address it, and we'll bring that back to the next joint council meeting." That's being done.

Having said that, the province is responsible for administering public safety, for the administration of law enforcement. The province made the decision that photo radar should be applied equally throughout the province, that all communities should be treated the same, that all communities should have the same public safety standard. That's the only thing that was changed.

In terms of how photo radar is administered within the municipalities, the policy that was put in place is still there. The municipalities still have a role and a say in where it goes. They still have a say in hours of operation and those sorts of things that have been there in the past.

So we see it differently. I see it -- the issues that we've agreed to -- being brought to the joint council. That's being done. I spoke to the president of the UBCM, my colleague who sits on the joint council, and informed her of what was taking place. So that was done.

I think the joint council is working; it's working the way it's supposed to. It's not a forum where every time something happens, we convene a meeting of the joint council. It's a forum where we identify issues, what the key concerns are about those issues and how we address them. It's not intended to replace or take away or abrogate the province's role and responsibility. I think it's working. It's going to continue 

[ Page 3810 ]

to work. We're discussing the issues raised by the municipalities around photo radar, particularly around revenue sharing, and I am optimistic that we're going to find a solution to that.

G. Abbott: I'm not going to belabour this particular issue. I know my colleagues are very anxious to move along and make progress in the estimates -- as we do, indeed, every day -- so I won't belabour it. But I will say that obviously the minister and I are going to have to agree to disagree here, because there is some difference of opinion. The minister will not agree, but I still contend that there is nothing in the province advising the joint council that they are considering a change of policy that abrogates the right of the province to make that change in policy. Similarly, the province, as we so well know, determines from year to year the global amount which will be provided to municipalities in the form of transfers. In fact, even the distribution of that is ultimately the responsibility of the province. The fact that the province chooses to consult the municipalities with respect to that in no way abrogates the right and responsibility of the province to make that determination.

I would continue to contend here -- and as I say, I'm not going to continue to argue about it -- that advising the joint council that the province is considering a change of policy with respect to photo radar would in no way diminish, reduce or abrogate the right and responsibility of the province to make decisions in that quarter. The minister may wish to respond, but if not, I know my colleagues would like to continue on with Housing at this point.

[5:15]

I'd like to move on now to manufactured homes. There are a number of issues surrounding manufactured homes. I think it should be recognized, first of all, that the manufactured housing industry got its start many, many years ago under one form of housing and has evolved into what we would refer to today as manufactured homes. It originally started out as a sort of trailer industry. Mobile homes were just that: they were basically homes on wheels. They were usually set up in parks that were not immediately in residential areas but on the outskirts of communities and not on the best land bases. They were there for mobility.

What evolved out of that, of course, was that there weren't landscape barriers and setbacks and those types of criteria set up for the manufactured home industry. All you need to do is look at Revised Statutes of British Columbia, under mobile home parks -- page 412, I believe it is -- and it says: "also see trailer parks." Even that philosophy sits in some of our statutes today.

They were treated as temporary, at best. Basically they filled a void within the marketplace, and often they were located in sites that were temporary, as I said. Then when we relocated them at another date, the transient population moved on. As a result of that, they basically got a name for themselves within the housing marketplace. Because of their locations and looks, most municipalities didn't want anything to do with them. They didn't want to develop any new parks, and they didn't want to see anything happen with this particular alternate form of housing.

The truth of the matter today is that mobile homes -- manufactured ones built to the CSA standards of the nineties -- are no longer really mobile like their predecessors. They're extremely well built. They're well insulated. They give you some very nice features. Any feature that you would find in any home, you will find in a manufactured home today. In some cases, by defiance, you'd have difficulty recognizing whether some of the three- and four-modular models were manufactured or were stick-built on site. That is the evolution of the industry.

The industry, as a result, fills a niche in the marketplace and could actually provide us with some very significant, affordable alternatives in home ownership -- providing we can get municipalities to recognize the benefit of this form of ownership through some process where they would recognize the units as having value, having better setback, having a better look and what have you.

The Manufactured Home Owners Association did an extensive report and summary of their industry. They hired a consultant who did a great deal of work and came up with some draft bylaws with regards to manufactured home parks. First of all, I know this was circulated to the ministry. I wonder if the minister is familiar with the recommendations of this report and what the status of any implementation is with regards to this report and this package.

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I'd like to say that I agree with many of the comments the hon. member has made. Manufactured homes have a very good role to play; they are a very viable option for many people. One of the biggest challenges the manufactured homes industry has is overcoming the perception of 20, 25 years ago, because the industry has made huge strides. There is absolutely no comparison between a manufactured home of today and the old-fashioned trailer park of popular movie opinion.

Having said that, I'm familiar with the report. I have in place a task force of the manufactured homes people currently working on the recommendations. I should be getting a progress report and terms of implementation by the end of this month. I await that, and we'll see where we go from there.

In terms of the industry itself, it's going to play a considerable role over the coming years. There's a number of challenges it faces. Some can be addressed within the ministry, some can be clearly addressed by the industry itself, and local government has a role to play with some.

R. Coleman: On the local government side, the organization has gone to the extent of providing an entire package to every municipality in the province as well as to the ministry. One of the interesting things with regards to this package is that it goes to the extent of dealing with setbacks, designs, layouts, landscaping setups and all the rest of it with regards to manufactured homes and their parks. They've actually come up with model bylaws that could be dealt with under section 734 of the Municipal Act; this section falls under part 21, Community Planning, Division (5) -- Building Regulations. It is not a zoning bylaw, which is authorized under section 963 of part 29, Management of Development, Division (4) -- Land Use Designation.

[ Page 3811 ]

Has the minister looked at it from this aspect -- I know there's a task force in place -- of putting these model bylaws in and available to municipalities under this section of the act that is recommended? Or has that discussion taken place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The task force is looking at the model bylaws, and that will be part of the report. In terms of whether we are looking at implementing any changes or putting in place anything in the Municipal Act, no, not at the current time. For a start, the Municipal Act is basically enabling. One of the things I've said I wanted to do is to see the Municipal Act shrunken -- yeah, shrunken, not shrunked or shrinked. . . .

An Hon. Member: Shrunken?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Shrunk, made smaller, cut in half.

I'd be reluctant to put anything in place at a time when we're trying to compress the Municipal Act. Having said that, one of the things that needs to take place in order for changes to happen is that push at the local government level. If there are municipalities asking or wanting model bylaws or wanting to see something in the act, then certainly we will consider that. The best way to do that is for the manufactured homebuilders to start to try and bring some of the municipalities onside, because that's how the change is going to take place.

R. Coleman: I do believe that the manufactured home organizations have a role to play in this. But I also believe that the ministry has a role to play in it, even if it's just to encourage bylaws similar to the draft bylaw to be made available to municipalities and to encourage the position that this ministry is in favour of manufactured housing and manufactured alternatives within the system. This particular form of housing is adaptable to small-lot versus large-lot densities within subdivisions or retirement villages that are very affordable and can create some very good alternatives.

Basically, the bylaw itself is only in six parts. It deals with the purpose of the bylaw, the general provisions. It addresses the issues of development standards, such as lot sizes, etc. It deals with the servicing of safety standards. It addresses applications of approvals and permits, and it provides a standard form for approval and adoption of the bylaw. I think that's a real asset to any municipality. Even though that may have been forwarded or taken to them by a manufactured homeowners organization, I think an encouragement from the ministry would be an asset in order to wake municipalities up to this alternative form of very valuable housing that I see within the industry.

The other area of this particular industry that has led to concern, of course, is the actual basic emphasis of a community to include this type of housing in their community plans. As the task force goes through its processes, I certainly think encouragement on one site to make the bylaws and the setbacks and designs and layouts work, so that they're attractive within a community and show that this alternate form of housing is very good. . . . I have some of these particular facilities within my riding, and I can tell you that most anybody would be very happy to live in them, just because of the control and the setbacks and the landscape provisions and the design of the park or the bare-land strata or the lease strata, whatever the case may be. I think it's encouraging when you see an organization like this go to the extent of coming up with land lease provisions and then giving us examples, and doing all the research on our behalf as government, and we should be very thankful and very appreciative of that.

The other part of it is that once we get somebody that's going to take that initiative, this also provides a tremendous amount of jobs. If the industry was expanded, obviously we could expand the number of floors that could be built in the province. It creates more employment within the manufacturing sector, within the industry. Also, if we could get them to recognize it within the community plans, at a point in time we would find that we might be able to change the thinking in municipalities.

The other thing is the level of quality in these particular forms of housing. I've had the experience of owning and living in a manufactured home, so I know the quality. I can tell you that the leaking that's taking place in the condominium market today is not being found in this particular marketplace. I think that's probably a result of the certification of quality, the CSA standards that they go by. The CSA standards actually establish a high quality of construction, a high quality of care. There's good inspection in the factory -- all of these things are positive factors with regards to this particular industry.

The other issues, of course, dealing with manufactured homes are things that affect the area: peace and some of the things with the Residential Tenancy Act and what have you. I'd just like to see the ministry take a proactive role with regards to this alternative in housing to say: "Hey, you know, here we are, there's another opportunity in housing. Municipalities, wake up to this fact. This isn't bad. This is actually good. We can get affordability in the marketplace." I'd like to see the ministry take a more proactive role in that particular area.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's one of the reasons we asked for the task force to do the job that's it's currently doing. I mean, you're right: there is a role for us. And I do think there is a role for the ministry. Some of the suggestions you made, I'll certainly take under advisement. I think an example of the ministry's ability to be proactive and to make good decisions was the decision around 16-foot wides in the Peace River country. That was something they'd been asking for for a considerable amount of time, and that took place. So there is a role, and I guess the question is going to be. . . .

Having said that, it's not going to come solely from the ministry. It's got to come as much from the industry, and I recognize that they are making efforts, they are making strides. I take your comments in terms of pushing the municipalities and encouraging them. And I'll take your suggestions, because I think they're good ones.

J. Weisgerber: One of the real attractions with 16-wides has been for private landowners, particularly farmers, who are looking for forms of alternate housing, low-cost housing, ways to reduce construction at relatively remote sites. In that aspect, the availability of 16-wides has been particularly welcome, and there are a number of them moving in.

What isn't happening as quickly, I think, is the development of new parks. I share the concerns of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, and others, around that. One of the things, it appears to me, is that the Residential Tenancy Act, in fact, quite seriously discriminates against the owners of manufactured home parks or mobile home parks or trailer parks -- whatever you want to call it.

[5:30]

[ Page 3812 ]

we're not going to see new home parks developed. In fact, we're going to see more and more people look for alternative uses for the land. So I think that one of the biggest threats to the affordable housing option that manufactured homes represent is in fact the Residential Tenancy Act.

Could the minister tell me initially whether the task force is looking at -- or empowered to make recommendations with respect to -- the retroactivity and other clauses in the Residential Tenancy Act as they apply to manufactured homes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your question is yes, they are. In fact, one of their key priorities is looking at preserving existing home parks.

J. Weisgerber: With respect to rent notices, for example, the minister may be aware that a landlord in a traditional housing form has to provide three months' written notice. If you own a manufactured home park, you have to give six months' notice. I think that rankles, or irritates, people, simply because they're treated differently than someone who might own a huge rental apartment housing complex. But the retroactivity, which allows anyone to go in today and complain about any rent increase that happened after 1992 and have rents re-adjusted from 1992, has put a tremendous hardship on. . . . There are manufactured home parks that may well go into bankruptcy as a result of decisions around that retroactivity clause. I don't know how any business person can presume to plan for having a rent increase going back as far as five years reversed. I think it's a genuine error. It's not a mean-spirited thing. I think the legislation was introduced to try and make sure that people, seeing the legislation coming in in 1992, didn't unfairly bump rents up in anticipation of new legislation.

They've left this provision in the legislation. And I know, from talking to manufactured park owners around British Columbia, that unless this is changed, you are going to see more and more manufactured home owners struggling to find a place to park their manufactured homes and see more parks close down. Particularly for anyone wanting to buy a new 16-wide or 14-wide or whatever might be available, it is going to be very, very tough to convince anybody to invest in a new park as long as the Residential Tenancy Act continues unamended.

Could the minister, perhaps, give me a sense of the role he intends to play in bringing those changes forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises some very valid points, and I expect that particular issue to be addressed by my working group. Hopefully, they'll have recommendations dealing with it, but we'll be discussing it with the Attorney General at that time. Clearly, the points outlined are valid, and clearly it's an issue that has to be addressed. In earlier discussions with my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove . . . in terms of the role for government, I think that's an excellent role in dealing with that sort of thing.

J. Weisgerber: While one can be encouraged by the minister's comments, the disturbing thing is that I don't get a sense that there's likely to be any action in this current sitting of the Legislature. I know it's difficult to ask about future action or future policy, but I had been led to believe that there might be something more advanced, more developed, in terms of legislation or possible changes that would see some relief for this. There are really only the retroactivity sections that would require a line in one of those famous miscellaneous statute amendment acts. But I think it's important enough to pursue -- not necessarily waiting for an entire rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act, which probably should be done. I wonder if the minister is prepared to pursue that idea.

Hon. M. Farnworth: While I can't comment on what legislation is coming out of the Attorney General's ministry, neither do I think the hon. member should assume that changes won't be forthcoming.

J. Weisgerber: I thank the minister for that sense of what might or might not be happening. I must say, while I'm on my feet, that I was intrigued to listen to the minister's rather spirited defence to the member for Shuswap on the issue of photo radar. Having been someone opposed to photo radar for some time, I thought that the vigour with which the minister defended his position probably underlined the weakness of the position itself.

First of all, let me say that I think the minister's idea that photo radar now is all of sudden a law enforcement issue and not something to be involved in at the municipal level is a bit of a slap to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who gave the assurance to British Columbians -- not necessarily municipal governments, but to individual British Columbians: "Don't worry about photo radar being imposed on you. You won't have it unless your municipal government agrees with it."

That's a debate that's gone. But what I want to say to the minister, because I think there's some urgency, is that that to me strikes a great parallel with the commitments that are now being made with respect to gaming. The municipalities are being told: "There won't be any gaming in your municipality unless you approve." Municipalities have taken that very seriously. On July 5, Dawson Creek is going to hold a referendum to decide whether or not gaming should be permitted in Dawson Creek. I wonder: can the minister. . . ? Given the rather significant change of position by the province on the issue of photo radar, what advice does he give the mayor of Dawson Creek, who is incurring a considerable expense to hold a referendum on gaming? Will in fact some prerogative from government, some need for the greater good, also render useless a referendum that might be undertaken on the issue of gaming?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member would be making a mistake in saying that just because I mounted a spirited defence, that means that the argument is somehow weak. I think the point I was trying to make was -- because he came in somewhat later, I think -- that we had been canvassing this question a number of times, and I guess the answer comes back to the same. He said: "Look, this is a provincial responsibility. The issues that were raised by municipalities are being dealt with at the joint council process." All those things are taking place, and that's another discussion, another debate.

The question he asked in terms of gaming -- and I go back to the question asked by the opposition gaming critic last week or the week before last. . . . From day one, the government has been quite clear that there will be no expansion in terms of new charitable casinos or destination casinos without local community support, without the support of the municipality. One of the things we've said we want to see municipalities do is devise mechanisms to determine local community 

[ Page 3813 ]

support. The issue has been raised at the joint council and has been thoroughly discussed at the joint council. They are happy with the position that we've taken, and they're happy with the way things are progressing.

My comment to the mayor of Dawson Creek would be the same one I would give to any other mayor looking at a referendum: "Go ahead and use a referendum to determine the level of your community support." I think that is a fair way for the municipality to ascertain whether or not there is support in a community for a casino. At the same time, another community can feel free to use whatever other mechanism they want. So I don't think Dawson Creek or any other community should have to worry. The province has made it quite clear, and I'll put it on the record again: there's not going to be a casino in a community that doesn't want one or where there's not strong community support.

J. Weisgerber: Far be it from me to ever discourage the minister from cooperating with municipalities that want to hold referendums. I think that's fine.

I'm just wondering whether the minister can see the parallel between the assurances he's giving the municipalities today and the assurances that the Minister of Transportation and Highways gave those same municipalities with respect to photo radar. They were exactly the same kinds of assurances: "Don't worry. Don't be upset. If you don't want photo radar in your community, you're not going to have it."

Now it becomes a matter of law and order and public safety. Why should municipalities not believe that when the government wants to simply ratchet up the level of gaming in the province, they won't find some similar rationale to simply impose expanded gaming on those communities? If the minister can't see the parallels here, I guess we're in big trouble.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fact is that they are two totally different issues -- two totally different topics -- and the issue that has been raised is whether or not the joint council should have been consulted. I've said that the protocol has been adhered to, that the issues that were raised by the municipalities have been dealt with. That's the key issue, from my perspective.

With the issue of gaming in the municipalities, right from day one the key issue has been: "We don't want to see a destination casino imposed on our community. We want to be consulted about whether one goes in or not. We want to have a say in mechanisms. We want to have a say in the approval process." We've turned and said: "Yes, you're going to have an approval process; yes, you design the approval process; and yes, only when there's community support will there be a casino." That's what the protocol has committed us to, and that's what is taking place.

If the member isn't happy with that, there's not much more I can say. But the fact of the matter is that there will not be a casino in a community -- and this is on the record -- if there's not community support.

Given the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we're getting into a number of topics. . . . It's nice to see that we've dealt with the housing issues today. The member has made a number of positive suggestions that we'll act on. We have committed to getting him some information, and that will be done. I look forward to seeing these things unfold over the next little while.

Having said that, I move the committee rise, report outstanding progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada