Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 7 -- Thursday, March 14, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		1947

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1947
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 11) Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1947
	Mary Manning Centre S. Orr U.N. convention on the rights of the child V. Anderson International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination I. Chong

Oral Questions		1948
	Sodexho J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen J. Kwan Labour Code changes J. Bray Hon. G. Bruce Cost of referendum on treaty negotiations J. Nuraney Hon. G. Plant Income assistance appeals process H. Long Hon. M. Coell Government support for small business K. Krueger Hon. G. Collins

Committee of Supply		1951
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Abbott

Introductions by Members		1956
	Hon. K. Whittred Hon. G. Abbott

Royal Assent to Bills		1974
	Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary) (Bill 12)

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1975
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines Hon. R. Neufeld J. MacPhail B. Penner D. Jarvis

D. MacKay: From the beautiful Bulkley Valley–Stikine part of the province, I am pleased to introduce two guests today. I should start with a little bit of a preamble. If anybody was here in 1997, they might know my next guest. He spent a couple of weeks on a bed outside on the lawn in April and May of 1997, dealing with a health dispute. That person was His Worship Paul Jean from Burns Lake. He's up in the gallery today.

Also upstairs with him is my constituency assistant, Patty Peterson, from Smithers, who's on a much-deserved holiday. I'd like the House to make them both welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'd like to introduce a graduate of Earl Marriott Secondary School, a citizen of Surrey–White Rock and a journalism student at Kwantlen College, who is now doing a practicum with Esquimalt News. She assures me that members of the media are to be fully trusted and can be told almost and virtually anything. She assured me of that this morning.

S. Orr: I'd like to introduce two people today from the glorious flower city of Victoria. I'd like to introduce two very special people: Mr. Fred Ford, who is the executive director of the Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Society of Greater Victoria, and Mr. Bob Willihnganz, who is the chair of the board of that society. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray: I was very pleased, walking into the chamber today, to see two guests joining us in the members' gallery. First, there's a young man who's moved back to British Columbia to pursue his career, Jeff Bishop, and also joining us is a very enthusiastic constituent of mine, Mr. Robin Adair. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: In the gallery today I'm very pleased to welcome some grade 11 students from Southridge Senior Secondary School. There are two grade 11 classes with us here today, representing 41 students, along with four of their teachers: Trevor Julian, James Knihniski, Anami Naths and Dawn Haider. I would ask the House to please make them welcome today.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. More good news from the government of British Columbia. This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: the Access to Education Act, the Assessment Act, the Family Relations Act, the Health Authorities Act, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3), the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, the Public Service Act, the Strata Property Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Vancouver Charter. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

S. Orr: I rise today to tell you about a very, very special organization in this region. I can honestly say I wish that this organization did not have to exist. It is called the Mary Manning Centre of the Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Society of Greater Victoria. This organization was established in 1982. Because of the terrible things that some children in our society are subjected to, the Mary Manning Centre exists, and for that I am very grateful.

This organization is a non-profit society that provides counselling services to victims of child physical and sexual abuse and their families. Every year this centre sees approximately 250 children and their families. They come from referrals from the police, social workers, school counsellors, doctors and teachers. This is the only non-profit organization of its kind in the south Island, and they are recognized as experts in this very difficult field of work.

Many of the children, or clients, that the Mary Manning Centre sees are first abused between the ages of six

and 12. About 18 percent were abused by someone they knew; 35 percent are males, and 65 percent are females.

This is the toughest kind of work, and the 11 highly trained counsellors regularly have a waiting list of approximately 65 to 85 children and youth. Sometimes they have to wait three to six months before they receive any help.

I wish with all my heart that innocent children didn't have to be hurt, and I know that everyone in this chamber feels the same. I am only glad that we have an organization like the Mary Manning Centre and their dedicated workers helping these innocent children put their lives back together. For that, I thank them.

V. Anderson: Children have a priority. As Canadians, we have an ethic that gives children a priority in care and concern. We are not alone in this principle. The national governments of the world, through the United Nations, likewise have confirmed that children have a priority. In 1943 they established the children's emergency fund which we know as UNICEF, a focus of the annual Halloween boxes of our children. In 1989 they passed the UN convention of the rights of the child, of which Canada is a signatory nation. Yet many of us, perhaps, have never read this convention, which contains some 45 articles to affirm our responsibility to our children. Thus, today you have on your desks a copy of the convention of the United Nations.

Let me summarize just some of the important parts of this convention, as we would stand up for our children and their rights and their opportunity for the fullness of life. Some of the rights listed here are the right to a name and nationality; the right to affection, love and understanding and to material security; the right to adequate nutrition, housing and medical services; the right to special care if disabled, be it physically, mentally or socially; the right to be among the first to receive protection and relief in all circumstances; the right to be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation; the right to full opportunity for play and recreation and equal opportunity in all of life's activities; the right to develop one's full potential in conditions of freedom and dignity.

Hon. Speaker, I pray that we will read this and act upon these recommendations. Thank you.

I. Chong: Next Thursday, on March 21, many people will be observing the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. On that day in 1960 police opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, South Africa, against the apartheid pass laws. Since 1966, March 21 has been recognized by the United Nations as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It is a day to celebrate the many steps the world has taken to free itself from racial hatred but also a day to reflect on the challenges that remain and to renew our commitment to overcoming them.

Canada was one of the first countries to support the UN declaration. In 1989 the Department of Canadian Heritage launched its annual March 21 campaign. This campaign was initiated in response to the need to heighten awareness of the harmful effects of racism. For more than ten years, the March 21 campaign has mobilized youth across Canada to rise up and take a stand against racism. Through their participation in the campaign, Canadian youth have spoken loudly and eloquently: there is no place for racism in their lives.

Since 1994, including this year, the province of British Columbia has proclaimed March 21 as the day for the elimination of racism. This year the provincial government is partnering in community activities with Abbotsford, Campbell River, Prince George, Cranbrook and the lower mainland. In my own riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I have been privileged to work with many young people who speak out against racism. I have seen them acknowledge this initiative with passion, demonstrating a clear commitment to fostering respect, equality and diversity. They have the energy, commitment and creativity to advance the struggle against racism. They are the voice of the present and the future. We look forward to them to transcend the boundaries of race, ethnicity and religion, and to embrace diversity.

Even in this year's Commonwealth Day message provided by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, there was mention of a theme — celebrating diversity — that I believe touches on this very issue. Next week is spring break week. As we return to our constituencies, I trust that all members will take time on March 21 to observe this important day.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday British Columbians got a chance to see the kind of shoddy, shady operators this government is letting into the health care privatization business. Despite an abysmal record of delivering health services, Sodexho, an international conglomerate, is now on the public payroll for the northern health authority, giving the government privatization advice.

The Minister of Health Services has now had some time to look into Sodexho. Can he tell British Columbians how much money the government is spending on getting advice from this company? Can the minister tell us if they checked the references of this company before putting them on the payroll?

J. MacPhail: The minister has had the information about Sodexho for over a week. Let me provide the minister with some information about Sodexho.

Sodexho is not only famous for a shoddy and dangerous approach to patient care. Sodexho also holds contracts worth millions to provide school lunches. A recent Chicago Tribune investigative report found that school children were getting violently ill from food served to them by Sodexho subcontractors. Last year a worker lost part of a thumb in a Sodexho cafeteria, which found its way into a student's lunch. Again to the minister: will the minister step in and cancel the contract of Sodexho that's being held — spending money — in the northern health authority right now?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have given latitude to the health authorities to seek the advice they feel they need in terms of how to redesign the health care system so it actually starts meeting the needs of patients, for a change, in British Columbia. We have given them that latitude.

I am aware, as I said yesterday, that the northern health authority has given a consulting contract to Sodexho. It's my understanding that there is no contract to provide any kind of direct services. It is simply a consulting contract.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister is so hesitant to get rid of Sodexho because he likes the business model it promotes. If you want to prohibit workers from improving their working conditions and participating in the delivery of care, then Sodexho is the company for you. They are promoting this kind of model with a manual, which they have provided to their managers, with advice on how to keep workers under their thumb. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, it's not a laughing matter. When you find a body part in a child's sandwich, in a child's lunch, it's not a laughing matter. British Columbians don't want to have anything to do with this kind of company.

Again to the minister: why are patient dollars being funnelled to a company whose business model is a boon for the shareholders but a disaster for the patients?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's certainly a repetition in questions from yesterday to today, and there's a repetition in answers. We have given authority to the health authorities in the province to actually seek out the most cost-effective way of delivering support services in our health care system. We want to make sure we get quality service — and improved quality service, if possible. We also want to make sure we do it in the most cost-effective way. That's the challenge we've given to the health authority, and that's what we expect them to deliver on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, what we know about Sodexho should make even right-wing governments like this one cringe. They make millions in profits by putting cut-rate services to patients, and they seem to believe, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson so eloquently put it a while back, that hospital workers are just a bunch of toilet cleaners that do not deserve decent wages and working conditions.

Again to the minister: when will he show some leadership and send these guys packing? Or is it the case that Sodexho is providing just the kind of services he's looking for?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am not, as the Minister of Health Services, going to micromanage the delivery of health care around the province. I am not going to hang over the shoulders of the health authority administrators and tell them how to do their job. The task we have given them is to get the best value for the taxpayers in British Columbia and deliver the best quality of patient care and support service in British Columbia. We have said to them that they should look at options. We have very good workers in the health care system today who are doing excellent work. We also have opportunities to look at other options in terms of how that gets delivered. Those decisions are going to be left to the capable administrators we have put in place to deliver health services at the local level.

J. Bray: My question will be for the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. Over the last two days my office has received a number of calls from constituents seeking clarification on reports they've heard that government is preparing to introduce changes to B.C.'s Labour Code that will undermine the rights of workers. I'm wondering if the Minister of Skills Development and Labour can tell us whether or not those reports are accurate.

Hon. G. Bruce: What the process is, is under a review of the labour relations in British Columbia. The issues that are on the website have been submitted by both union and business associations. What we're doing is putting that out there so that all can comment on it, be they employees, be they small businesses or be they union members. We're looking for that input to be returned to us so that we can further try to improve labour relations in British Columbia to get the economy turned around in this province. After ten years of the most disastrous government we've ever seen in British Columbia — in fact, ladies and gentlemen, that we've ever seen in this country of Canada — it's going to take a great deal of time and effort and energy on all of our parts to get British Columbia back to its rightful place: number one in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a supplementary question.

J. Bray: Unlike a couple of members of this House, my community does want to hear these answers. The minister said the government is committed to consulting with British Columbians on changes to improve the Labour Code. My constituents want to be actively involved in that. I'm wondering if the Minister of Skills Development and Labour can outline for this House how our constituents can take an active participation in that consultation process.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's important to note that we're trying to broaden the ability for people to participate. That's why we're using the electronic age. It's on the website — similarly as we did with the employment standards review. With the employment standards, we had over 300 submissions that were submitted to government. I would hope that your constituents and others — be they employees, small businesses, union members, union associations — would take that advantage on the website. I have to thank the member for asking these questions.

I actually thought the opposition would probably jump to their feet and try and represent, once again, the union movement of the province. But the fact of the matter is that we know that after ten years of your rule…

Hon. G. Bruce: …in British Columbia, we probably have fewer union jobs in the province than ever. What we're looking for…

Hon. G. Bruce: …in the province is to get the economy going with good union jobs…

J. Nuraney: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. There have been concerns expressed in the media about the potential costs associated with the referendum on treaty negotiations. Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations clarify what the anticipated cost attached to the referendum is?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to provide the information the member is seeking. Elections B.C., which is an independent office of the Legislature, will be conducting the actual vote. They have given us a budget for the mail-in ballot that they say will cover the cost of their part. That's about $9 million.

We in government will be sponsoring an independent referendum office to provide the public with information to help them understand the questions. That office has a budget of about $800,000. All in, we're expecting that this exercise will cost less than $10 million.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon with a supplementary question.

J. Nuraney: I'm sure everyone in this House would agree that settling aboriginal claims is in the best interests of all British Columbians. Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us how the cost of the referendum compares to previous aboriginal treaties?

Hon. G. Plant: We know that the cost of the Nisga'a final agreement is close to $500 million and perhaps more. With as many as 60 other possible land claims settlements and treaties being negotiated across the province, we can expect that the final bill for negotiating and settling treaties will be a very, very big bill.

We also know that the cost of negotiation is expensive. The first nations have loans and contribution funding already in the BCTC process of $230 million. If you add the federal-provincial contributions, I suspect we've spent half a billion dollars without a single concluded treaty to date.

In that context, I say that a $10 million investment to protect this hugely important and ultimately very costly process is a very reasonable, modest investment that the taxpayers of British Columbia want us to make on their behalf so that we can make treaty-making work for all British Columbians.

H. Long: This is to the Minister of Human Resources. A number of my constituents have heard through media reports of the government's plans to make changes to the appeals process for those on income assistance. Can the Minister of Human Resources outline those changes and how they will affect those on income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: Presently, the ministry has an appeals process that has numerous internal appeals plus a tribunal system and an appeal board. That can be lengthy and cumbersome.

What I have done, working through the ministry and with ministry staff, is design an external appeal process that will be one level. It will have regionally based tribunals throughout the province. It's the hope that this will be a much more effective and streamlined approach and will give decisions that affect the lives of people on income assistance quickly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has a supplementary question.

H. Long: A number of constituents have also expressed the need to ensure the continued involvement of local communities in the appeals process. Can the Minister of Human Resources tell us how he plans to allow community groups and other individuals to participate in the appeals process?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the ability to have tribunals that are appointed throughout the province on a regional basis will allow that to happen. I think one of the things we want is for people to have reliability in the system and the comfort of knowing that these are fair and accessible tribunals. That will be done in June of this year so people who are on income assistance will have access to those tribunals after that period.

K. Krueger: Economic analyses consistently demonstrate that small business is the greatest creator of jobs in Canada and in British Columbia.

My question is for the Minister of Finance: what is this government doing to encourage small business in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Collins: This government has in fact done a great deal to encourage small business in the ten months or so that we've been here. In our very first budget we eliminated the PST on production machinery and equipment — a $160 million benefit to businesses across British Columbia to reinvest in their businesses and expansions.

We're eliminating the corporate capital tax on general corporations, which many small businesses pay in their triple-net lease.

In this budget, presented a short while ago, we just raised the threshold for the small business income tax from $200,000 to $300,000 to match other jurisdictions in western Canada.

The Minister of State for Deregulation is working hard on a plan to reduce the regulatory burden of businesses in British Columbia by one-third in three years.

As well, government reduced the income taxes for British Columbians across the board. We saw our top marginal income tax rate go from the highest in North America to the second-lowest in Canada, which will help the high-tech sector and small businesses grow to become medium and large businesses.

Hon. G. Collins: In the small House, Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services.

In this chamber I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, followed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. Kwan: Prior to the lunch break we were talking about compensation and mitigation for community groups that have lost their unit allocation as a result of the cancellation of over a thousand units by this government.

I was trying to get a sense from this government in terms of what they have budgeted for this mitigation work. How many societies are in the position of losing money because they have put energy and resources into meeting the conditions of government for these allocations? The minister was reluctant to provide the number or even the ballpark number for reasons that he articulates to be not wanting to set up expectations. I am, however, still interested in pursuing this line of questioning, because the community groups — and many of them have come to me — have raised their concerns around it.

One of the things that I think is important is to send a signal to the community, to say to them that perhaps the government will indeed be fair and that they will work with them to address these concerns, to really stem off litigation. I am concerned about litigation. Ontario has gone to the path of litigation, and, yes, Ontario had cancelled unit allocations that were under construction, but there were some that weren't either.

Irrespective of that, in British Columbia societies have gone through a process. Some of them have incurred staff costs, and some have incurred other costs — whether it be legal costs, costs related to land, etc. There are a whole host of costs that societies have incurred.

I'm wondering, perhaps, if the minister — if not in this House — can provide the information to me by correspondence, through his staff. I would welcome that information, just so that when I speak with the community groups, I actually have some sense of an answer for them other than to say: "Hey, don't worry." What they've learned from this government is that when it says, "Don't worry; you're a priority," they see

services cut to programs in areas that they fully depend on. It's a far cry to simply say: "Hey, don't worry."

I wonder if the minister can give me the assurance in this House today that he could provide me with the targeted budget that the ministry has set aside for this work. How many societies will be impacted?

Hon. G. Abbott: We did canvass this particular point at some length this morning. I'll say this one more time, and I'll say it as gently and as dispassionately as I can.

First of all, it is the government's intent to deal fairly, reasonably, equitably and appropriately with any housing societies who may have suffered as a consequence of the changes which have been made.

Again, as I pointed out on numerous occasions earlier today and, I think, yesterday as well, the reason why we advised the societies last October about the projects under review was so that they would not go out and make any additional investments that they did not have to make in relation to their projects.

I also acknowledged earlier today, Mr. Chair, that where additional costs were unavoidable, we would also take that into account in any discussion around mitigation which will commence between B.C. Housing and the projects. That's why we made the announcement in October.

The societies were advised yesterday of their status — whether their projects were proceeding or not proceeding. Again, we believe that in some cases, projects that were advised they would not be proceeding will, at some point in the months ahead, be proceeding with stronger partnership. Further, I advised the member that a number of the projects — in some cases they're B.C. Housing projects, and in other cases…. At least in one case, the society in question asked that their allocation be returned. So, clearly, the compensation issue is not one that's going to be universal here.

We are entirely confident. This is not something that I dreamed up; these are the best estimates of the professional, knowledgable staff that I have around me. We have provided sufficient funds to ensure that everyone will be treated fairly, equitably and reasonably in this process.

I'm going to tell the member this one last time, Mr. Chair. We are not going to be releasing a figure in this House. We have to balance the opportunity to be fair and equitable with the projects with the legitimate right and concern of the taxpayer that we will act in the best interests of the taxpayer. I've given my commitment that we are going to treat the projects and the societies fairly and equitably. We will do that. We've made provision for that. Those discussions have already started. I'll be glad to advise the member as they proceed. I'm entirely confident that there will be a completely satisfactory resolution of this point, but I am not….

The member can get up and ask this question all day long, if she wishes. I am going to be rather less statesmanlike in my responses from this point on, because I've made the point a number of times now, and it's time to move on. In the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia, in the interests of the societies in question, we are going to treat them fairly and equitably. I am not going to release a precise figure of dollars in this House.

J. Kwan: It sounds to me almost as though the minister is using a tone of threat in this House, hon. Chair. The line of questioning that I'm asking is important. My office and I have been talking with societies around these issues. They've been concerned about it since right after the election. They have been phoning my office continuously around this issue. I've been meeting with them continuously around this issue beginning last year, even before the minister made the announcement of freezing the 1,700 units of affordable housing. Then the speculation surfaced after that time, when the expectation was that there'd be about a thousand units that would be cancelled. That has now been confirmed, and people are continuously asking these questions in terms of what kind of compensation and so on.

You know, this is supposedly an open and transparent government. Supposedly, they have in the line items within their books how much they're allocating for what purpose. The line of questions I'm asking is completely within the authority of the budgets. This is why we're here in this budget estimates process: to find out what items the minister has within his budget and what they are for. I'm asking the question around what has been allocated for the mitigation and compensation component.

If the minister is not prepared to give that answer…. Obviously, he is not prepared to give that answer in this House. Even though in the New Era document they claim that they will be open and they claim that they will be transparent, there is zero transparency here. There is zero transparency here, and that is obvious. He wants to get up and use a tone of threat in this House. You know, quite frankly, in my own view it's not appropriate.

Let's go through, then, specifically what would be deemed to be items that would fit for compensation. Let's start with the issue around staff time that has been incurred from the societies who put forward an application under the previous government that has received approval from the previous government and has received allocation. Let's start with the compensation process, then, item by item to determine what would be fair compensation in this scenario.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is one thing that is remarkably transparent in this House, and that's how thin the research is on the part of this member and her opposition party in preparing for these estimates. It's remarkable how, after some very patient responses to the question, they want to keep coming back to the point.

Again, to make the record clear, B.C. Housing has commenced its discussions with the societies with respect to projects that will not be proceeding at this

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that we'll be looking at all legitimate costs on a case-by-case basis.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to decipher, for the societies who are going to have to deal with this government on these issues, where they have incurred costs. Some societies are at the brink of having to make a determination whether to fold their entire project or continue to try and proceed with some hope of making their project realistic by getting funding from the government and realizing the social housing units for their communities — much-needed units for the communities throughout British Columbia, where we have over 10,000 people on the wait-list waiting for safe, secure and affordable housing.

Quite frankly, the minister is not forthcoming with these answers. He says: "What is legitimate, what's fair." I'm asking him: what is deemed to be fair and legitimate? Start with one easy item: staff costs that have been incurred by a society in moving a project forward since the allocation's been made and since the government has announced that the project will not proceed and has cancelled those allocations. Will staffing costs be considered a legitimate expenditure that societies will be able to recoup from this government?

Hon. G. Abbott: B.C. Housing has commenced those discussions. We will not know, until all of the issues are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, precisely what the outcome will be. I'm afraid the member is going to have to come to grips with the fact that on May 16, 2001, the government changed in British Columbia. They are no longer the government. They're no longer responsible for negotiating issues such as compensation in cases like this.

When we look back at the many issues on which the former government went to compensation, they didn't get up in this House and say: "Here's exactly what we're going to do for Carrier Lumber," or, "Here's what we're going to do here," or, "Here's what we're going to do there." You don't do that. The member knows that full well.

We have started the discussions. We are going to look at legitimate staff costs; we're going to look at legitimate third-party costs. Again, until we get into those discussions more fully and until we know the rationale or the fact basis on which the societies are making their requests, we cannot form judgments.

The member knows full well that it is entirely inappropriate and irresponsible to be attempting to undermine the position of the taxpayers of British Columbia by attempting to grandstand in this House for people she somehow believes are allies of hers and by pretending to be negotiating their position with the government. It doesn't happen.

J. Kwan: The arrogance of this government and this minister is unbelievable. He rises up in the House and lectures me, and he often does that with my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, saying that they have 77 seats in this House and they can do whatever they want. Any question you ask is not legitimate. The amount of arrogance this minister is displaying is absolutely stunning.

This member claims he comes from the community, and he deals with them. He's been a municipal councillor, and so on and so forth, but he fails to understand the anxiety that the community groups are going through. He fails to understand that a lot of these community groups are small groups with a volunteer board at the table, plowing ahead day in and day out, trying to do what they think is best for the community — in this case, around housing — trying to see affordable housing units developed in the community to support members of their community.

They invest their time and energy. The board members take a personal risk because they have a fiduciary responsibility to those societies at the end of the day. In spite of the election and in spite of the government freezing the projects, people have gone forward to see what they can do to maintain the possibility of seeing the units develop into housing for the members in their community. Now all of a sudden they find themselves with their projects cancelled and risks they have assumed that they now have to take on. It does, for a small society particularly, come down to dollars and cents; it does. Some may be able to get legal advice; others may not.

All I'm attempting to do, hopefully through this government, is give some assurances to members of the public that they don't need to worry, that in fact government will be there for them on the issue around compensation, and "here are some of the things you can look at in terms of what your losses are." I actually don't think the societies will sit there and think of how they can gouge the government, if you will, and cheat them if they weren't legitimate loss costs. I don't think that at all. I don't think the societies are thinking about that. They're just simply thinking about what is valid, what is not valid and the kind of things that they need to start to prepare when they meet with B.C. Housing and their staff.

What is clear from this minister, though, is that he actually doesn't know. Either he doesn't know what the answer is, so he doesn't know what the line budget is in his budget, or if he does know, then he is trying to create a very difficult position for these societies. Either way, I don't think it's acceptable.

This minister likes to claim that he is open and accountable in the estimates process, and he knows very well what I'm trying to get at here in terms of helping the societies with some level of assurance in terms of

their compensation and mitigation issues. The minister is not even prepared to acknowledge that.

I asked a question about staffing costs — would it be legitimate? — and he refuses to answer that question. Legal costs — would that be legitimate? Mortgage costs that people have to carry because they carried the land — would that be legitimate? I think these are broad questions that societies are looking for. I'm not advocating for any one society in particular but broadly speaking to let the communities know what it is they can look at and start to prepare for that work.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to try one more time here. B.C. Housing has been a solid, dependable, reputable organization for decades here in British Columbia. They deal on a daily basis with some 700 non-profit societies in the province. They deal with them on a daily basis. They deal with them with respect to projects that are there, with ongoing subsidies, with other issues they may frequently have. The fair treatment of those 700 societies has been, I think, very much the hallmark of B.C. Housing.

I have made the commitment, and I know B.C. Housing has made the commitment, to treat all the parties here fairly and equitably. I don't know how many times I have to say that before the member is prepared to accept it. Not only do I find it, in fact, quite appalling that the member would insult me — I'm happy to accept her accusing me of wanting to cheat and gouge people — but I'm astounded that she would suggest, somehow, that our staff would take any kind of approach like that into these kind of discussions. That is absolutely astounding.

I have made a commitment here. We are talking about things. The member asks: "Well, what kind of things?" Land costs, in some cases non-refundable deposits, might certainly be considered a legitimate issue for a project that wasn't proceeding — and elected, I might add, not to proceed after trying to secure stronger partnering. Architects' fees are another example. Development consultant fees are another example. Really, legitimate staff costs are, again….

We have to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. We don't negotiate these things in this chamber. Clearly, the public interest demands that we deal with it responsibly and appropriately, and that's what we're going to do.

If the member is trying to pose here as the great defender of the non-profits, every time now I'm going to have to remind the member as we continue along the present track that the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act, which we talked about last night….

The member frowns, and I don't blame her for frowning. She must be deeply embarrassed, if not ashamed, by her government's record with respect to this. For years non-profits begged the former government to repeal that legislation, because what it did was every time a non-profit wanted to change the use of their property — maybe to add a seniors activity centre, remortgage, pave a road or whatever it happened to be — the government…. In 1999 that government made the situation with the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act even worse, punitively adding an amendment to the act that legally would force the non-profits to pay the Crown — i.e., their government — one-third of the value of the land and the assets on the land — absolutely astounding.

If this member's trying to pose as some great white knight who's trying to ride to the rescue of non-profits in the province, I have to remind her — and I'm going to remind her at every turn here — about the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act and their pathetic failure to deal with that. As a government, the only thing they could do was make it even worse by adding even more punitive penalties to the non-profits. I'm not going to sit in this chamber and be lectured by that member and her opposition colleague on the issue. Clearly, they've got a big problem here.

J. Kwan: Let's just go through these items. Actually, you know what? The minister just finally came clean on some of the items that societies would be able to claim as fair and legitimate compensation. He actually made a list of some of those items: architectural fees, development cost fees, land-related fees, legitimate staff fees, etc. — costs. That's all I was asking for — a list and simple answers from the minister — and the minister refuses to answer.

J. Kwan: Yes, I was asking dollar figures. What kind of ballpark are we looking at? I am interested in knowing whether or not this government has budgeted this item and for how much. The minister claims that the amount would be not as costly as actually building these units. Well, what percentage? It's the public who ought to make the judgment whether or not the government acted rightly or wrongly by cancelling these allocations and therefore have the taxpayers incur a cost for compensation and mitigation.

That's all I was trying to determine from an open, accountable, new-era government — this Liberal government. How are they budgeting their things, and how are they justifying these kinds of decisions? Also, I was trying to give comfort to the societies who have lost money as a result of the cancellation of over a thousand units, but the minister refuses to answer that question — until just now.

You have to keep on pushing and pushing, and then he gets up and makes threats, in my view. He answers with a tone of threat in order to give an answer. The minister is laughing because he thinks this is somehow funny.

The other issue around the minister is that he wants to talk about the previous government's record around housing. I'd be delighted to talk about the previous government's record. Let's just review some items.

B.C. Housing, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was initiated by the former government in 1994. It provides for a comprehensive housing program, wholly funded by the provincial government, to provide low- and moderate-income British Columbians with secure, safe and affordable housing. Homes B.C. is delivered by B.C. Housing through community-based, non-profit co-op housing societies. In the first five years of Homes B.C., 4,100 units of new housing were supported. In June of 1999 the provincial government committed funding for another 2,400 units of housing over the next two years under the Homes B.C. program. An additional 600 units were funded, through the Treasury Board process, in the downtown east side and throughout British Columbia. That brought the total number of units completed or under construction since 1999 up to 3,000.

Since the inception of Homes B.C. in 1994, the government has committed funding for over 7,500 units of affordable housing in British Columbia, with a total capital value of $833 million. To put the investment in perspective, 7,500 units would have provided enough housing for the entire population of a city the same size as, let's say, Prince Rupert.

Hon. Chair, I am proud of this record. I wasn't there for all of that. I'm a strong advocate for housing. Everybody knows that. I've always been and will continue to be a strong advocate for housing. Yes, I am proud of the previous government's record on that. Does that mean to say that there wasn't more to be done? Does that mean to say that there weren't some mistakes made along the way? Of course the previous government, just like any other government or any individual, made mistakes — no doubt about it.

On the seniors question the minister keeps on…. I think it was last summer when that legislation was brought forward. I wasn't in the House. I was away on my honeymoon. I think some members may well remember that. I think the member for Vancouver-Hastings was in the House and acknowledged that should have been done. She acknowledged that. That's my understanding of it.

If the minister wants to continue to talk about the previous government's record, we can go down that track throughout these estimates. If he wants to just be so arrogant as to say that somehow the issues around housing should be minimized, by his tone in this House, then yes, I will rise to the challenge, and we will continue to debate these items.

All the minister has to do is get up and answer the question. It's simple. There's no hidden agenda around it. For the minister to imply that somehow it was my suggestion that the society is trying to cheat the government…. It is this minister who made that implication. I wanted to rise up and correct the minister on that. If the minister wants to proceed with these estimates in a manner that is respectful on both sides of the House, I would urge him to simply rise up and answer the questions that I have posed for the minister.

The issue around compensation. I'd like to ask the minister: has the minister, within the ministry, sought legal advice around the issue of mitigation and compensation?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the latter question is yes. While the member's revisionist history of B.C. Housing was in some measure interesting, it wasn't entirely accurate. I should remind the member that in fact, B.C. Housing has been in place since 1967. I think the member may have confused it with the Homes B.C. program, which started in 1994. In fact, B.C. Housing has been in place for 35 years — thirty-fifth anniversary coming up. It's been around a long time. They are now involved in over 55,000 housing units in the province.

Again, as we talked about last night, I don't believe it's terribly useful or instructive for the taxpayers of British Columbia to get involved in grand credit-grabbing moments. I won't here. The important thing is that we have to remember that what we have done with B.C. Housing since 1967 has all been funded by taxpayer dollars. What we try to do as a government is ensure that for every dollar we take out of a taxpayer's pocket, we secure the maximum public good for that. That's where that's at.

J. Kwan: Yes, I did misspeak myself. It wasn't B.C. Housing I was referring to. It was Homes B.C. since 1994. It was actually in this period of time when a significant amount of housing was developed and delivered in British Columbia. Yes, it was the previous government who did that, and yes, I am proud of that record.

The minister tried to intimate that exposing a number associated with the compensation and mitigation question will somehow create a situation of grand credit-grabbing. I think those were exactly his words.

I have faith in the societies out there that are dealing and grappling with this tough situation they find themselves in. They had letters they received from B.C. Housing advising them that their project would proceed and that they had the unit allocation to proceed. Now all of a sudden they find themselves with a cancellation and incurred costs.

I don't actually think there's any society out there that would go and make up costs that weren't legitimate. I don't think people would look at it as a grand credit-grabbing scheme, as the minister would like to suggest. All I want and I think the societies want is to ensure that there is fairness in this process and a better understanding of how to proceed within what would be considered to be legitimate and to go through that accordingly.

The minister could be very helpful if he just set aside…. I know he likes to think he's non-partisan in his approach. If he could just put aside his high note of partisanship in this House for one moment, we can get through this estimates process. Last night he was singing so high with his partisanship credentials…. The

notes were so high that I was worried the windows were going to shatter in this House.

The minister says that they have sought legal advice on this issue. When does the minister expect this work to be completed, in terms of working through the societies on the compensation question?

Hon. K. Whittred: In the gallery I see a group that the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and myself met with this morning. They are from an organization called Seniors Housing Information Program, otherwise known as SHIP.

I wish to say that we had a very informative meeting. Present in the group are Gordon Gram, president; Rose Bergen, vice-president; Doris Routcliffe, secretary; Tony Hardy, treasurer; and Val MacDonald, who is the executive director of the organization.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to join with my colleague in also welcoming the folks from SHIP. We had a very good meeting this morning, and I'm delighted to join in welcoming them to the House.

Hon. G. Abbott: We certainly proceed on this side of the House and at B.C. Housing assuming that everyone has the best of intentions as they proceed. I don't think there's any question about that.

The discussions have begun. One can never know what length discussions will take. It will depend on the character and the complexity of the negotiation. That is precisely the same as any other discussion and negotiation that goes on.

J. Kwan: Will B.C. Housing be bringing lawyers to these discussions, or would it be just on a staff level with legal advice?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will not be involving lawyers in the discussion. It will be staff from B.C. Housing and the societies. We expect the discussions will be amicable and fruitful.

J. Kwan: There are no time lines on these discussions. There's no budget that we can glean from on these issues. I understand from the minister that discussions have already started on these items and that they will not bring lawyers into the discussion from the ministry.

The questions around the discussions with the society. Take, as an example, where there's a parcel of land. Let's say that land is involved, and the mortgage costs of the land are going up. The project has been cancelled because the allocation has been cancelled. If the society puts the land on the market and it's not sold, then the land is still there and the society has to hold a mortgage. The land is not sold. They're trying to mitigate their damage, but they might not be able to do so. In the meantime they're still assuming costs.

Would the government undertake to compensate for those ongoing costs? As long as the society's demonstrated that they have attempted to mitigate costs as best they can, then on that basis would the government be compensating the society?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'm happy to respond to the question here. I do want to emphasize once again, though, that I think it's only the member opposite who senses that the sky is falling here. That's certainly not the impression we are getting from the non-profit societies around the province. I think the great majority of people want to develop projects that are going to enhance the public good in British Columbia. I'm sure they want to work very hard strengthening their partnership so that in fact they will be able to proceed.

For those that can't proceed, we have certainly resolved to treat them fairly and equitably. We can certainly look at land compensation, but I do have to advise the member that in only one case has there been acquisition of land, and in that case it was for $1. Again, I'm not quite sure where she's going with this, but I don't believe the sky is falling around that point.

J. Kwan: I know that the government members and government ministers, every time the opposition rises up and raises an issue that perhaps they don't like or don't agree with, start to intimate that the members in opposition are fearmongering. Lo and behold, with MSP premiums — my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had projected that MSP premiums would go up. At that time the government members said: "Oh, these guys are just fearmongering." Sure enough, the cost for MSP has actually gone up. I don't know who's really fearmongering.

All I'm trying to do is get a sense of what this government would consider and deem to be fair compensation and what would not, how that process would unfold, what kind of protection would be afforded to the societies to hopefully move forward.

Of course I would love it, and I would be the first to congratulate the government if all those units that have now been cancelled will somehow be brought back to the table and continue to proceed. I would applaud the government if they proceeded with that kind of action. I am a strong advocate for housing, and I don't care which government does it as long as they do it. That's good news for British Columbians who are waiting for safe, secure, affordable housing throughout….

The minister mentioned yesterday that they are still working with ongoing partners on some of these projects and trying to strengthen partnerships. He said

yesterday that the partnership question is actually a mandatory component for projects proceeding. I don't agree with that necessarily. I don't think every society in every community would necessarily be able to bring in partnerships at the level the government likes, but that doesn't mean they don't need housing there. So I don't necessarily agree with that approach. Then again, it's two different philosophies. I understand that. They have their ideology, and I have my different approach to providing safe, secure, affordable housing as a priority for British Columbians.

Out of those 1,000 units, is the minister anticipating that a number of them will actually proceed with ongoing work? If so, how many? Does the minister anticipate there would be another announcement come forward announcing more affordable housing for British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the mandatory character of the partnerships, it is abundantly clear that in every case where a new affordable housing project is being contemplated, it will reside within a regional district, within a municipality or certainly within a health authority, and so on. All of those have resources they can bring to the table. Municipalities, in particular, frequently have land they are willing to dedicate to make projects work. In other cases, they'll bring DCC costs to the table; they'll bring servicing to the table. The health authority can bring to the table a commitment to funding beds. There's a whole range of ways in which those partnerships can be built.

Additionally, as I noted yesterday, British Columbia is the first province in Canada to sign a federal-provincial affordable housing agreement with the federal government. I understand that Nunavut has since signed, and perhaps other provinces have as well, but British Columbia was the first. So we are able to engage federal dollars in those projects as well.

All this serves to make the taxpayer's dollar in British Columbia go further, produces more housing units and produces more public good as a consequence. We believe that is exactly the right approach to take, and that is the one we're going to proceed with.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister this question: of those 1,000 units or so that have been cancelled, how many does he think would actually proceed through further work around partnership? And is there a pending announcement around those projects?

Hon. G. Abbott: The question is of an entirely hypothetical character. Given that we don't know what additional resources any of those 20 or so projects might bring to the table, it's impossible to answer.

J. Kwan: The minister said he was hopeful that some of those projects would proceed. I think I heard him correctly on that. I would assume the staff at B.C. Housing would continue to work with some of these societies, especially where…. I would expect, actually, the societies would have to make this decision in the case where they don't actually have to incur extra costs. Otherwise, if the project doesn't proceed, they'll be out of pocket. I would assume that would be with groups who were prepared to take that risk, and I presume it would be with the understanding that there would be allocations down the road. If there weren't allocations down the road, there's no sense in keeping on asking people to keep working on this.

My question to the minister is: does he anticipate there will be further announcements in terms of affordable housing development in British Columbia? If so, how many units? What kind of ballpark are we looking at? How hard should these people be working to try to hang in there in the hopes that they may get the allocation reinstated?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I laid out in some detail last night, what we are going to be doing as a government is designing our housing policy around meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in British Columbia society. That may be the frail elderly, the mentally ill, the physically incapacitated, the homeless and so on. We will be targeting our precious taxpayer dollars to produce the maximum number of housing units and the maximum public good from the expenditure of each and every one of those taxpayer dollars.

So, yes, certainly we will be hearing in the weeks, months and years ahead of further projects that will meet the bill in that regard.

J. Kwan: Does the minister then mean to say that within his ministry budget he has additional dollars of unannounced projects, unit allocations that could be awarded to societies? Is that what he's saying? He's saying "weeks, months and years ahead." In the next four years, hopefully, this government will continue to commit to building affordable housing in its term.

Does the minister mean to say that in his existing budget now there are unallocated dollars that could be awarded to societies for the development of affordable housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, to repeat what I said, this government is committed to attempting to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable in society. We have a budget allocation which we will use this year. We will be spending more on housing in British Columbia this year than any government ever has before in the history of this province. We will be spending more than even the former government did with respect to housing.

We've made a commitment. We've got the budget dollars to back it, and frankly, again, one of the opportunities and responsibilities we have on the government side is to ensure that every taxpayer dollar in this province is used to greatest and most beneficial effect.

If the member is trying to probe a future policy here, the answer is the same as she would have given when she was on this side of the House; that is, that's

The member's showing a degree of frustration across the floor, Mr. Chair, which concerns me. I do want to make her happy and provide satisfactory answers, but I'm not going to stray into the area of future policy in order to do it.

J. Kwan: I wish the minister would be a little bit less suspicious. I'm simply asking these questions straight up, with no hidden agenda whatsoever. I'm just trying to get a sense of what is going on with this government around housing and its budget related to that.

I'm drawing on what the minister had said — most of it yesterday and some of it, I suppose, earlier today. The minister fails to understand…. Maybe I'm not clear. So let me just try this again.

I know the minister is saying that this government is spending more money than any other governments before. Well, yes, of course, because the fact of the matter is that in the housing budget when you build a project, it has a life that carries on for a minimum of 30 or 35 years. Those are subsidy dollars, and each year is cumulative. I understand that. As you develop more housing, housing that was committed and built under the previous government, those costs continue. I understand that too. With these 700 units of housing that are proceeding out of the 2,300 units of funding that were allocated and earmarked for housing under the previous government, 700 of those will proceed. I understand that too. So of course the dollars will continue to increase until the subsidy runs out and the life of the project runs out, if you will. I understand that point.

My point to the minister is this. He was suggesting that B.C. Housing will continue to work with groups to build partnerships to get housing, hopefully, developed in British Columbia. Out of this year's budget — and given that it is a three-year service plan; it's three years in the document that has been tabled — and then for the next three years in terms of the service plan in terms of this government's planning in the area of constructing new, affordable housing, are we looking at…? Is there any more money in this year's budget for other units that have not yet been allocated? If so, how much, and how many units are we looking at?

Then the other question is: for the next two years within the service plan, can the community expect that there will be, at a minimum, 700 units of housing constructed under this government?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member got it mostly right in her last comments. Most subsidy agreements do run for 30 or 35 years. The great thing, of course, is that not all the units were built in the last ten years, notwithstanding the member's suggestion that they were. The last ten years perhaps seemed like 35 years, but it was actually only ten years. We have opportunities as we move forward to try to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable in society. I think we've secured a healthy, responsible budget allocation for housing.

We are going to continue to work very hard with all of our potential partners, including some of the folks who are among the list of projects that did not proceed yesterday. We'll continue to work with them, provided that we see their goals lining up with our goals, provided we see evidence that strong partnerships are being brought into the equation. I'm very optimistic that we will see lots of new, affordable housing for British Columbians in the years ahead.

J. Kwan: The minister just cannot resist, I don't think — so far he hasn't been able to demonstrate that he could — twisting my words and putting them out of context. I don't think I ever said — and I stand corrected if I said — that housing was only built in the last ten years. I don't think I ever said that, hon. Chair.

I actually know that CMHC, the federal government, before they pulled out of housing in 1993, contributed significantly to the pool of affordable housing in British Columbia. Ever since they pulled out, advocates all across the land, across Canada, have been trying to advocate for the federal government to come back to the table. Just last year they were starting to signal that they were coming back to the table with the SCPI grants, amongst others. For the minister to suggest that somehow I thought all of the housing in British Columbia was built in the last ten years…. That is absolutely incorrect. We'll check Hansard on that, not to worry.

The minister evades the questions I've asked, though. I guess he's just too intent on rhetoric. I'll ask the minister this question one more time. I'll just ask one question at this point. We'll break it down so that I can get these answers and get through these estimates.

I asked the minister the question…. They've announced 700 units of affordable housing approximately, and they have advised that they're continuing to work on developing housing and that hopefully there'll be other projects announced.

Let's just start with this year's budget. Are there any dollars left over that are not yet allocated for the purposes of developing affordable housing? If yes, how much?

J. Kwan: It truly is one question at a time, then. How many dollars are left over for the development of the affordable housing from this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: We do have some funds remaining. We will be releasing further details with respect to additional activities at the appropriate time.

J. Kwan: Correct me if I'm wrong, minister. We're in the estimates of housing, and within the estimates of housing we're trying to figure out how this spending is going to take place within the ministry. The ministry

has now announced 700 units. I'm not asking for specific details around what units or what project or anything like that. I'm just wondering: within your budget, how much money is left unallocated for housing? The minister said there is money left over. How much? How many more units can British Columbians expect would be developed in British Columbia in this year's budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: We do have some residual funds in the budget for B.C. Housing. Again, we are going to continue to work with our partners to explore what can be done. Again, what will happen in the next weeks and months will depend on the nature of the discussions that we have. We are always looking for opportunities to work with people, to do more, whether it's through housing units or rental supplements and so on. There are any number of opportunities that are available to us, but, again, we have to work with people in order to move ahead. I can't anticipate at this point every twist and turn that might occur in those discussions, but obviously we are going to be looking forward to further opportunities.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I can't tell from this minister. Is it that he just doesn't know the answer or that he just doesn't want to give it?

I don't think there is some big secret around these kinds of things. You know, if there's a budget, which the minister has, for housing and it will go to so many units…. In previous years, as far as I can recollect — at least, certainly within the period in which I served, in the last five years — when government comes out to make an announcement around housing, usually around budget time, they will say, "We are going to do 700 units; we're going to do 1,000 units, or 14,000" — whatever. They make an announcement like that so that people know — right? Societies can prepare and try to sort of figure out whether they want to try and access those funds to develop housing projects in their society. It gives people a sense of what to shoot for — right? — and whether or not they should be putting their energies there.

That's all I'm trying to get at so that people in the public would know, in this open and transparent government, what it is they can shoot for. If there are still dollars in the budget, which the minister has said there would be, how many more units can people anticipate they could apply for funding for to get projects developed? That's all.

In past practices, that's how it's been done. I'm just trying to get a sense, to give some more hope out there in the broader community. You know, the minister often accuses me of fearmongering. I'm trying to create hope in the community.

It's good news; it actually really is. I'll help spread the word — honest, I will — that there is more money within the government to do affordable housing: "You can look forward to this many more units in your community, so get working, guys, and get those partnerships happening, and so on and so forth." That's all I'm trying to get at.

Maybe the minister, if he just doesn't know the answer, can get up and say: "I don't know the answer. Sorry, member." Or he can just be honest and share the information.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you. I'm glad I finally now understand the question. We want to see societies, non-profits, come forward today if they wish. If they've got a reasonable proposal to make to us in terms of the funding being targeted appropriately, in terms of those important equity partnerships being in place, we may be able to move their project ahead.

Again, these things don't happen overnight. People are constantly in touch with B.C. Housing. People should bring their ideas and their proposals forward. If they're ready today, bring them forward today. As soon as we can fit their project within our sustainable budget line, then we'll move. The member is asking me to indulge in hypothetical exercises here. We don't know outcomes before the discussions begin.

I have a great belief in the people of British Columbia wanting to come forward with good ideas and strong partnerships aimed at strengthening their communities. That's what this is about. We encourage them to come forward today. Whether the project is built this year, next year or the following year, we don't know until we work through the project detail. That's why Shayne and his team at B.C. Housing have been remarkably successful. They are very expert and very knowledgable at working through those things. That is what I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to do.

J. Kwan: Quite honestly, the minister is being — what is the right word? — very difficult, actually, in answering straight-up, straightforward questions. Maybe this is where the minister doesn't understand, and perhaps I can explain it to him. I came from the non-profit sector before I entered the dark side and became a politician. I used to write proposals. Societies, generally speaking, never have enough money to hire someone who will write proposals. Many of the staff with societies and volunteers put their time in and pore over funding applications and proposals that come forward, trying to create these partners, trying to get a project up and running. They invest a lot of time, energy and resources into that.

Now, of course, in an environment where you could write as many proposals as you want and the government says: "There is no budget for this. Please don't…." A case in point, as an example: if you send a proposal to the government for even a fabulous project with all kinds of partners, but the government only has a budget of, let's say, $2 million — I'm just using this as an example — and your project costs, let's say, $4 million even in partnerships with others…. Let's say the total cost of the project is — I don't know — $6 million. There's no point, you see, in bringing a project like that

to the government's consideration. As I understand it, the signal's been sent by this government that we're hell-bent on the bottom line, and very few things will actually derail us in that direction. It is important for the societies to know what it is they're looking at and what parameters they're looking for in order to apply for these dollars.

I don't think it's a secret. Or maybe it is in this minister's mind — that it somehow is a big secret. For him to say that within his budget he has this much money for unit allocations…. They have now announced 700 of those, and there's still a portion of it left over. Yes, it's all dependent on partnerships, and so on and so forth. How much is still left in the pot that people can work towards? How many units are out there? If you're looking at the government only having, let's say, another 50 units available in terms of funding for that, there's no point for someone to get a site, as an example, and put a project forward that has 75 or 100 units, because it's just a complete waste of their time.

I'm just trying to get a sense here from the minister, and I wish the minister would simply rise up and give a straight answer on those questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member is accusing me and the government of being fiscally responsible, I guess we'll have to plead guilty on that count. It is, at minimum, a refreshing change from what we had under ten years of NDP rule. Yeah, we are fiscally responsible. What we have done is move from an atmosphere and an environment of fiscal irresponsibility to fiscal responsibility. We have, however — and again, I'm delighted to say this — notwithstanding the difficult fiscal environment in which we exist….

If the member had actually done her homework and looked at our three-year service plan, she would see that the budget allocation rises every year for housing. Obviously, we are committed to more housing in British Columbia. That is entirely clear. If she looks at the three-year service plan, she'll get the number for each year.

Now, I don't want to be unfair to the member, but people don't decide to put in a housing project today and expect that it's going to be built tomorrow. It doesn't work that way. People have to work through, first of all, the parameters around which government wants to target its funding. Again, we have talked about that at length here — that we are going to be targeting the most vulnerable in society. We're going to be entertaining proposals from non-profits, from municipalities, from health authorities, from anyone with respect to things that might be done in that regard. We look forward to seeing those.

First of all, we have to see that the project meets the parameters. The second thing we'll be looking is how strongly the proposal is partnered. If the proposal is strongly partnered, it provides the government with much more flexibility around the timing to proceed. In any event, whether the project is conceived today or tomorrow or the next day, we have made a three-year commitment to a housing budget. Obviously, we are encouraging British Columbians to come forward with their ideas on how to strengthen housing for their communities and how to strengthen the health, vigour and economic and social well-being of their communities.

J. Kwan: I just want it on record for his staff's information. Earlier today, when we began the estimates, the minister asked me how long I thought I was going to be on the housing side. I advised the minister at that time that it would probably be about two hours if the answers were forthcoming and that we could probably move through the information and my questions at a fairly quick clip. It's obvious to me that that projection is not going to be achieved, so just for the minister's information and for his staff, I'm sure we'll be here until 6 o'clock. Then perhaps we'll back on Monday, as well, on the housing question.

On the issue around how many units and all of those kinds of things, the minister still hasn't provided the information for this year's budget. I don't know why that is. I don't know if there's some sort of secret plan or if he doesn't know the answer or if he just doesn't want to be forthcoming and transparent with British Columbians on that question.

There is a budget within B.C. Housing. Within that budget, about 700 units of affordable housing has been allocated, so that budget has been targeted. Then I asked the minister how much more is left over — how many more units we can expect down the road in this year's budget — and still he refuses to give that answer. I understand that in the process of creating partnerships…. In the previous government, when you got more partners you could stretch those units bigger — more units for British Columbia. I understand that totally.

I'm not asking the minister to commit to saying they'll only do another 20 or another ten or anything like that, but to just give a sense of what hope British Columbians could have in the area of affordable housing in terms of new units forthcoming, and he refuses. I don't know why he refuses to provide that answer. I don't think it's a big secret.

Then I asked the minister: in terms of the coming years in his service plan, what kind of unit allocations can the public expect? Is it 700 units each year as a base? Is that the base that people can anticipate? The minister didn't provide the answer to that as well.

Fair enough, the minister is saying that both my colleague and I — and we hear this all the time in both Houses on estimates — should just pore through every single page of documentation that comes through from the government. We admit it; I admit it. There are only the two of us. We have to go through every set of estimates in this House, in addition to bills. Sometimes bills and supplementary estimates just get sprung on us ten minutes before we're in the House, and we do the best we can to try and research the information and go through this process and ask valid questions. Sometimes we might miss information. Sure, if you want to

criticize us for not spending enough time because there's only two of us and we have to go through 28 sets of estimates in addition to bills that come forward, I make no apologies for it.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings and I are doing the best we can, and we're trying to get answers for British Columbians. I'd like to remind the minister, as well, that it isn't just us trying to find the answers to these questions. A lot of British Columbians don't have the time themselves, either, to pore through the stacks and stacks of documents that come through from government and to try and get some quick answers. For those members of the community who might be watching, this might actually be useful for them if the minister would just rise and give a straightforward answer to these straightforward questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member doesn't have to apologize to me for the challenges they face. The people of British Columbia made a choice back on May 16, 2001, about who was going to represent constituencies across this province.

The last I heard, at least, there are still only two Houses here: Committee A and Committee B, the big House here. The member doesn't need to apologize. Even if neither of them could get to a set of estimates, they don't need to apologize to me. That's not a problem, as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to assist the member wherever I can in terms of trying to bring her information up to date. That's great.

I do want to say this, though, and perhaps this will be helpful to the member. What we have adopted is something other than the cookie-cutter programs we have seen in the past. Obviously, we are going to be looking to more innovation, more creativity and more flexibility as we develop new projects. These are familiar themes which I have been articulating through these estimates.

I'm delighted to hear that we're going to be able to continue on until 6 o'clock. I know I personally wasn't going anywhere. Perhaps you were, Mr. Chair. I certainly wasn't going to go anywhere. I love the housing area, and I'm pleased to continue the discussion until six today. I guess if the member wants to, we could go even longer. We could go through the weekend. That would be excellent. I'd love that, personally. We could certainly go on to do it next week as well. That would be excellent as well. Certainly, we'd welcome that.

We do need, as we move forward with housing…. I know sometimes it's difficult for people who have a particularly narrow vision to contemplate that there may be an opportunity for broader innovation, flexibility and creativity in how we move forward. It's not possible to say: "Well, if you've got X dollars, then you're going to get X number of housing units or X amount of public good out of that."

We have moved away from a narrow approach. We are trying to embrace new ideas, with the purpose of maximizing the housing value and the public good that comes from the expenditure of every taxpayer dollar in this province.

I'll give the member an example. We have recently been able to assist a housing development in the city of Nelson. The assistance we've been able to provide was not a subsidy. There was no subsidy involved. We were able to assist with their financing. The housing project is going to be able to proceed as a result of that.

That's an example of a new approach, some new innovation. Indeed, as we move forward, hopefully with many more projects in the future, we'll have an opportunity to celebrate that innovation and the rewards that it can bring.

The Chair: The member for…Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I'm going brain-dead here myself.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. There's often only myself or the member for Vancouver-Hastings that rises up in this House and asks questions. In any event, thank you.

The minister is eager to engage in the estimates process for housing. So too am I. It is a great area. It is an area I'm very passionate about. It's an area where I see in my own riding literally thousands of people are in need of safe, secure and affordable housing in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I represent people who live in the poorest riding in all of Canada. The average income is less than $20,000 a year. In an area known as the downtown east side, people live in very substandard housing. They live in space generally spoken of as an SRO — single-room occupancy. Children and families are living in this kind of housing, not just singles.

It is, generally speaking, a room that is 10 by 10. It doesn't have its own bathroom or kitchen. If you're very lucky, you have a sink. If you're doubly lucky, you have a hot plate. Those are the conditions that many people in my community live in.

Housing is a very important issue for me as the MLA representing my community. I know that as I travel throughout British Columbia, it's also a very important issue for other communities as well.

I understand that there are situations whereby partnerships come forward with substantive dollars that sometimes would allow for government not to pay the subsidies. In fact, I know of one project in Vancouver where that did happen. It was an innovation — no doubt about it; lots of creativity. I actually credit the former chair of B.C. Housing, who's been very innovative around doing that kind of work in bringing about those kinds of projects. I credit, actually, the staff of B.C. Housing on that score as well. I know they work really hard to try to materialize housing for people in British Columbia.

I asked the minister a simple question, and he still didn't give me the answer. If he's not comfortable giving how many units…. I tried asking this question in a number of different ways. How many units can we still anticipate? He said: "Well, you know, that would de-

pend on what kind of partnerships." So I asked how much money has been set aside still within this year's budget — not future policy but this year's budget. How much money has not yet been allocated for the purpose of housing? All he has to do is rise in this House and give that figure so that I get a sense of what kind of hope could be anticipated by British Columbians who wish to see housing develop in British Columbia in partnership with the provincial government.

Again to the minister: how many provincial dollars for safe, secure, affordable housing construction development are allocated within this year's budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the budget for B.C. Housing for this year and for the coming two years is contained in the service plan as well. Further details are available in the estimates.

Again, the member talks about the challenge on the downtown east side particularly. There's certainly no debate around that. We do find in that area some of the more compelling challenges with respect to housing as well as other social issues. I'm delighted, actually, that a number of the projects announced yesterday are in that area. The Katherine Sanford Housing Society, a supported seniors project; the Portland Hotel Society on Carrall Street; the St. James Community Service Society on East 16th; the YWCA project on East Hastings — all are projects that were announced yesterday.

Again, the member doesn't seem to be getting this point, but I'm going to try once again. I used the Nelson example. I want to give another example of where we can act as facilitators for further housing through B.C. Housing. This is in the member's riding. It's an SRO hotel. It was bought by the society — a 100-unit hotel, downtown east side. Again, no subsidy from B.C. Housing but, again, an innovative partnership where we have assisted with the financing.

There are different ways we can do this. I know the member seems to be compelled to try to drive everything into a certain set of silos, but that's not the way it's working. We are going to celebrate innovation; we're going to celebrate creativity and ingenuity. We are going to work very hard with our partners to achieve successes. The member may want to dwell on the past, but we're looking forward to the future. We know British Columbians are going to step forward, and we are going to achieve great successes in partnership with British Columbians, whether it's municipalities, other local governments, health authorities or non-profits.

J. Kwan: The minister still hasn't answered my question, and I know he's purposely not answering that question. I don't know for what reason, other than to not be transparent. Perhaps we have to read between the lines. Maybe there isn't really any more money allocated for housing left over for this budget. It may be that any project that is to be developed from B.C. Housing, from the provincial government, would not be funded by the government at all. In fact, it would be all these other partnerships that would take place. That's the only area where British Columbians can see housing develop.

Let me try asking the minister this question. It seems that he's not prepared to share numbers with anybody. Let me try this question. The units that were announced yesterday…. Out of the 1,700 units, 1,000 have been cancelled. The minister had announced 697 units of housing. How much was that in terms of the budget line for the 697 units of affordable housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The capital value of the 697 units, the 20 projects that were announced yesterday, is approximately $100 million. The subsidy cost for those units, once they are built and occupied, will be approximately $5 million annually.

J. Kwan: I just got this from my office — just a note. I'm going to share it with the minister. Hopefully, it will assist us in moving forward.

The note reads as follows: "A taxpayer who's watching has called in to say that she's most annoyed that 'the minister is wasting my taxpayers' money in ridiculous rhetoric. Why won't he just answer the question?' She wants it clear that she is a member of neither party. She has also observed that 'the minister is condescending and rude' and that this behaviour does not befit a minister of the Crown. She wanted this information passed in to you, perhaps, for you to raise it."

I'm sharing this with the minister. I hope the minister will take this under advisement so that we can indeed proceed….

J. Kwan: The minister says: "Is this signed by Joy MacPhail?" For the minister's information, the member for Vancouver-Hastings is in the small House going through the estimates of Energy and Mines. As is often the case between the two of us…. There are the two of us, and we split ourselves between each House to engage in the estimates process to try and find answers for British Columbians and to ask questions of the government.

J. Kwan: The minister says he's glad that I could show up for one set of the estimates. Yes, both the member for Vancouver-Hastings and I try to split ourselves as best we can to do the work that we've been elected to do, and that is to be the opposition in this House. We try to show up whenever we can to carry on through the estimates process, through bills, through all the different work that is required of the members of the Legislature.

The minister gave the information finally. At least I got some numbers from him. On the 697 units of housing that were announced yesterday, about $100 million was dedicated for capital, and about $5 million has been allocated for subsidy costs annually. I understand

from previous practices that those subsidy costs accumulate each year for, I assume, 35 years. Is that the life of these projects that have been announced — 35 years? Let's just start with that question first.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that they are 60-year operating agreements and 35-year subsidies.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister could advise this House: how much money was allocated on the capital side for this year's budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the capital value of the projects, as the member asked, is $100 million. The government capital is zero. This is a P3 model that uses private capital. The obligation of the government is the subsidy — the $5 million annual subsidy for 35 years.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister could ask his staff to break down for me, then, for this year's budget on the annual subsidies side…. The first year is $5 million, I take it, and then each year it accumulates — right? It's $5 million, and then it increases. How much in this year's budget has the minister allocated for subsidy costs?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is $168 million in ongoing subsidies. That wouldn't, of course, include the $5 million anticipated for the projects announced yesterday.

J. Kwan: Would the $163 million — $168 million minus $5 million — be for projects previously allocated and completed, or would it include those that are under construction and will be completed for this fiscal year?

Hon. G. Abbott: The $168 million is the subsidy amount for those units that are completed, obviously, whether in the past or whatever. Until the unit is built and occupied, the subsidy amount does not apply.

J. Kwan: Just to get it clear, the $168 million is for the projects that have been completed. The ones that are under construction now…. Is the minister anticipating that there are units that will be completed, so therefore their subsidy would be required because they'll be completed and occupied within this fiscal year? If so, how much is the minister anticipating? For the announcement of the 700 units, the subsidies on those projects have not been included in this year's budget because they have not yet materialized. They would not actually come into the budget until after they've been completed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope I'm understanding the member's question correctly. The $168 million does take account of the possibility of units that could be completed and occupied in the current year. Again, that's not likely to be a large number, given that all of the projects that were put on hold, effective last October, were units that were not under construction at that point in time. Any project — as we discussed last evening — that had begun construction, we have allowed to proceed through to completion. When we're talking about the 697, we're talking about units that may begin construction in the current construction season. That's possible, and it is possible that some might even be occupied at some point late in the current fiscal year, but it's not apt to be a large figure.

J. Kwan: It will take me a moment to go through this, because the minister didn't give me the information on that. I just have to look for it myself through the FOI information that I've received. I have with me a list of projects that are under construction. On that list we have — if you'll bear with me — the total number of units that are under construction.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm worried that if I don't get up and ask the question, a vote will be passed without my getting the answers. I didn't want that to happen.

My document doesn't give me a total sum of how many units are under construction right now under the Homes B.C. program. Perhaps the staff could give me that number. Perhaps they could give me the number of units that are under construction now and the subsidies for those projects that are under construction.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the member is clear, this is the provincial government's commitment to new non-profit housing since October 2001. The new units, which we announced yesterday, are 697. Units currently under construction are 1,383. Units completed since October 2001 are 673 — for a total of 2,753.

J. Kwan: Out of the 1,383 units that are under construction, how many of those units are budgeted for the subsidy component? That is to say, it comes out of the $168 million of subsidies.

Hon. G. Abbott: The staff don't have an exact figure with respect to that, but it's anticipated that many of those 1,383 will in fact be in a position to begin to have the subsidy agreement kick in. Provision for that has been made within the $168 million.

J. Kwan: The $168 million accounts for the ones under construction that would be completed and occupied this year, so the subsidies would be covered and the ones that have been completed prior to this year that are subsidized by government. Does the $168 million include any other provisions?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the member is clear, 673 of that total number of 2,753 have been completed since October 2001. Yes, in their entirety, those are included in the $168 million. Most of those 1,383 units that were currently under construction as of October 2001 will be

completed — not all, but most will be completed — and will exercise some portion of a year's subsidy agreement. It's anticipated that some small number of the 697 may be in a position to have their subsidy amount kick in as well. Obviously, it's going to be a smaller number than the previous two categories.

J. Kwan: Of the $168 million that's dedicated for subsidy out of the minister's budget, is there an amount targeted towards projects that are not yet announced or allocated? I'm just trying to figure out whether there are any leftover dollars out of those subsidy dollars other than what's been accounted for. That is the completed projects, the ones that are under construction and will come into occupancy this year. Out of the 697 units that were announced, some will be completed. Are there any unaccounted-for leftover dollars there for other projects perhaps?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. Clearly, as we move forward, there won't be an opportunity for any new project to be participating in a subsidy agreement in this year. That's reasonably obvious at this point. That's within the $168 million. We do want to mention again the examples of the Nelson non-profit society, which we assisted not with subsidies but with assistance on the financing component, and the 100-unit SRO hotel in the downtown east side. Again, it was not achieved through a commitment around a subsidy agreement but through assistance in financing.

J. Kwan: On the funding question, I know that the previous provincial government worked hard to try and bring federal dollars back to the table on the issue around housing. I know that this minister had gone to Ottawa, as well, and signed the agreement with the federal government in dedicating dollars to housing. Could the minister please advise the House how much money has been achieved in that agreement with the federal government? Let me just start with that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The federal-provincial affordable housing agreement which Minister Anderson and I signed in December — British Columbia being the first province to undertake an agreement with the federal government — provides $88.7 million in federal funds over the next five years.

J. Kwan: Is that $88.7 million for one year or for five years? I think it's for five years, but I could be wrong on that.

J. Kwan: Then this number, perhaps, is wrong, because it's been speculated in the broader community as well. Somehow the figure of $177.4 million over five years has surfaced.

Hon. G. Abbott: That's because it's a 50-50 provincial-federal cost-shared agreement.

J. Kwan: Then the dollars that the federal government is putting forward are dollar-for-dollar matching with the province. That yields us $177.4 million over five years. Could the minister tell this House the real figure of the provincial contribution towards housing for this five-year period? It totals $88.7 million. If you break that down into an annual amount, it comes to $17.1 million or so. Could the minister tell us, from previous years, what was the amount contributed by the province towards housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry. Perhaps I don't understand the question. Is the member asking me what the former government spent on housing? Is that the question?

J. Kwan: Yes. I'm trying to draw a comparison in terms of the housing dollars that have been dedicated towards housing. Out of this agreement, it's $88.7 million over five years. It is cost-shared with the federal government, so the provincial portion is $88.7. You break that down, divide that by 5, and it gives you about $17.1 million and change. I'm just trying to compare what the trend looks like in terms of affordable housing contributions from the provincial government.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member can go back and look at her own government's records. I'm not about to do that. If she wants to look at her own government's record for comparative purposes, she's welcome to do that, but we came here to debate the estimates for 2002-03, and that's what we intend to do.

What the member may not know, in terms of the federal-provincial agreement, is that one of the reasons why British Columbia was ready, willing and able to step up to the plate and match the federal government's dollars is that British Columbia along with Quebec are the only two jurisdictions in Canada that have ongoing program dollars to match the federal contribution. We are in fact looking at $148 million in capital expenditure. We are not going to have any difficulty at all in matching the federal contribution. The federal contribution is something that is going to have a big impact in terms of improving the economics of a whole bunch of projects.

Again, having said this 25 times, I'll say it the twenty-sixth. The key to maximizing every British Columbia taxpayer dollar is to ensure that every partner that comes to the table brings resources. Now we've brought the federal government to the table. Their $88.7 million makes a big difference in the affordability of some of these projects. Again, I think the federal government very much shares our view that we need to target our dollars to those that need housing the most — those that are most vulnerable in our society.

It's a win for us, it's a win for the federal government, and, most importantly, it's a win for those British

J. Kwan: Actually, I know that his staff knows the number even just for last year — let's not go through too many years — in terms of what the contribution from the province is towards housing. The minister's just refusing to give that information. Yes, of course I can look it up. I can look back in my files to get the information. I got notice last night that we would be dealing with the housing estimates. My files are in my Vancouver office, and I couldn't get access to them, so I don't have those figures in front of me. I was just trying to get a simple answer from the minister, but he refuses to give it. Fair enough. I'll look it up. I don't mind looking it up, even though I know that staff, who are very diligent and have all these numbers in their heads, could easily provide that information to the minister for him to share with the members of this House.

What I'm trying to get at on the federal contribution side is this. Maybe I can approach it this way, then. To what extent is the federal government's contribution responsible for the release of the approximately 700 units of housing that were announced yesterday?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hopefully, this will be of assistance to the member. For fiscal '01-02 the combined total — that is, B.C. Housing plus contribution from other ministries related to housing — is $136 million. I believe that was the budget figure from the former government. This year that combination is $142 million. We're up net $6 million in terms of commitment around housing. Further to the value of the federal contribution, $9 million approximately…. The contribution of the federal government, in combination with the strengthened equity partnership contributions, brought the partner side of the equation to nearly $50 million.

J. Kwan: Well, there now. It wasn't too difficult, was it, to provide the information? I was just trying to get this information. It would really be a lot simpler if the minister just actually gave the information when the question was asked, so we don't have to ask it over and over again.

The figure is that there is $6 million from the provincial contribution side and $9 million from the federal side.

J. Kwan: That's the increase per year. Maybe I should just let the minister take the mike and elaborate on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Once again, the budget figure for '01-02 — a combination of B.C. Housing, which is the lion's share of it, plus about $12 million of other ministry money that's dedicated to housing — brings the total to $136 million in '01-02. The same apples-to-apples figure for '02-03 is $142 million, with roughly the same distribution between B.C. Housing and ministries. Again, the federal contribution on the projects announced yesterday is $9 million.

J. Kwan: Yes, I heard all that information the first time around. The minister was in his chair, and he was trying to say something beyond what he had just advised me in the House. I thought he wanted to take the floor to express that, but he didn't. He just wanted to reiterate the numbers. That's all right. I actually thought he had something else to say, so I yielded the floor to him.

Then on the federal contribution side it's $9 million and $6 million for the province. That gives us $15 million in total for housing. The minister is shaking his head. He can elaborate on that and correct me where I'm wrong.

Hon. G. Abbott: There seems to be some fundamental confusion here. The member asked me what the year-to-year budget increase for housing was in British Columbia. I provided her with those figures: $136 million to $142 million. The member asked me what the federal contribution to the projects yesterday was. It was $9 million. She has not asked what the provincial contribution was. You can't assume that the year-to-year increase, budget to budget, reflects the amount that applied to 20 projects that were announced yesterday. I don't understand where the assumption or presumption around that would have flowed from.

J. Kwan: I wasn't making that assumption at all. I understand that it is year to year over five years in terms of the contributions from the federal government in their agreement with the province. I understand that exactly. I'm trying to clarify with the minister in terms of the provincial contribution. I thought I did ask about the provincial contribution side — on the federal side and on the provincial side. I thought I did ask that of the minister, but he's saying that I didn't, for whatever reason.

Of the moneys that have been allocated for the units that were announced, $9 million is from the federal side. In terms of the commitments from the federal government — that $9 million — is that from the $88.7 million? Or is it from a different program, called the SCPI program?

Hon. G. Abbott: The money is from the federal-provincial affordable housing agreement. SCPI money is separate from that. That's a different pot of federal money.

J. Kwan: The units that were announced yesterday — were there no SCPI dollars involved in that? I thought there were.

Hon. G. Abbott: There were some federal SCPI dollars on those projects that were targeted to Homeless–At

Risk. There were some federal SCPI dollars that went into those particular projects. Staff don't have those precise figures here, but we'd be glad to get them for the member if the member would like them.

J. Kwan: Yes, actually, I would like to get the information in terms of the breakdown of the projects. Perhaps the member could provide me all of this information for all the projects — the breakdown of the federal contribution, the provincial contribution, the private sector contribution, the community contribution, the municipality contribution — so that I get a sense of how these partnerships are indeed working in the broader community. I would appreciate it if we could get that, perhaps, in the next couple of weeks. Is that reasonable?

Hon. G. Abbott: The information the member seeks is detailed, but staff will undertake to get her that detailed information on each of the projects as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: I'm just trying to get a sense from the minister of what kind of time line we're looking at. A month, two months, three months, a week, two weeks? I assume the minister and the staff probably have this information already, because that's how they made a determination on which project to proceed with. It is based on the partnership dollars. I imagine the information is already there, so it shouldn't be too difficult to get.

Hon. G. Abbott: Staff believe they will be able to put it into place within the next couple of weeks.

J. Kwan: Outside of the agreement that was signed that yields $88.7 million over five years from the federal government, were there any other arrangements or agreements with the federal government in bringing additional housing dollars, whether it be for permanent housing or shelter dollars for British Columbia? If so, how much and for what period of time, and how is the province contributing to that? Or are we going to match those funds?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not entirely sure whether we got the member's question right. Just to be sure, there were no additional federal contributions to the projects announced yesterday, apart from the ones we have discussed here previously: the F-P dollars and the SCPI dollars. If the member's question was around the future of federal contributions to the housing area, we do know that Human Resources Development Canada is reviewing both the SCPI program and the homeless program, as well as the RRAP program — the residential rehabilitation assistance program. Those are under review, we understand, by HRDC. I'm not sure that was what the member was asking.

J. Kwan: I understand there are other federal agreements with the province in terms of contribution towards housing. The $88.7 million is one of them that's been announced publicly, but previously there were agreements, as well, in terms of additional matching dollars from the province. Perhaps those agreements have now been superseded by the $88.7 million. I'm not sure, so I'm just trying to get an understanding on what other agreements exist with the provincial government and the federal government on the issue of housing.

Some of them may not be…. I know that the federal government is committed to building not necessarily long-term housing but rather shelter, as an example. They've put SCPI moneys into it and those kinds of things. I'm just wondering if there are any other agreements that exist in trying to match and bring more dollars from the federal government side to British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: The province receives, at least in '02-03, some $95 million from the federal government for administering about 40 federal-provincial programs. Again, we don't know the future of SCPI.

J. Kwan: I gather that there are no other agreements, no other negotiations going on, with the federal government right now in terms of additional dollars in the area of housing outside of the $88.7 million.

Hon. G. Abbott: The only other possibility in terms of discussion and negotiation is around leaky condos.

J. Kwan: I just want to get this clear in terms of the contributions from the federal government. The minister said the contribution from the federal government in this set of unit allocations is about $9 million. The provincial side is about $6 million. It goes up annually. Well, the minister can clarify that for me, because I'm unclear in terms of his hand signals from his chair. I can't read his mind in terms of what he is trying to convey to me, so maybe he can explain that. I'll yield the floor to him in a minute.

Just looking at the $88.7 million, if you divide that by 5, that means that each year's contribution is about $17.6 million on each side — right? If the federal government's contribution so far has been $9 million, then we're looking at a shortfall in terms of the contribution from the federal government side. I'm just wondering: where has that money gone?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I thought we had explained earlier, the federal government's contribution comes in the form of $9 million in capital out of that pot of $88.7 million that's available over five years under the F-P agreement. The provincial contribution comes in the form of a 35-year commitment to a $5 million annual subsidy. So if we look at the net present value of that, in fact it is far in excess of 50-50 in terms of funding for these projects.

J. Kwan: The federal government's contribution is $88.7 million over five years. Is it broken down — year

1 you get $17.6 million, and year 2…? You get $17.6 million cumulatively as such? So far we've accessed $9 million from that pot of $88.7 million over five years. Is the government going to be using the $8.6 million that's left over from the federal contribution for other projects? Do we get access to that this year, or is it not meant to be divided by 5 so that each year the allocation or the dollars from the federal government vary?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is considerable flexibility, and in fact that's one of the provisions we negotiated with the federal government in terms of the drawdown schedule around the $88.7 million. The money is reimbursed to the province as the projects are undertaken. For example, with the announcement yesterday, we would now be in a position to do a $9 million drawdown on those federal funds. It's a five-year agreement, so as we secure partnerships, as we reach agreements with respect to additional projects, we will see a gradual drawdown of that $88.7 million over the five years.

J. Kwan: This goes right to the heart of the question, which is why I'm trying to understand the dollars: the federal contribution, the provincial contribution, the matching dollars, how much is there, and so on — the questions that are coming up, which people are wondering about because of that agreement.

People were under the impression that with the 1,700 units of housing that have been frozen, there are sufficient dollars with the federal contribution to actually have these allocations made and honoured — not to have 1,000 units cancelled.

What it seems to me is that the government has chosen not to allocate all of the dollars from the federal government within that five-year span. The government may well be saving the $8.6 million that's not yet consumed in the area of housing from the federal government with this agreement out of the $88.7 million.

I'd also like to ask the minister: are the federal dollars earmarked only for affordable housing? Can it not be used for any other purposes?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is actually a detailed bilateral agreement between British Columbia and the federal government as well as the overall framework agreement, which we signed in Quebec last November with the federal government. How the program is undertaken is determined by the content of those agreements.

The federal dollars have the impact of bringing capital into play at the front end, thereby improving the economics of the projects in question. They will allow us to build more housing for more vulnerable people in British Columbia. If the member is interested, she could go to the B.C. Housing website where we have in fact had the federal-provincial agreement posted since December.

J. Kwan: I just want a simple answer, and that is to say that the federal government's contribution toward housing, the $88.7 million over five years, is earmarked for housing only and cannot be used for any other purposes. That's all.

Then, on the question around the federal contribution, maybe the minister can advise. The $88.7 million over five years — are those dollars just drawn and put into the provincial government's account? Or is it in the federal government's account, and when we draw down the money, they deduct it accordingly?

Hon. G. Abbott: The agreement is between B.C. Housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As the funds are expended, the agreement sees the dollars flow from CMHC to B.C. Housing.

J. Kwan: Just to explain for the minister why I asked this question. The $88.7 million — if the federal government actually allocated those dollars to us and transferred those funds into the government's account, B.C. Housing's account, there's actually a big difference in terms of the interest. I know from previously that in terms of looking at innovative housing initiatives, if you can actually get the federal government to transfer those dollars to you into the provincial government's account, you can perhaps actually maximize opportunities for innovation in developing housing using the interest dollars. I know that we explored those kinds of options a lot in the previous government. I was just hoping that could be a possibility with the federal government's dollars — earning their interest and making housing go a little bit further. That's why I embarked on that question.

The minister said that the Homeless–At Risk Housing program is not cancelled, so that's misinformation in the community around that. Is it anticipated that the Homeless–At Risk Housing program will continue not just for this year but the next two years too?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's suggestion with respect to the province enjoying the benefit of the interest on the $88.7 million over a period of time is a great suggestion. Unfortunately, it had already been anticipated by CMHC, and they, probably for obvious reasons, would rather enjoy the interest themselves until the drawdown is made than see the province enjoy it. That's part of the deal, I'm afraid, that we entered into.

The question around: will we still be including the homeless in our housing programs for the future…? Yes, certainly we believe the homeless to be among the most vulnerable in society, and we will continue to try to put together partnership agreements that include the homeless. Again, if we look at the projects that were approved yesterday, I'll make just a quick review of those projects that were very much targeted to the homeless. Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation is a Homeless–At

Risk project. The YWCA project is a Homeless–At Risk project. The Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society project is a Homeless–At Risk project. Options: Services to Communities Society in Surrey is multi-service but also includes Homeless–At Risk. So, certainly, yes, the homeless are among the vulnerable.

J. Kwan: The Homeless–At Risk program, I take from the minister's answer, is going to continue then. It's in place for this year. The allocations were made with some of the projects that came out of the Homeless–At Risk program, but for the next two years, where the government is continuing to provide for housing, then the Homeless–At Risk program will stay intact, and that will continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure whether the member is concerned regarding the SCPI program, which is dedicated to homeless, being under review by the federal government or whether Homeless–At Risk will continue to be a part of our overall umbrella of concerns with respect to provincial housing programs. The answer is yes. They will continue to be a group which we will attempt to target resources towards, and we'll try to build partnerships that take account of the needs of the homeless.

J. Kwan: It is the latter that I'm concerned about. I understand the SCPI program from the federal government. I actually argued with Minister Claudette Bradshaw when I was dealing with some of the housing issues, because the federal government's approach on the SCPI program was targeted towards building shelters only. My argument was that in order to stem long-term homelessness in the country, we actually need more than just shelters; we need permanent housing. So I understand the SCPI side.

It's good to hear that the Homeless–At Risk program within the Homes B.C. program, which B.C. Housing is delivering, will continue. I'm glad to get that confirmation from the minister.

I just have one more question. I apologize. I'm skipping a little bit here. I have one more question around the federal government contribution side. The matching dollars to come from the province for the $88.7 million — does that have to be new moneys, or can it be existing moneys out of the subsidy dollars that are already in place now?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, if I've got the member's question right, it can be both. We can both take account of the existing budgetary allocation, and we can build on it. That's what we are doing as a government: building on the allocation that we had and moving forward.

J. Kwan: In the announcement that was made yesterday, the minister said that $9 million comes from the federal government and that $6 million comes from the province, in addition to the subsidies and so on and so forth. Actually, let me ask this question: is it the intent of the government to match the $88.7 million of new housing dollars so that we can actually see more housing dollars invested by the government for British Columbians? Or is it the intent of government to use existing dollars that are already in the budget, through the subsidies that were already in place?

Hon. G. Abbott: Most of the federal dollars will be matched by provincial dollars.

When you say "most," can you just give me a sense? Is it 25 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent? What are we looking at?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it's not entirely clear what the member's asking or where she's going here. The terms and conditions around the federal-provincial agreement are set out in the agreement, which is posted on the B.C. Housing website. The nature of the agreement is actually a fairly complex one in which the federal government recognizes the net present value of the contributions we make over the first ten years of the subsidy agreement as a value. That value is well in excess of the federal contribution.

As the member knows, every budget year is a new budget year. We bring forward dollars to do the best work we can.

J. Kwan: Actually, his previous answer was closer to answering the question. On the question around matching the dollars, while there's no requirement from the federal government that the $88.7 million be matched with new moneys, the minister has said that the majority was going to be matched with new moneys from the province. I just wanted to get a sense from the minister of how much the government is looking at to match that $88.7 million with new moneys. That's all I was trying to figure out, so we can get a sense of how much new moneys will be going to housing.

Is it going to be a full $177 million into housing for new development, or is it just going to be mostly dependent on the federal contributions? We can have one more go at this. Maybe the minister can advise the House how much — a ballpark percentage of new dollars — will be used to match the $88.7 million.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this clears it up for the member. It goes back to the point which I made early on in the discussion around the federal dollars.

British Columbia is one of very few jurisdictions that has an ongoing housing program. We not only do the ongoing contribution on the subsidy side, but we are also going to be engaging new dollars to match the federal money. The direction of that is $62.5 million for assisted living and $26.2 million from Homes B.C.

J. Kwan: Is that to say that for the $88.7 million that the federal government is matching with the province,

there will be a corresponding $88.7 million in new money for that agreement? It sounds to me like that's what the minister just said — $62.5 million for assisted living and $26.2 million for Homes B.C.

Hon. G. Abbott: Our contribution through the subsidies is way in excess of those dollars.

J. Kwan: I do know that the contribution dollars in the subsidies far exceed what the federal government is contributing. I know that, but those are dollars that are already on the books with the government.

In an attempt to get the government…. I know that when I negotiated with Minister Claudette Bradshaw on the homelessness initiative, and we talked about matching dollars from the federal government, there was always the question: can we utilize our existing dollars that we already put towards housing? British Columbia is indeed one of the few provinces that is continuing with affordable housing programs. We were trying to establish if we could use existing dollars or if it would have to be new dollars put on the table to match federal government contributions.

At the end of the day, it was agreed that it would be new dollars that needed to be put on the table to match. What I'm trying to get a sense of from the minister is that for the $88.7 million where the agreement is now signed, is it the intent of the government to provide for new dollars to match that $88.7 million?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try this one more time. This is how it's new dollars. Let's take the example of the units yesterday — the 697. Going to back to what I laid out for you earlier, member, the provincial contribution is approximately a $5 million annual subsidy for those units — for those 697. Clear so far?

That $5 million subsidy, by agreement, will continue for 35 years. Those are not dollars that are in the current budget — or at least very few, as we talked about earlier. They really start to kick in, in the next fiscal year and the year after that and then continue on for another 33 years. That is an additional budgetary expenditure on the part of the British Columbia Crown.

What the federal government has recognized is a net present value that they assign to that ongoing…. It is new dollars, and those new dollars are well in excess of the $88.7 million which the federal government's going to be bringing to the table over five years.

J. Kwan: I think I actually got what the minister is saying. This is important for the community, as well, who are wondering. The hope and anticipation from the community, of the provincial government in this new agreement with the $88.7 million, is that the government would each year put in new dollars towards that, not just on the $6 million subsidy and then cumulatively over the next 35 years — not in that sense, but additional new dollars for additional new units every year in order to match that $88.7 million.

That's what I'm trying to get at, and it's actually become clear that it may well not be the intent of this government to do that. Just for the 700 units that were announced yesterday alone, the minister is saying that is enough to match the $88.7 million. If they don't do anything else, then they don't have to come up with new projects. If they don't do anything else, they have already matched the intent of that agreement, and then they can proceed.

I was hoping that the minister would say no, no, no. "Yes, we put in $6 million of new moneys into the previous budget of $136 million under '01-02, but for next year the budget will continue to increase to match the dollars from the federal government." It doesn't seem to me that that is in fact the case at all. It is a question that the community is wondering about, and they have been critical of government to suggest that the government is actually not going to match these dollars and that they wouldn't see additional new units develop in B.C.

Hon. G. Abbott: The argument that the member is articulating is absurd. The argument that the member's making is that the $5 million new subsidy commitment by the province somehow isn't good enough to be matching. This is really curious. Under this government and under governments probably back to 1967, this is the way that B.C. Housing has executed its commitment — in long-term subsidies for units.

The member can't have it both ways. If the member is saying she would much rather see the government of British Columbia simply match the $9 million and have no downstream subsidy responsibility, that's fine. She can get up and say that, and she'll have every housing society in British Columbia down her neck quicker than you can say "subsidy."

The fact of the matter is that even the first ten years' net present value of subsidy is greater than the federal contribution by far. The feds know that; they're happy with this. They are tickled pink that British Columbia stepped up to the plate, made a commitment and entered a partnership with them. They're very happy.

Over here we have a member who is somehow trying again to concoct this entirely specious argument that we're not making a commitment because the new subsidy money somehow doesn't equate to the federal money. That's absurd. It is far in excess of it. I'd like to hear from this member, because she's offering useful thoughts here…. I want to hear from this member whether she is advocating that the government of British Columbia move from annual subsidization by unit to up-front capital contribution. If that's her proposition, I want her to get up and say it.

J. Kwan: You know, we were actually making good progress for about an hour or so. Maybe it takes another phone call from somebody who's watching on

television to get the minister back on track. We were making good progress for a period of time.

For the minister to even suggest that somehow I would wish to see the subsidized dollars gone for British Columbia is absolutely ludicrous. Perhaps that's what the minister wants to do himself, and maybe he just sort of blurted it out and then thought: "Hey, but if I blurted that out and blamed it on somebody else, then I don't have wear it." That's what this government does. They off-load all of their responsibilities onto somebody else, and then they say: "You know what? If your services are being cut in the area of education" — as an example — "and if you lose your service, don't talk to me. Go and talk to the local authority." That's where this government is going. They're trying to simply off-load their responsibility onto somebody else.

On the issues around what they're suggesting on capital and subsidies, you know I am on record and have been on record for more than ten years, in terms of where I stand on the question.

J. Kwan: I was just wondering, hon. Chair…. If members of this House wish to speak, they're welcome. Nobody else has asked one question of this minister about the issues around housing. If they wish to do that, they too can take their turn and rise.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I wasn't sure who actually has the floor. There's all kinds of people speaking from their seats. If they wish to have the floor, I would be happy to yield the floor to them, like I said, and they can ask the minister questions around housing, if they actually care about housing.

The Chair: Order, members. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

For the minister to suggest that I would somehow support the government not providing subsidy dollars for housing in British Columbia is obscene and absurd. Maybe that's what the minister wants to do, and maybe they're trying to strive towards that bottom-line and trying to find a way to get out of dealing and investing in housing for British Columbia. If that's what you want to do, minister, then rise and admit to it.

The fact of the matter is that the opposition side has never, ever advocated that — in fact, quite the contrary. The opposition side has always advocated more housing and more dollars to go into affordable housing. That's what the opposition has committed to and will continue to commit to.

The question around the $88.7 million is absolutely crucial. Quite frankly, it's not just me asking this question. People were hoping that the $177 million of housing coming forward through this bilateral agreement would actually supply additional housing — more than the 700 units of housing, not less than that. We know that a thousand of those units have now been cancelled. I'm trying to get a sense from the minister of where this government's commitment is, in terms of that matching.

The minister likes to talk about the existing subsidy dollars, how we can use all those existing subsidy dollars to match, and then we don't have to put one new cent in to advance housing and all that. I know that's the case, but that is not what I am hoping the answer would be. I was hoping the answer would be that the government would put new additional dollars into it, to make sure you actually bring more dollars to housing rather than less. From that point of view, it's clear where this government is going with this issue around housing.

Is it the intent of the government to keep the Homes B.C. program — the mandate and targets under Homes B.C. in terms of family housing, seniors housing, etc. — and to proceed with those priorities?

Hon. G. Abbott: Most of the federal $88.7 million from the F-P agreement will be used for new housing for the vulnerable in our society. We made a similar commitment to it. Again, I do have to emphasize to the member — she doesn't seem to quite get this — that when we bring a new project on, it brings on a commitment to new subsidy dollars for 35 years.

Now, the member can say: "Oh no, you should put way more in than that. That's not good enough." Again, let's just review the record in terms of this. The subsidy in '01-02, reflective of the last year of the New Democrats, was $152 million. In '04-05 that same subsidy line is $176 million. There is, hon. member, a dramatic increase with respect to that. It is reflective of the commitment to match the federal dollars.

I don't know how many different ways we can explain how the legal agreement with the federal government works. Let me do this. If the member would find it useful, I will commit that B.C. Housing will sit down and provide a full briefing on all of the aspects with respect to the legal agreement between the province and the federal government under the federal-provincial program. Further, I'll commit that we'll sit down and provide all of the information the member may require with respect to how the subsidy agreements work and, in particular, how they work within the context of our housing budget.

J. Kwan: I thank the minister for the offer, but I've had many briefings with B.C. Housing in terms of how the subsidy dollars work. I understand that it's a cumu-

lative effect. I think it was on record when I talked about that earlier today in terms of the subsidy dollars. It also explains why, if you continue to develop new housing and if you continue to provide subsidy dollars to the new housing, of course your budget would increase correspondingly. This minister was proudly saying how under their government the budget has gone up, and so on and so forth. Of course it will go up, because as projects are completed, as they come on-stream, as they become occupied, the subsidy dollars kick in. They kick in for at least 35 years. That has been articulated in these estimates.

I know the minister is trying to purposely evade the issue of additional dollars. I think he knows what I'm talking about, but he refuses to acknowledge that. That is, out of the $88.7 million, when I talk about new dollars to be put in and to be matched, this year the new units that were announced will yield about five million new subsidy dollars annually for the next 35 years. One would have assumed we would take that $5 million as a portion of the match towards the $88.7 million.

I'm trying to decipher out of those additional new dollars. I'm not talking about ongoing subsidy dollars that have been created from this unit but additional new units that will be announced. Then there will be another, let's say, $5 million next year, if the government is going to announce another 700 units of housing, to be matched against the $88.7 million that the federal government is contributing. That's what I'm trying to get at so that we can be clear and again to create hope in the community that this government is indeed continuing its commitment in the area of housing not just with existing housing that's under construction and that has already been developed but with an effort to actually see ongoing development of housing and the protection, quite frankly, of housing programs in British Columbia.

The minister is right and proud of the record in British Columbia. British Columbia is unlike many of the other provinces — our neighbour Alberta, which has chosen not to continue affordable housing, as an example. I know Quebec is and British Columbia is; we both are. I am hoping, actually, out of this process to decipher from the minister that we won't lapse into a situation like that of Alberta, where we would simply phase out our new development of affordable housing beyond the federal government dollars. The federal government dollars, although $88.7 million is a good figure, are not nearly enough.

I would definitely advocate that the federal government needs to put more money into housing, because when housing programs get cut, you will see people homeless on the street. There will be homeless people, our health costs will increase, our criminal justice costs will increase, and a whole variety of areas in terms of costs will increase. To do housing is an issue around preventative health. I really firmly believe in that, and I think all levels of government need to contribute in the area of housing. That's why I was asking those questions. It's become clear to me where the minister is going with their commitment — perhaps lack thereof — on the question around housing.

I'd like to ask the minister this question on Homes B.C. I asked him that question earlier as well. The Homes B.C. mandate — has it changed? Is it still prioritizing family housing, seniors housing, etc.? Or has the mandate in terms of priorities for Homes B.C. changed? If so, how has it changed?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I want to address the first part of the member's comments. The member is indulging in a not too elaborate semantic dance around this point about subsidies. It's not exactly Fred Astaire I'm seeing here in terms of that semantic dance. What I'm seeing is, I think, a deliberate attempt to confuse ongoing subsidy with new subsidy.

The member can, if she wishes, discount the commitment of the government to providing a provincial portion of the partnerships that produce these. She can discount them if she wants. She can say, "Oh, the province never put enough money in," or whatever. I want her to be very clear, and I want the record to be very clear. For example, the 697 units yesterday would not proceed without new provincial subsidy agreements. They would not proceed. The new units would not be there without the new subsidy commitment from the province. Again, in terms of the federal-provincial agreement, we take that new subsidy agreement on the part of the province, through a formula with the CMHC, and we arrive at a net present value which is far in excess of the federal upfront capital contribution.

In reality, it would much simpler and probably cheaper for the province to simply put in an upfront capital contribution. We have not done that. We have gone for what I believe is far more important to the non-profits and, I think, far more critical to the success of these projects, which is a long-term commitment to the subsidy of those units. Again, the value of that is very important.

I should note that B.C. Housing and housing policy, and so on, is a part of the core review. It has not been finalized, but where we believe we would like to see the direction of housing in the next few years is toward trying to manage the needs of the most vulnerable in society. We talked at some good and useful length about the critical importance of housing to health. I believe the direction…. Again, it's subject to core review obviously. We want to see housing address the needs of the most vulnerable in society. The frail elderly are one area where we need to do a lot more, because of the demographic challenge we talked about last night, the escalating costs of health care, the great savings that can be achieved not only in seniors housing but in places like the Dr. Peter Centre with those facilities. That is the direction I anticipate, subject always — obviously — to refinement around the core review process.

J. Kwan: I think the minister is just trying to confuse the issue. Nobody suggested, on the issue around

capital and subsidies…should somehow be erased or should somehow be looked at for the province to change its contribution from subsidies to capital. I know the federal government hasn't contributed to the ongoing subsidies, and I know why they didn't do that in this set of agreements. I know the dollars they bring to the table are capital dollars, irrespective of the purpose of the dollars. From my perspective, if the federal government is providing some capital dollars to the table, great. We'll take that, and yes, we'll go back and advocate for more. We'll go back and advocate for subsidy dollars, and so on and so forth.

For the provincial side, in terms of our contribution, will the dollars actually match — not counting the ongoing subsidies that the minister keeps on wanting to say? I know that the province actually provides a lot more money into housing than the federal government. I know that. I know that very, very well.

The issue here is that given that there are new dollars coming to table from the federal government, $88.7 million, will the province just match those dollars with new dollars out of this budget to its full amount — $88.7 million — and ensure that there are additional dollars put on the table in further developing housing? That's all I was trying to get at. The minister refuses to acknowledge that difference and is trying to confuse the issue around capital and subsidy and is trying to intimate that I was advocating for capital dollars to replace subsidized dollars — which is, frankly, complete nonsense.

The hon. minister mentioned the Homes B.C. program. He keeps on talking about the frail elderly, and so on and so forth. I have one question. He didn't mention anything about family units. Is the development of family units still within the mandate of Homes B.C.? Are we expecting that family units will be developed out of B.C. Housing's unit allocations?

Hon. G. Abbott: As well as a number of projects which are under construction, which we'll pull up here as well, the non-profit housing units completed since October 2001 are Affordable Housing Non-profit Rental Association, Vancouver, on Alvin Narod Mews, 60 units; Collingwood Housing Cooperative on Tyne Street and Euclid Avenue in Vancouver, 79 units. We've got, on Pinetree Way, Coquitlam, Westwood Housing Cooperative, 74 units; Desert Breeze Housing Cooperative on Yates Road in Kelowna, 54 combination family and senior units.

Among the non-profit housing units under construction are Affordable Housing Non-profit Rental Association on West Hastings, 113 family units; City Gate Housing Cooperative, 940 Main Street, Vancouver, 102 family units; Conference Housing Property Management Association on 120th Street in Surrey, 64 family units; Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, 4771 Williams Road in Richmond, 26 family units; Lore Krill Housing Cooperative on West Cordova, 106 combination units; Mole Hill Community Housing, Vancouver, combination 68 units; Mole Hill Community Housing, on Bute, Pendrell and Thurlow Streets in Vancouver, 100 multi-use units as well; Salamat Housing Society in Surrey, 34 family units; the Chetwynd Women's Resource Centre — in Chetwynd, obviously — 24 family units; the society in Kelowna, 58 family units; the Society of HOPE, Westbank, 40 family units; Vernon Native Housing Society, 40 family units; Capital Region Housing Corporation in Saanich, 40 family units.

Among the ones announced yesterday are the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation in Port Coquitlam, 59 supported seniors and family units; and the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation in Port Moody, 96 supported seniors and family units.

I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chair, that we have made a very substantial commitment to families. We will continue where we can, where partnerships are available, where partnerships work, to try to address the needs of vulnerable families as well.

J. Kwan: The minister read off the list of projects under construction that have family unit allocation and some of the projects that were announced yesterday. I assume there will be a proposal call for the next set of unit allocations. Is it the intent of the government to continue down this track in terms of it being a variety, a mix of housing project needs that would be put out to the community for non-profit housing development?

Hon. G. Abbott: This government doesn't believe in predetermined one-size-fits-all solutions. What we will look at are proposals that come forward from the communities. We're not going to prejudge what people should bring forward. We will certainly welcome, as reasonable people, any reasonable proposals that are brought forward.

Again, as I have said now a number of times during this debate, we are going to try to target our dollars to those who are most vulnerable in our society. Again, it is very important to stress, I think, that 96 percent of the housing that's built in this province is built by the private sector — 96 percent. You juxtapose that fact — 96 percent built by the private sector — with a 1 percent vacancy rate in greater Victoria and a 0.7 percent vacancy rate in Vancouver, and you say: "Well, what do we do next?"

What we need to do relentlessly — ourselves as a provincial government and in concert with the federal government and local governments — is look at ways in which we can ensure that more market rental housing is being built.

Even if there were unlimited resources, we wouldn't be able to meet all of the housing needs of all British Columbians. What we have to do as a government is once again make market rental housing a place where people want to invest their money. We will not find a solution to the housing crisis in British Columbia until we address issues around tax reform and address issues around deregulation. Until we do those things, there will be no solution to the shortage in market rental housing.

We have to work relentlessly as a province, in concert with the federal government and local governments, to eliminate barriers and impediments to people investing in market rental housing. We need to put in place where we can, particularly on the tax side, provisions that would encourage people within our tax system to invest once again in market rental housing. I believe that is another critical part of the equation.

We have been laying out what we can do on the government side. I believe that we have arrived at a very, very fine balance between the need for social and economic justice and the need for fiscal responsibility and discipline. I believe that is where we have arrived, and I'm very proud to be part of a government that has achieved that balance. [Applause.]

The Chair: Member, it is unparliamentary to make remarks like that in the House.

One-third of B.C. residents, almost one million, are renters. In urban areas such as Vancouver, Victoria and New Westminster, over half of the households are renters.

On average, renters earn about half that of a homeowner. According to national standards, housing that costs more than 30 percent of a household's gross income is considered to be unaffordable.

In B.C. half of the renters live in unaffordable housing, and one in four pays more than 50 percent of their total income towards rent, putting them closer to the risk of homelessness.

The minister waxes eloquent about a balance when the statistics and reports from B.C. Housing and from the government itself illustrate that investing in housing actually minimizes costs elsewhere. Evidence shows that if people live in safe, secure housing, the costs in health care, criminal justice and social services decrease 33 percent on average.

That's significant. If we think in the context of the crisis that we're in around health care expenditure, it makes sense to invest in housing as a preventative strategy to decrease costs in health care, criminal justice and social services. Stability in housing — safe, secure, affordable housing — is a key determining factor to the health outcomes of individuals. That's why housing is so important.

The minister and this government may well be proud of their so-called balance, where the richest British Columbians and the biggest corporations got the biggest tax breaks. The minister may well be proud of that record. I'm not, especially when I think in the context of the people who need housing and the people who are most vulnerable.

This government claims that it's going to provide for the people who are most vulnerable. Yet I see very little evidence of that, especially in light of the changes that are forthcoming around income assistance.

More people are going to find themselves without a home because of the changes to income assistance coming down the pike. More women are going to be faced with challenges and barriers in their lives. They need safe, secure and affordable housing to escape violence. When those units are not forthcoming, they are between a rock and a hard place. Do they leave their home, where they face violence with their children, or do they stay at home, where they face violence every day? The option in providing housing to women, as an example…. Increasing the development of housing and investing in the development of housing will help stem violence against women.

These are just some examples in terms of what works and what's proven to work. Study after study demonstrates that investment in housing is a good thing.

The balance that this government says it has achieved…. With all due respect, I would much rather that the tax break that's been given to the wealthiest British Columbians and to the biggest corporations — those dollars — be directed towards building housing, as an example. I think that would be money better spent.

My question to the minister is around the Homes B.C. program. Yes, he's talked about the Homes B.C. program for the previous administration where the variety and range of housing has been under construction. It includes seniors, homeless at risk, people with disability, women's, aboriginal and family housing, and so on.

This set of allocations that was announced yesterday illustrates that blend as well. My question to the minister is: is it the intent of this government to continue on with a blend of housing needs, or is it….? As he's saying, they're not setting any targets or priorities out there. It's just whatever proposal comes landing on the doorsteps of B.C. Housing, and then those will be considered, whether they be 100 percent seniors or 100 percent family or whatever. Is there no approach to the Homes B.C. program now in terms of those priorities? What are some of those targets that government is trying to achieve?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I've answered this question about 15 times, but I'll do it a sixteenth time. I know the member keeps looking at the clock. I'm sure mission impossible here is to try to grind it out until six, so that's fine. I'll do my part to help her get there.

To begin, again, the member occasionally will get up and say that it's not a matter of taking credit and will then describe the many projects I advised her of that were family and say: "Well, those were ours."

I know this is a point I've made clear before, but I'll do it once again. It wasn't the NDP that paid for those projects. It was the taxpayers of British Columbia. Whether it's an NDP government or a B.C. Liberal government that pays the costs of housing, it is the B.C. taxpayer in fact who pays for the cost of subsidized housing in British Columbia. Every time we spend a dollar out of the taxpayer's pocket, it is our responsibility to exact the maximum public good from that dollar. It's not my dol-

lar. It's not B.C. Housing's dollars. It's not the former government's dollars. It's B.C. taxpayer dollars, and it's our obligation to get the best bang for the buck.

I have laid out over these past few hours, very clearly, Mr. Chair, how we propose to do that. The member made reference to renters who pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent. I can't remember how she described it — many or a large number or something to that effect. The figures we have from Statistics Canada around this point suggest that about 33 percent of renters in British Columbia pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent. That number, if you look at that 30 percent, is 155,265. Is it within the ambit — is it within the global possibility — of the provincial government to address in a direct way, by direct purchase, the housing needs of those 155,000? No, it cannot be done. We don't have the resources to do it.

I'm going to wrap up here. I sense a kind of momentum towards adjournment in the faces of some of the officials. I'm glad to try to accommodate that, and I'll try to wrap this up here.

We've tried to address the huge challenge we face in two basic ways. One, within our own budget we will be spending more on housing in British Columbia this year, next year and the following year than we ever have at any point in the history of British Columbia. We are moving from a budget line of $136 million in '02-03 to $157 million in '04-05. That's the provincial commitment on housing. It's a very substantial commitment.

We will try to maximize the public benefit, the public good, from every one of those dollars. We will do it by trying to target those dollars to the needs of the most vulnerable, and we will try to lever the maximum benefit of those dollars through partnering with the federal government, with local governments, with non-profits, with the private sector and so on. That is how we will exact the maximum public benefit for every taxpayer dollar.

As well, we will relentlessly address the issues that inhibit more housing on the market rental side. I know the member opposite hates tax reform; she hates tax cuts. In fact, that is one of the fundamental ways that we can address barriers to investment in market rental housing is through tax reform and tax cuts. Believe me, by reinvigorating the investment climate in British Columbia through our tax cuts, we've come a long way towards addressing that side.

We will continue to work with the federal government to look at ways in which they can add incentives and remove barriers on the tax side for market rental housing in British Columbia. Similarly, at our level and in concert with the federal government and the local governments, we will try to find ways to eliminate regulations which unnecessarily stand in the way of new market rental housing, just as we did with the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act, which this former government refused for a decade to undo. In fact, the only thing they could do would be to make it worse and inhibit the opportunities of non-profits.

We will relentlessly attack the regulatory piece. We will ensure that the package of regulatory reform that we have in British Columbia is appropriate for our circumstances and ensures that housing becomes a leader again in British Columbia and brings us back to being the number one economy in Canada.

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Members, I am informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. I would ask the members if they would please remain in their seats while we wait for her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I want to wish all members of the House a safe and happy spring vacation.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have some more coming, but Jack Ebbels, deputy minister, is with me. Doug Callbeck, the ADM for management services, is sitting right behind me. Lorne Sivertson, president of Columbia Power Corporation. Also joining us will be Michael Costello, chief operating officer of B.C. Hydro; Gary Rodford, VP of operations at B.C. Hydro; and Gary Sherlock, VP of business development and controller of B.C. Hydro.

It gives me great pleasure to actually begin our estimates for this year and the service plans for the three years coming. As has been said many times, there's a new era of government in British Columbia. We want to get on with getting a strong, vibrant provincial economy going in the province so that we can continue to provide health care, education and social services, some things that all of us hold near and dear to our heart.

We need a supportive social infrastructure, obviously, so that all British Columbians can enjoy the benefits of what this province can actually deliver. To do that, we have to be careful. I've always said we have to have safe, healthy communities and a sustainable environment. This ministry is very centred around developments creating jobs and investment in the province. We have some great opportunities to do that. I'll just underscore a few of them.

We have some underdeveloped resource potential. Coalbed methane is in abundance in British Columbia, and we want to see it developed. Coalbed methane is found all over the province and on Vancouver Island. We've taken some steps to hurry that development along, and we're hopeful that will create a fair amount of jobs and some investment.

Obviously, offshore oil and gas is a potential in the province. There's what we call tight gas in British Columbia; that's tight natural gas. There are special processes that you use to produce that natural gas. We have also the potential to go into the interior basins and the marginal resource places.

If you look across at Alberta, just east of us, they have oil and gas all over the whole province. The western sedimentary basin covers almost all of Alberta and actually tails off into northeastern B.C., but there are other parts of British Columbia where there is potential for oil and gas. There are some basins in the Cariboo. There are some basins around Terrace, just north of Terrace. A little bit further north of that yet, there are some basins. There's some actual potential around Vancouver, although that might be a little bit harder to get drilled than any place else. We consume most of it in Vancouver, but no one in the lower mainland is really familiar with it, and I can understand that to a degree. It's also a very highly populated area. Then we have southeastern B.C.

That, along with the conventional oil and gas I spoke earlier about in the western sedimentary basin, is in the northeast of B.C., the only part of the province that is east of the Rockies. That's my home, Peace River North, and the member for Peace River South.

There is a fair amount of drilling going on. Obviously, this year the drilling is down a bit. The price of natural gas is down. It's depressed, and that's a result of a lot of drilling last year. As I'm told, in North America, most of the storage basins are full. There has not been a cold winter across North America so there's not been a lot of consumption, and there's an oversupply. That's depressed the price.

Northeastern B.C. is busy, not as busy as it was last year, but busier than Alberta. In fact, for people's information, when we have land sales in British Columbia ? that's a land sale to acquire the right to drill for petroleum products, and this is on a strictly auction basis, nothing to do with anything else but just auctioning off the right to be able to drill on certain parcels for oil or gas ? in the last few years, the oil and gas industry has paid twice as much per hectare to acquire drilling licences in British Columbia as they do in Alberta. That's simply because of the return they get. It's a little bit more expensive. The geography is a bit different. It costs a bit more because of those reasons, but at the end of the day, the return is greater.

I'll just say briefly that Ladyfern was a world-class North American…. The first large discovery that we've had for a long time with wells producing up to 100 million cubic feet a day. It's what the industry calls an elephant, and we're hoping that there are a few more elephants out there in northeastern British Columbia that the industry will be able to find.

There's the opportunity for mining activity. Everyone knows that mining activity in British Columbia, other than for some of the coalmines, is almost at a stop. Exploration is very low ? the amount of dollars spent. They're starting to spend a little bit more in exploration now because they feel they may have better access to Crown land to be able to actually get in and develop a mine. But that's going to take a while, too, to get that confidence back in British Columbia.

I'm going to add, too, that it's not all to do with just the confidence in British Columbia. There's the other factor there that I talked about: oil and gas, the price of metals and coal. It's in the tank. If you can't realize what it costs you to go dig it out of the ground and process it, it doesn't take long. You either go broke or you shut down.

So there are some huge opportunities ? the great mineralization in British Columbia. We're working very closely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to be able to promote the mining industry in the province.

We also have electricity. There will be the opportunity to develop a lot more electricity in the province. There seems to be a bit of a myth out there that we just have so much electricity we don't know what to do with it. That's not in fact true. We are reaching a point where we're going to have to soon think seriously about how we're going to bring bigger electricity projects on stream so that we can continue to have electricity in British Columbia and not be net importers.

I believe that if you look at the charts with the expected growth and average water levels — that being the average water levels in the Peace and Columbia systems — provided by B.C. Hydro, by about 2010 the graph starts meeting to where what we generate is consumed domestically. If we let it go there without getting more electricity on stream, we're going to be held to ransom. So there are some serious changes, I think, that we have to make in the electricity field.

Vancouver Island is another good example. We have to seriously look at Vancouver Island as needing more electricity. You just can't go on forever not generating any more electricity. We haven't built any new electrical plants of any size — there have been some small ones, run-of-the-river and those types, but not any of any major size — for quite a long time. I believe it's in about the year 2006 that, if we don't get some more electricity on Vancouver Island, there will be some serious repercussions from brownouts. And that's just looking at normal growth. There are a lot of people moving to Vancouver Island. We have to address that. There's lots of opportunity there to develop and get investment in British Columbia.

I'm really happy that I have the opportunity of being the Minister of Energy and Mines. I can tell you that the people I work with — the deputy ministers, the assistant deputy ministers, the people that work for the Crown corporations and all the people that work in those ministries — are dedicated people. They work hard. I appreciate the work of each and every one of them. They're a great group of entrepreneurs that want to get on with doing what's right for British Columbia, and that's getting investment and jobs in the province. I thank those people very much.

J. MacPhail: I've been having some trouble in other estimates about the accuracy of the website, and I've been relying on the website of the various ministries. I just want to confirm that the Ministry of Energy and Mines' website is a site that I can work from in terms of accurate information. It's not an accusation; it's just checking. I've had trouble with several other ministries.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I would hope that our website is right, because I rely on it as well as the member opposite. I'm sure that everyone works as hard as they can to make sure that the proper information is displayed on the website. There could be mistakes; that's human nature. But no one does it willingly. It would just be a mistake.

J. MacPhail: No, that's not the trouble I've been having in others. It's information that simply should have been removed and wasn't. Good. That's fine.

I'm going to go first to the service plan of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. I note in the introduction to the ministry's service plan — it's at page 1 of the service plan, I believe; yes, it is page 1 — that the ministry commits to ensuring long-term sustainable development of British Columbia's energy and mineral resources. The minister himself addressed that. I want to explore that concept from a couple of points of view.

One is that, while we are varied in the energy sources that we have, some might say that some of those energy sources are plentiful and others are not. Also, the minister concluded his comments by saying that he's delighted to work on getting investment and jobs in this province. Those are laudable goals.

What I want to explore is the concept of long-term sustainable development as outlined in the ministry's service plan. The definition of sustainable development that I've worked with throughout my career is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs not only of this current generation but also the future generations. That started with the Brundtland report. Is this the minister's definition of sustainable development as well?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I wouldn't tie my definition of sustainable development to the Brundtland report.

J. MacPhail: Well, I actually gave my own definition, which was that sustainable development meets the needs of the present as well as future generations. Is that the minister's definition as well?

J. MacPhail: One of the areas the opposition caucus is exploring across government in our estimates is how that is achieved with the government's service plans. We've had some considerable discussion of this in the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. I note the minister said that he's working with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, but I need the minister to help me to figure out how that sustainable development is a reality, given the service plans.

I see the economic needs being discussed, and I see the investment benefits being discussed, but I can't see the overall plan, with this government, about sustainable development. As an example, in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management the primary goal is providing certain access to Crown land. I'm wondering whether the minister has any role in ensuring that he's

working with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to find ways to actually reduce consumption and broaden the sources of energy upon which we rely.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, and thank you to the member for her question. Yes, we work together with the ministry. The staff works with the Ministry of Sustainable Resources, and I believe that on our website, you'll find in our New Era document that this is one of our goals.

If you look at the promotion of using alternative fuels, of reducing the tax on alternative fuels, we will be looking towards ethanol as a blend with gasoline and looking towards microhydro or small hydro. B.C. Hydro has been instructed to actually get some incremental power growth from small hydro, from green hydro. That's wind power. They're testing wave power — or will be, I should say. I don't think they're doing it yet.

There are all those options on power that we're looking at. I know the previous administration actually put into service some natural-gas buses in the city of Vancouver. I was a little disheartened to see that those were parked here a while ago, for whatever reason. That's not a decision I make, but we can certainly look to all kinds of those issues which help air quality and all those kinds of things for the province.

J. MacPhail: The minister's outlined some alternate energy programs. How does one find out the time lines for concluding the projects or the experiments on alternate energy sources and actually move toward the implementation of those alternate energy sources with some sort of government commitment?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, we will be presenting our energy plan in the near future. It will take us out into the future that deals with all types of energy in the province — oil and gas, coalbed methane, electrical generation and those kinds of things. That report is still not completed and still not delivered to the minister.

Maybe to help a little bit here, I believe that report will outline a direction that the province should go, some direction of how we should get there and some targets that we should be meeting. It's not something that you can write a target down as April 24, 2020, or something. But there are directions we're going to take to start looking at buildings and how they're constructed — I think that's important; that's a larger discussion with the public — how much they're insulated, what kind of heating you incorporate in those homes. All of those kinds of things we'll be looking at seriously from our ministry and also through the other ministry.

J. MacPhail: I fully appreciate that this minister is building on the previous Minister of Energy and Mines in successfully expanding our energy industries and our energy extraction in the northeast, with great success. As a minister in a previous government, I fully supported all of those initiatives. I think it's good news that the minister is continuing on with those initiatives. But I must tell the minister I am going to be exploring with him now, a greater concern that I have. That's going along very well. A greater concern I have now, in the next achievement, is how we sustain that, and how we don't ruin the atmosphere, the air and the water in which we have to exist, because of that energy production.

This has not come from me. Interest in this has not come from me but has come from my son, who is consumed with this matter. The reason why he's consumed with it is because his classmates are consumed with it — a little bit to do with his father but not much.

What I want the minister to explore with me is how he sees greater access to those energy sources — particularly in the northeast but all energy sources in this province, water as well — and therefore, bringing in more industry. What role is the minister playing in ensuring sustainability? So far, through documents that have come to our attention and even the minister's own word, it seems to be such a low priority: the sustainability of our resources and of our environment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: With the sustainability of our resources, I think that my kids, although they're not in school anymore, ask me some of the same questions. I think we do a great disservice in British Columbia to students and to young people by not incorporating more resource management, resource development and resource use in the school curriculum. I know the mining association has a relatively good program they put through the school system that teaches students about mining, the benefits of mining and how much each one of us consumes on a daily basis in regard to minerals, coal and even gravel, for instance. Although that program has been there for a while, I think it should be expanded.

I don't think we've done a good job. Forests is another example, but that's not something I deal with. Also, with the Ministry of Energy and Mines, promoting in schools the use and the benefits of using natural gas to the people, to the environment, how much is consumed, where we find it, how we use it and what's in the future.

I know that in the future, I would say 50 years from now, people will say: "How could they have been so silly to do what they were doing then?" It's the same as what we say about what took place 30 years ago or whatever. That's, I believe, a natural progression. You'll see, I think, in the future as our young people grow up and become leaders in the country that as it becomes more available, as it becomes cheaper to develop, the sustainable generation of electricity — I'll use that, for example — and wind power or wave power or any of those alternative energies that are not supposed to have a great impact on the environment, but they do. That seems to be the future. Hydrogen — the future. We will develop those over time. That's a normal progression, I think, that's gone on with us through our

lives, will carry on through the rest of our lives and through our children's lives. We will become much less dependent in the future on actual, shall I say, oil and gas, than we are today.

A good example is vehicles. They get a lot more mileage today out of a gallon of gasoline than they used to get. I spoke earlier about ethanol, using it in a mix in gasoline — I think an excellent way to preserve the environment, help the air quality and those kinds of things and use less of the actual oil, or gasoline, which is a derivative of oil, in our cars.

Those things will just naturally progress along. There's no firm date, but to just go out and say we'll generate a lot of electricity with wind power…. I'll use that, for example. It costs a lot more to generate electricity by wind. Whether the public is ready to buy and pay for that remains to be seen. I'm sure there are some people that would. I would like to see a system in place where people can actually say that they would prefer to buy power that's generated by wind or solar or tidal, and that's what they pay for. Actually the provider, whoever is supplying that hydro, may do it by a different source but has to generate enough electricity to meet whatever that demand is out there. That's a way to start working towards that.

I can also say — and I'm sure the question's going to come anyhow — that if we look at the price of hydro in the province, it's one of the cheapest in North America. A great conservation factor in electricity, probably, is to have a bit of a higher price. That seems to work with almost every commodity we use. As long as people can continue to have very low hydro rates — and it's not just people; it's industry — the incentive to use less and use it more wisely is really not there.

Hopefully, through those processes, and I spoke earlier about looking at how we can actually promote buildings to be built differently with different types of heating and to be built to a better quality and to get out of burning oil to heat homes…. I believe in this city of Victoria they consume an awful lot of oil heating homes. I think it would be better for the environment right here on Vancouver Island and for the air quality right here in Victoria if we could get more of those homes converted to natural gas, which we know right now is a fairly clean-burning fuel. That's not a process that happens overnight, and the member's aware of it. I mean, there have been programs in place in the province for years to try to get people to change over, so there has to be some incentive to help do that.

J. MacPhail: This is a very useful discussion. When the minister mentions the case about how generations will judge us — and they'll judge us sooner rather than later as technology develops — I was discussing with the Premier a professor from UBC who was talking about energy. He said 15 years from now people will look on us as nuts for having gotten into a 4,000- pound hunk of steel to go six blocks to buy a cup of coffee and that being fuelled by gas.

I agree, and I hold myself guilty of that — well, not quite at that extent — but I know that I am car dependent. The minister says that there's a punitive approach on an individual basis, a consumption approach. In other words, make people pay the real price, or make people pay…. Actually, British Columbians are paying the real price for their hydro, but it's a very inexpensive price. Somehow, incorporate a behavioral change into the price of hydro. I'll try not to spill over into hydro; I want to try and deal with that all at one time.

There's a flip side as to how to change people's behaviour as well, and that is, charge people or make people aware of the real costs of production. I think the Kyoto protocol is going along that way. That says there are consequences of production that aren't necessarily evaluated right now. The Kyoto protocol moves toward properly evaluating and booking the costs of production.

I know that British Columbia is taking a very assertive role with the federal government around the area of the Kyoto protocol, and I know that the minister has a role to play in that. I do need to understand what British Columbia's role is in ratifying the Kyoto protocol, because that letter came out of the blue completely, at least to me. I consider myself to be informed. What was the Premier meaning when he signed that letter to the Prime Minister to say "whoa" on the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, that wasn't just from the Premier of the province of British Columbia; it was signed by the Premier of the province of British Columbia because the first ministers met here. That was a determination of most — all — of the Premiers across Canada. Part of what we have been wrestling with, with the federal government, at least since I have become minister — and I've attended all the meetings in conjunction with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — is to get some sense of where the federal government wants to go.

The Premier did not say that he is opposed to the Kyoto protocol, nor did the other premiers. What they did say is there are some important questions that should be answered. People in the country need to have those answers. I think that it would be fair to say that the federal government should live up to its commitment of — I believe it is, and I've listened to Mr. Anderson say it enough — informing and working with the provinces, whatever system is going to be in place, whatever system that the federal government incorporates at the end of the day. It's pretty loose; it's all over the place. They've also committed to informing the public and informing the public very well about what would happen with the Kyoto protocol if it was signed.

At the same time they were talking about signing it by June. Well, June is just around the corner, and they still haven't told the provinces what the process is going to be. How are we going to do it? Are different areas going to be targeted differently than others? Are provinces like Alberta going to have to pay a huge

price or is that going to be divided up amongst the country? I mean, there are all kinds of schools of thought. One day they say one thing; one day they say another.

It's obvious that they're working very hard to come up with some kind of a plan of what they think they should be incorporating in the Kyoto protocol. The letter from the Premier was saying: "Please don't sign that until we know, until you've given our government, the Alberta government, all of them, a chance to review to find out what the costs are going to be to society and to actually educate the public as to what the costs will be." If you look at it, Mr. Anderson will tell you it will cost only $500 million across Canada on GDP. I would say that's probably on the low side, because Mr. Anderson wants very much to sign the Kyoto protocol.

If you look south of the border, President Bush says it will run somewhere around 4 percent of their GDP, which would have a devastating effect on their economy, as it would on our economy. There are all those schools of thought out there. All we're saying is give us the information and let us make our determination. Let us inform the public and let them know what the costs of the Kyoto protocol are, then get on with looking at when we should sign it. We don't think it's probably June.

J. MacPhail: Is this provincial government committed to signing the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Kyoto protocol is not signed by the province. It's actually signed by the federal government on behalf of all provinces, and then it would be how the province would actually deliver on what the federal government signed for. We don't sign the Kyoto protocol. The federal government does it on behalf of all Canadians.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I understood that, except that it would be at the federal government's risk to sign the Kyoto protocol if one province were going to go sideways and break the implications of the protocol, especially in an energy-producing province to the extent we're an energy-producing province. British Columbia has a very, very significant role to play in this.

Let me then try to approach it this way. I expect the minister is reluctant to make some sort of firm commitment, given the negotiations going on with the federal government right now. Let me ask this then. What's in place to assist the public in understanding the Kyoto protocol in this province, and what is in place for the provincial government, even if the Kyoto protocol isn't signed, to move toward a reduction in emissions?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Until we find out what the federal government is going to actually sign or how they are going to inform the public, we should remember it's the federal government that signs it. It will be the federal government's responsibility, and they said it is, to inform the public. We will work within whatever that system happens to be at the end of the day. Hopefully, it's a meaningful process.

That is one thing I have been adamant about. If at the end of the day, you sign something, you should have that information so you can make it very well known to the public all across Canada — not just in British Columbia but in every jurisdiction across Canada — because it will affect all of us a little bit differently. We spoke earlier, and I talked about different forms of energy, including electrical. I know the member wants to go to electricity afterwards, but there's ethanol and trying to look at different ways of maybe building buildings and the use of electricity and energy.

Automobile manufacturers are moving ahead very quickly without any prodding from this government, obviously, because we don't have a lot of effect on them. They're looking at ways of making their vehicles a lot more fuel-efficient. In fact, I think Ford and GM are both coming out with some hydrogen-based fuel cell cars as prototypes to see how they work out. All that is moving along.

Like I said earlier, we talked about other kinds of energy and moving towards it. Getting away from using oil, for instance, on Vancouver Island, and going to natural gas is a good way of improving the air quality.

J. MacPhail: Is there an internal collaborative approach to this issue of sustainable development internal to the government? Is there a cabinet committee? How does the minister work with his colleagues on these matters?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have a Cabinet Committee on the Environment that has just started working on some of these issues. I also spoke earlier about our energy plan, which will probably come out and be made public in the next few months. That will also address some of those issues.

J. MacPhail: I assume that this minister is on that committee and probably Sustainable Resource Management and WLAP as well.

One of the things that I also see in the minister's service plan, under strategic context, is: "The Ministry of Energy and Mines promotes British Columbia's resource investment opportunities and fosters a competitive investment climate, which encourages responsible development of energy and mineral resources, supports job creation and ensures environmental protection and public and worker health and safety."

On the environmental protection aspect, we had quite a little go at this with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. I think it's fair to summarize — although we haven't actually gone to the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — that the minister referred most of the areas concerning environmental protection over to the Water, Land and Air

What role does this ministry play in terms of environmental protection, and are there any specific programs that this ministry has to meet that strategic context of ensuring environmental protection?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Our ministry has been charged…. Like the member saw in our plan, the environment is something that we have to look at very closely and adhere to. I'm not trying to shuffle anything off, but I would suggest that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will be able to answer some of those questions around environment that we as a ministry have to live up to, or go one step better.

To help the member — and I'm sure she was aware of it while she was in government — there is the reclamation of mines, a process instituted in British Columbia quite a number of years ago and which is a very good program. I'm not going to say that there are not some problems; we all know of some problems. But we do have a reclamation process in place.

The approval processes for, let's say, a mine: it has to go through an environmental assessment process. All those kinds of things about the environment are questioned and met through the environmental assessment process.

For oil and gas in the northeast, for instance, there are standards right now that have to be met for permits and those kinds of things. In fact, Westcoast — I believe it's Duke Energy now — has a gas reinjection plant, or a pilot project, just south of Chetwynd, where they reinject acid gas back into the ground rather than burning it off, which used to take place. There are all kinds of things that we're working on internally in our ministry to try and make those things happen.

I believe on the Blueberry reserve just out of Fort St. John is a completely enclosed system, meaning everything is reinjected back in with very little flaring, unless something goes wrong and they have to flare off, for whatever reason. That would be a technical reason. Most of it is reinjected back into the ground. I want to see us do a lot more of that through the Oil and Gas Commission.

We have an environmental part of the Oil and Gas Commission, funded by industry. In fact, I believe right now we're partnering with Alberta on how we'll be dealing with sour gas in the future. Obviously, Alberta has a lot more problems than we do, but we have problems too, and we're trying to deal with those in a rational way to respect the environment.

J. MacPhail: I also note goal 2 in the service plan is to maintain higher environmental, health and safety standards.

If there's a conflict between what Energy and Mines is suggesting in terms of increasing development of the resource and the values promoted by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, what happens? How is that resolved? Does the minister provide scientific evidence, separate and apart, on a conflict around environmental protection or environmental standards? These are the realities of this province. They occur every month. Under this government, how are those conflicting values resolved?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, my ministry has to meet high environmental standards. We committed to that during the election, and we committed to that in the New Era document. You'll see that in my service plan and in other service plans of organizations that are in the Ministry of Energy and Mines or responsible to it.

There are interministerial working groups, if there are disagreements or problems that have to be dealt with. I can't use anything for an example right now; I don't have anything at the tips of my fingers, but I know that those will be worked out interministerially.

J. MacPhail: Okay. What I noticed is an absence from the service plan of this ministry. Sorry; I should give the minister the page number to which I'm referring. It's page 8 of the service plan. It talks about objectives: "The objective here is to maintain high environmental, health and safety standards."

I couldn't help but notice that environmental assessment was missing on that strategy, but I noted the minister himself articulated that earlier in his answer.

Let me just tell you what the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management said about environmental assessment, before I ask my next question. He said the types of projects that currently go through the EA process are the same types of projects that will continue to go through the EA process.

My recollection is that many of the projects that had to go through the environmental assessment process were projects that would fall now under the minister's responsibility. Do we have this minister's commitment that the environmental assessment process continues? If so, could he give examples of how it's currently working?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, yes, I can give a commitment, the same as the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. The environmental assessment process will continue to work. Again, that's under a different ministry. Those questions I'm sure you asked of that minister, so I don't think it would be fair for me to comment on them.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I meant it in the context of how well it works for the goals of this ministry in terms of promoting development. Not how it works, but how is it jibing with the goals of this ministry in terms of development?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to dodge the question, but nothing has come through that had to go to environmental assessment since I've become minister. I know that I want to maintain high environmental

standards within our ministry as best we can. That's a goal of our whole government.

Maybe I should just add to that a little bit. One thing we did was the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection checked on the Oil and Gas Commission through all their permitting and all their processes to see how they matched up with health and safety and environment, the companies that were doing work over the last year. That was an independent audit by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. I'm going to use this number a bit loosely. I can't remember it exactly, but it seems to me they met all the requirements. I think 80 or 85 percent of the projects met all the requirements that were there. The ones that weren't met were not significant. They were smaller.

I think we have a good compliance process. It can always be better. We will strive to do it as best we can.

J. MacPhail: We actually know there are going to be changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. There's been a document. I don't want to call it a leaked document, but it's a document out there that is an internal document to the government. It's clear there are going to be changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. Two of the areas where there is going to be substantial change are in graphite and mineral refining. In fact, this document indicates those would actually be removed from the environmental assessment process.

I'm wondering what role the minister is playing in bringing about changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. What grounds are there for removing graphite and mineral refining from the environmental assessment process?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm sure the member canvassed that very well with the minister responsible for the Environmental Assessment Act, at least I hope she did. That's a review going on that I won't comment on in these estimates.

J. MacPhail: No. If the minister's not going to answer the question, so be it, but these are specific changes to the Environmental Assessment Act that deal with the purview of his ministry. I don't know when the minister wants to do this, because this is a much more relaxed atmosphere and I'm actually just trying to seek information.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent says graphite is in pencils, but you know he's a city kid too.

I'm actually seeking information on what value there would be in removing these two. How does that help the goals of this ministry for job creation and development investment through this province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is a relaxed atmosphere. I appreciate that, and I really want to keep it that way. Again, the last answer I gave: when and if the act is changed, if the legislation is changed, that will come before the Legislature, and at that time, those questions can be asked. Right about now, it would be purely hypothetical.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but it's also the time…. I understand the minister's not going to answer it, but it's also the time that the minister can allay fears because these documents are out there, and they're government documents.

On page 10 of the service plan, back to goal 2: to maintain high environmental and health and safety standards. There's performance measures and performance targets laid out. Where would we find the performance measures, the performance targets pertaining to environmental standards? Am I missing it? This is where I was looking, but I couldn't find them.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, this would be something that Water, Land and Air Protection would set the standards for. This ministry would have to meet or exceed those standards. I encourage the member to pursue that with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Well, let's find some stuff that we can talk about here. Page 2 of the service plan, the ministry outlines its core values and principles, its advocacy, integrity, transparency, responsiveness, efficiency and accountability. Then there are statements that accompany those core values. Under advocacy: the ministry pledges to represent the interests of the energy and mineral sectors to broader stakeholder groups and assist those sectors' responsible development. How does that take place? What does the minister do to assist that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to go back to what I spoke about a little bit earlier, about two examples that I know off the top of my head. In "responsible development" is the issue in Blueberry with not flaring gas absolutely any more than it has to be. In fact, we encourage and work with industry to try and find ways that they don't have to flare — very little. Industry would like to get to a point where they don't have to flare, but in some places they have to, for whatever technical reason. I couldn't go into that.

I guess the other one was the Pine Valley, the west-coast process — that, actually, to the member's credit, started when her government was here — in proposing an acid gas reinjection process. Interestingly enough, the B.C. government got it all in place and ready to go, and the federal government came along, DFO, and asked the ministry to go through a bunch of hoops. It took almost another eight months or something to finally be able to use the program.

Those are two examples that I can give, again, to the member — so that we can have responsible development in the province and respect the environment as best we can.

You know, the member should know — and maybe I'll just digress a little bit. Because of where I live, in Fort St. John, many of my friends are farmers that live around Fort St. John, and they all have concerns about flaring, about gas wells, about sour gas and sour oil. Those are concerns to every one of us. They're concerns to people that live in rural small developments where there are residences and there are wells around there. In fact, we try, through the Oil and Gas Commission, to work very closely with those individuals and with industry.

One more example that comes quickly to mind is just up the highway from Fort St. John. I don't know the kilometre, but it's about mile 63 or 64. There's a residential area. A company wanted to come in and drill some wells which would probably be sour gas to a certain degree. There was obviously a lot of discussion through the Oil and Gas Commission and through Derek Doyle, who is the commissioner. He brought together the industry and the people that lived there to sit down in a community hall and start talking about these issues and trying to figure out ways that the drilling actually could take place without infringing on people that lived there, on their health or anything like that.

Those are things that we try to encourage. I guess if we just lived by the letter of the law, I could have, as minister, said: "Tough. Those holes are going to be drilled there whether you like it or not." We didn't do that. We said that people have some concerns, so let's get them together with industry. Industry was very good about it. They came to the meeting, they talked to the people and actually have a way forward to have industry still able to drill the wells ? maybe some directional drilling, that type of thing ? and the people that live in that community go away feeling a lot better.

There will also be all kinds of safety things put in place to make sure that flaring is at a very minimum again. It's reinjection and those kinds of things. That's how we try to have better than what the standard is today.

B. Penner: I thank the member for allowing me to interject at this stage of the debate. I, unfortunately, have to get out of the capital in about half an hour. I thank the member for his indulgence to give me this opportunity to ask a few questions about electricity.

The minister will know that I've got a considerable amount of interest in this topic. I'd like to just start where we left off during our mini-estimates debate last summer. At that time, I asked a few questions about B.C. Hydro's call for proposals on their wind demonstration project which is planned for Vancouver Island. I know that last fall some projects were selected.

I wonder if the minister or any of the staff that are here today from B.C. Hydro ? I know Mr. Costello is here ? can provide us with an update on how we're making out on that wind demonstration project.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Sorry, I just wanted to get some information from the officials.

There's a wind demonstration project on the island. B.C. Hydro signed an MOU with Axor from Quebec to develop ten megs. They're also testing on ten other sites around the province. They haven't developed any MOUs with anyone — but testing the wind. Apparently, the wind has to be constant, or as constant as possible, to have good generation by wind.

B. Penner: The member will be relieved to know that I'm not actually getting to go home. I'm getting to go to Richmond to speak to the Aerospace Industry Association of B.C.'s annual general meeting this evening, which is something I'm looking forward to.

Just back to the wind energy question: when can people in British Columbia look forward to seeing the first wind towers going up on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am informed that it's a one-year testing that will take place. Hopefully, they'll then erect the towers to generate about ten megawatts, which is almost two megawatts per windmill or per tower.

B. Penner: If I understand it correctly, we can expect to start seeing the towers being built somewhere on Vancouver Island in about a year's time from now.

B. Penner: As the minister will know, these towers are quite literally popping up across the United States. In fact, I think Washington State now has something around 300 megawatts installed capacity by wind generation, so it's not really experimental any more. I keep being told that the cost of these projects is becoming more and more economical as greater advancement is made with the construction techniques and the technology involved.

Will B.C. Hydro be taking an equity position in this project, or will this be simply a privately owned operation that is selling the power back to B.C. Hydro at an agreed-upon price?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand it, there will be an equity position with B.C. Hydro simply because the project was so small they couldn't get anyone interested, I'm told, to come in and do it completely on their own. There will be the ability for the commercialization to actually buy out B.C. Hydro's equity in the future, once it gets going.

B. Penner: I was going through the third-quarter report from B.C. Hydro — I think it's the most recent — and on page 23, there's an update on how B.C. Hy-

dro did last fall with their green call for energy proposals. There's an indication there that four new contracts, I believe, were entered into as a result of the call last year, totalling 45 gigawatts per year of potential electricity generation.

I wonder if the minister can give us an idea of what kinds of projects we're talking about there. For those of us who aren't very good with our math and don't understand the relationship between megawatt-hours and gigawatt-hours, I wonder if you can tell us what the megawatt capacity is of those four different projects.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You'll understand now why I have trouble with gigawatt-hours, megawatts, gigawatts, as they apply to how many households they'll light up. B.C. Hydro officials are getting that information, and if we don't have it before estimates are out, I assure the member they will write him a letter and let him know the answer to that question.

B. Penner: I heard some of the remarks of our colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, earlier, and I believe the tone of her remarks were — to be charitable — critical of the government for not doing more to promote green energy. I note that in the past number of years there wasn't a whole lot done under the previous government. So I salute the efforts to try and bring on more of these small run-of-the-river hydro projects, wind energy and perhaps even solar for people who think that's viable for them.

Taking a look and referring, again, to page 23 and the statement that about 45 gigawatt-hours' worth of contracts were completed, I suspect that B.C. Hydro's going to have quite a challenge meeting the goal that are in their service plan, which was tabled in February, that calls for between 1,500 and 1,900 gigawatt-hours of new green energy by the end of fiscal 2005. That makes me think there must be more green calls coming, more requests being put out there to the private sector to bring on more green generation. If we've got 45 here, we've got a long way to go to 1,500.

I just wonder if the minister can comment about what strategy B.C. Hydro will be taking to attract more investment into the green sector.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, B.C. Hydro has a tall order to fulfill. There is a demand, as we said earlier to the previous member, for green energy in British Columbia. It's something that we actually have to take seriously, and we are. We'll see in the energy report that they've devoted a fair amount of time to how we go about developing more green energy — small micro-hydro operations. In fact, I think that B.C. Hydro just signed about 20 or 22 agreements with small producers here in the last little while to get some green energy on board. They're doing some study with wave energy off Vancouver Island. I'm not sure whether we're doing anything with solar energy through the Crown right now or not.

All of those things are part of what B.C. Hydro is charged with looking at and actually delivering.

B. Penner: The minister just referred to the Energy Policy Task Force report, which I believe is due to be released sometime soon. Can the minister indicate when he expects that report to be made public?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I was just handed a note saying that they've signed about 18 contracts worth 800 gigawatt-hours. I'll let you do the math on figuring out the gigawatt-hours.

The energy report is to be delivered to the Ministry of Energy and Mines by the 15th of this month. It may be a few days late trying to get it finished off. I would say right now — and I've told the media — that it will take at least two months for government to develop a go-forward policy from there on how we're going to deal with all the recommendations and processes that come out of that report, so about two months from mid-March: mid-May or towards the end of May.

B. Penner: Perhaps this is an issue that will be addressed in the Energy Policy Task Force report, but maybe B.C. Hydro can comment now through the minister: does B.C. Hydro have a position on this topic called net metering? I know that a number of jurisdictions have adopted that policy. Washington State passed a law last year requiring their utilities to permit net metering; it's in place in Montana.

If I understand the concept correctly, it allows an individual consumer, if they can generate their own electricity either through wind in the backyard or a solar panel on the roof of their home, to effectively flow back any surplus electricity into the grid. It's like having a two-way valve, except dealing with electricity.

I know this is being done in other places. It's often talked about by environmental groups. I'm wondering if this is something that B.C. Hydro's actively looking at. That might be the way we actually start to see some solar energy being used to create electricity. I don't foresee solar energy being used on a wide scale in British Columbia, certainly not in large power plants, but perhaps individual users could find some benefit to using solar panels.

Incidentally, I am told that in the Seattle area, especially amongst those people who are wealthier and rely a lot on computers, they've become quite fond of putting in their own solar panels, because somehow the electric signal from the generation of electricity from solar panels is cleaner and better for their computers. That's something they're discovering in Washington State.

I can tell you, though, about energy consumption. I'm told, at least, we continue to consume more and more electricity just in our everyday lives through computers, TVs and new appliances. You have to look

very closely at the appliances you purchase nowadays as to what they're stated to consume. I'm told that a high-resolution TV consumes four times the electricity of the normal TV that you and I have today. It won't be long until everyone will have high-resolution TVs. If you think about that in consumption factor, it's huge. That's one of the reasons we have to start looking out to the future more than five or ten years as to how we're going to be able to generate hydro for the public.

I don't believe Hydro has net metering as part of their plan. There's been lots of discussion around net metering. I would say that members should wait until the energy policy is out to look at those issues. I also understand there is some difficulty in putting net metering in place. As I understand, it's a bit expensive, simply because of the switch gear required. If there's a power outage or something happens, the lineman…. If they shut off the main supply, they know there is no hydro in that line. If there's net metering, or if someone else is pushing hydro back down that line, they can very easily electrocute someone, so there are some problems about how we go about that technology.

I don't disagree with the member. It's a good idea. Hopefully, we'll be looking at it.

B. Penner: I don't want to take up too much more time, so I'll move away from that particular topic about green energy and the like. All of that actually falls under the heading, in my mind, of independent power producers. I know that the minister's taking great steps towards making those people feel more welcome in supplying some of our electricity needs.

I certainly agree with the minister that all of us are using more and more electricity. It's something we take for granted. We're in a very fortunate position of being able to do that, but the day will come — and it's coming soon, according to B.C. Hydro's estimates — when we're going to have to not just increase our generation capacities considerably, but also our ability to move that electricity. That will probably be more difficult — building the new transmission capacity.

Moving closer to home for me, representing Chilliwack-Kent, I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the Burrard Thermal plant. That's something of considerable interest to people in the Fraser Valley. I've noticed a few media reports that it's had some technical problems. Can the minister tell me the status of Burrard Thermal?

I see in the quarterly report that it's projected to produce only perhaps 50 gigawatt-hours of electricity this year, compared to about 2,700 gigawatts last year. Is that because of some of the problems with the turbines that have broken down recently?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There was apparently a hydrogen storage problem, and it caused some explosion. It had nothing to do with the units, although it was serious and Hydro is dealing with it.

I know the generation of Burrard Thermal brings all kinds of discussion. The whole hydro system in the province is pretty intricate. The member should know that last year I understand we were net importers of hydro in British Columbia because the Columbia system is low on water. It looks as though the Peace system and the Columbia system will be up fairly good on water, so there is not as great a need to use Burrard Thermal.

Also, as the price of gas is lower, you can buy electricity cheaper than generating here. Hydro, through Powerex, buys and sells. It's a pretty intricate system. I think the member's quite well aware of the system, of Powerex and how they do it.

Burrard Thermal is an old plant, but there are some serious things we have to look at when we talk about Burrard Thermal. It's just not as simple as saying we can shut it down. It's at the load centre. It can generate a tremendous amount of electricity. If there are ever problems with the lines from the Peace or the Columbia system, you have a generation system in Vancouver that will keep your lights on and your heat going. If you discontinue Burrard just on a whim, you're going to have some problems. Maybe not; maybe you will.

We have to look seriously at Burrard. There will be some recommendations made about Burrard to replace it. If you look on the little sheets, Peace Canyon Dam, the second dam on the Peace, produces very little more than what the maximum Burrard Thermal can produce. To replace Burrard Thermal is not just: "We'll go someplace else and build something." It's intricate to the system, and in fact if you took Burrard Thermal out of the whole system today, we'd be importing electricity year-round, year after year after year. It's integral, it's important and it's an issue we have to deal with.

B. Penner: Last fall while I was participating in EFSEC hearings, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council hearings in Washington State, the SE2, or Sumas Energy 2, proponents were throwing stones our way, saying British Columbia hasn't done anything to upgrade Burrard Thermal and suggesting it was essentially the same technology as more than 30 years ago. I know that to be false.

I wonder if the minister could tell us how much actually has been invested in Burrard Thermal to make it more modern in the last, say, three years or so.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm just going to read this to you out of the booklet: "B.C. Hydro has spent over $200 million on the Burrard Thermal upgrade. Its goal is to modernize the plant while addressing environmental concerns. The upgrade has had significant success with local emissions decreased by over 90 percent."

B. Penner: Of course, there are a couple other thermal plants. A new one, which unfortunately I don't think is quite on line yet, is the Island Cogeneration Project Ltd., which by my calculations is between two and 2½ years behind schedule for coming on line on a full-time basis. That's a plant built on Vancouver Island up at Campbell River. Thankfully for taxpayers, that was not a project that was financed by B.C. Hydro di-

rectly. I think it's the private investors there who are having to pay the price for being behind schedule in terms of coming on line.

I wonder if the minister could provide us with an update on that project. I know people on Vancouver Island are getting nervous about their supply of electricity. If this plant come on line, that will go some way toward supplying Vancouver Island's electricity needs.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As the member stated, that's not a component of B.C. Hydro. It's Calpine Corp.'s. I'm not exactly sure what's going on there. I would suggest the member could write a letter to Calpine and ask them what their problems are.

B. Penner: I suppose the point of the question was to highlight the benefits of having private investors bear the risk in developing energy sources. Unforeseen things can happen. Obviously, the people that built the Island Co-gen project up at Campbell River didn't expect to run into the kind of engineering difficulties they've experienced. I offer that to the world as an example of how it's good public policy to let the private sector bear the risk. We can still buy the electricity from them through a publicly owned Crown corporation.

I think that brings me to my last question. That's on the power plant now proposed for the Nanaimo area. I wonder if the minister can explain just how that project's going to proceed. Will that be a B.C. Hydro project, or is it a private sector, independent power producer project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro and Calpine are 50-50 owners on the proposed plant for Nanaimo. As I understand it, the Hydro officials inform me that they hope to be going into an environmental assessment process sometime in May. I guess we have to wait until that process is done before we say what else is going to happen.

B. Penner: Is it the intention of B.C. Hydro with that Nanaimo project, if that's where it's located, to use what's known in the industry as best available control technology? I think that's a requirement in most of the U.S. states. I just wonder if that's proposed for the Nanaimo project.

I notice I did skip a couple of notes. This goes back to hydroelectric development. I know that B.C. Hydro in the last couple of years — and luckily, they did it before the big run-up in electricity prices — started upgrading a number of the existing smaller hydro projects along the coast, particularly some in the Fraser Valley, and realized some significant increases in generating capacity just by modifying some of the existing dams. It didn't require any additional flooding of land. Some of that electricity came on line just before that big spike in prices, so taxpayers got a return on their money very quickly.

In the service plan, I think, there's just a notation about the Stave Falls replacement project. It talks about how much that cost. I think it was about $142 million. I'm wondering how much the capacity was increased as a result of that investment — if you've got those figures handy. I think that's a good-news story. I know there have been a number of other projects that have been examined along the coast for upgrades. I guess I'm interested in whether there's additional potential simply through better engineering — improving the turbines, replacing old turbines — to squeeze some more electricity out of our existing hydroelectric assets.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, and that's a good a question. Hydro is looking at all the available sites they can upgrade to get better production from their plants. The one at Stave Falls is between 90 and 110 megs, I'm told, so it's substantial. There are other sites that they'll be looking at, and as we continue to push Hydro to get more green energy and more sustainable energy on line, I'm sure there'll be all kinds of projects that they'll be able to tackle around the province to be able to generate that.

B. Penner: I thank the minister for that comment. I think being able to increase the output from 90 megawatts to 110 megawatts is significant, and it didn't result in any extra flooding. That's something to be saluted.

For what it's worth, I personally believe that hydroelectricity is green energy. I know there's some discussion in energy markets about that right now with the branding that's going to come on in terms of green energy. For what it's worth, I believe our hydroelectric assets in British Columbia do constitute green energy.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could tell us something in regard to hydro and what kind of situation we're facing. We'll need power on Vancouver Island, and there's a proposed power transfer from down through the States to Vancouver Island. With the power problems we're having with Sumas 2, how are we going to get the supply of energy onto Vancouver Island to produce the power?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As the last member questioned, the plant that B.C. Hydro will be going into the EA process with in May around Nanaimo is a first step in providing more energy that's needed on Vancouver Island. It will be gas-fired, fed by a pipe from the U.S. I don't know if the member knows or not, but FERC, the federal agency in the U.S., has approved the portion of pipe that goes through the U.S. The National Energy Board hearings, I believe, are almost completed. Or maybe they are?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They're not? On the Canadian side, those hearings are still going on.

D. Jarvis: We were talking a little while back about IPPs. What is the position of Hydro with regard to how many plans are out there now to come in for independent power projects in this province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member knows we have committed to using IPPs, independent power producers, as much as we can in the future to generate electricity in the province. We know there have to be some changes in how we develop those projects so that people can actually go out and make long-term investments in either smaller plants, micro-hydro ones, or in larger plants, whether they be hydro or gas-fired.

We have to work in a process that looks at transmission and how those independent power producers can access the transmission lines. We have to get more hydro on line. I think you said we were looking at how many megs a year?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's 800 gigawatt-hours in each year into the next three years from hydro alone. I should tell the member this may not be all the generation that's built in British Columbia, because we may have other generation that just wants to access the transmission lines through Hydro to sell it south of the border or in Alberta. There will be those opportunities also.

D. Jarvis: For the minister's own interest, I think the multiple figure is about five gigawatts to gigawatt-hours, approximately. It all depends on what kind of system you use to transport the power through. Nevertheless, that's not my question, so don't go overboard on it.

I wanted to know how many expressions of interest are out — or in, however you would express it — with regard to IPPs?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are 18 projects under 40 megs and three larger ones that they're negotiating with now that will be over 40 megs. Over 40 megs doesn't mean a huge amount over 40 megs. I'm sorry ? 40 gigawatt-hours. We switch around here just to keep everyone confused.

D. Jarvis: I was talking to a gentleman from Columbia Basin Trust the other day. I was recalling back in '97 there when the KCP project was closed down in Kitimat, and the government, at the time, made an arrangement through Hydro to give KCP some extra power, I guess for severance.

They turned around and had an agreement and sold it to Enron for about $70 million of about 185 megawatts. Then Enron turned around and sold half of that to Columbia Basin Trust, who in turn sold it back to Hydro. Now that we're having problems with Enron and all the rest of it, and they're out of business, where's that extra 100-odd megawatts? Does anyone know where it is and who's getting the benefit of it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand, there is presently a court proceeding on where that hydro is going to come from. At the end of the day, it's Alcan that will be responsible for the amount of hydro. It's pretty intricate how it goes through all the different divisions, and Enron actually got involved.

Hydro won't be out any money. Neither will Alcan at the end of the day and neither will Columbia Basin Trust. We'll all be found whole. It's just a matter of sitting down and figuring out just how we're going to do it with Enron out of the picture.

D. Jarvis: Minister, I wonder if you could tell me ? this is in the year 2002 ? how many vice-presidents does B.C. Hydro have now?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll get that figure for you. They're telling me it's 15, and they're just going to get that number for you.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to continue along on my line of questioning. I do appreciate the fact that the president of Hydro is here. It's just that I am trying to engage in a discussion, a dialogue with the minister.

I'm working from the service plan again, and this is the final issue around the core values principles. Just so the minister knows in terms of staff, the next issue I'm going to is first nations relations.

Under the accountability, it says: "The ministry is accountable to government and the public and strives to ensure that its actions deliver the results put forward in its service plan." That's good. I use that and then I flip back to the introduction which states: "The ministry will play a key role in implementing and acting upon this policy, which may necessitate changes to this service plan." The policy means the yet-to-be completed energy policy.

Can the minister outline how that service plan change, if any, will take place in terms of accountability? Will it be a public process? Is it the minister's view that it would be in the next round of estimates that it's discussed or what's the process for that change?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, through the process, through estimates, through questions in the Legislature when the House is sitting. If anyone has concerns about it, they're welcome to write us letters, and we'll try our best to respond in the best way we can.

J. MacPhail: What are the time lines? I do understand that it's not a decision you have to make, whether

the service plan has to be changed. But does the minister anticipate the release of the task force report and then public discussion? No, no. I'm sorry. I don't want to get into that just yet. That's not appropriate.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It depends on what the decision is at the end of the day. I'm not trying to be flippant, but I'm not exactly sure because we haven't received the whole report yet. We haven't as a government decided whether we're going to adopt the whole report or parts of it or how we're going to go about that. We'll try to adapt that the best way we can.

I would think — and I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit — that if we get the report and have some decision out of government within a couple of months, if there are some changes that are made in the province — and I assume there will be — that will take a certain period of time. Maybe what we'll do is update the service plan for the next year going forward. That's kind of hypothetical right now. I don't think we'll change it in the middle.

J. MacPhail: Under the service plan there are key challenges. I'm going to spend quite a few moments on first nations relations. But the first one is "Market Access," page 4 of the service plan. It says: "British Columbia will have to work with its neighbouring states and provinces to remove technical barriers while ensuring that safety and security are maintained." These are separate and apart, of course, from the questions that the member for Chilliwack-Kent was asking; it was very interesting to hear that discussion.

I assume these are border access questions. What specific plans or programs does the minister have underway to deal with this challenge?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know whether the member wants to go into this right now, but it has a lot to do with electricity, transmission capabilities back and forth across the border, the ability to increase transmission — if that's what has to happen — and pipeline capacities between the U.S. and Canada.

If I go back just a year or so, the high prices for natural gas were because of a constraint in pipelines. The U.S. has a pretty integral set of pipelines from the border south. We have to work with the U.S. government on how we can access those pipelines, how they actually work to enlarge their pipeline capacity and our pipeline capacity and also generation of electricity.

J. MacPhail: Are there any specific issues at border level in terms of transportation corridors? I notice transportation corridors…. Is this ministry dealing with truck route transportation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. I guess that's a bit confusing. These are transportation corridors for issues such as pipelines or transmission lines. Another example is the Georgia strait crossing.

I should have asked this question earlier on, and my apologies for it. In terms of the changes in staffing levels in this ministry, can the minister outline how many staff reductions there are, FTE reductions? It's not part of the service plan, I know. It was announced January 17, but I don't have it with me.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll just give the totals. It's on page 13. In '01-02, 280 full-time employees; in '02-03 it will go to 243; in '03-04 to 205; and, '04-05 will go to 174. I don't know how much that is a year, but that's the cumulative.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for referring me to that page. I should have known that. The reason I brought it up right now is because I was curious to know whether managing these issues is affected by the reduction in the ministry's staff. For instance, I would assume that these matters would be dealt with — well, I don't know how it would be — under resource development, or would it be under the issue of energy and minerals? Is the minister dealing with the issue that this kind of challenge may be affected by staff reductions as well?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's certainly never easy, and I'm sure that the member remembers back to her time in government, trying to manage some of these issues with less staff. This isn't a new phenomenon. It has happened before under another administration. We work hard — everyone — to try and actually do the jobs that are put before us. We're also looking at doing business a little bit differently in the province and are looking to Water, Land and Air Protection to set standards for us so that there's more results-based work, there's a set of standards, and you meet those standards or exceed them. We're thinking that will require less people.

Map-staking is another process we're going to, and a lot more electronic transfer of paper and those kinds of things. Any kind of efficiencies we can look towards to be able to still do the work, we're looking at. It's a challenge, no doubt. As I said in my opening remarks, it's a challenge to a very good group of people that work for the Ministry of Energy and Mines who take their jobs very seriously and want to do their very best every day, and we appreciate that.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the minister about the value of the public service. I was just thinking that this is an area, particularly, where the government is outlining a key challenge — that I totally agree with — that requires a proactive allocation of resources. It's tough. I did a quick calculation of the staff cuts being about 38 percent and the budget cut, about 40 percent. In terms of meeting this challenge, is

this an area that could be considered to be contracted out, or is it going to be resolved internal to the ministry?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said earlier, we will attempt to do as much as we can within the ministry with the staff we've got. We are looking at geoscience in a partnership process between ministry and industry and how we can carry on with the geoscience program. Those things will be looked at.

When you look at the ministry, there's not really a lot there that you can just go contract out to someone, because of the nature of the work. We don't intend to contract out any more work than we have to. We will work with other ministries, as we do work with Competition, Science and Enterprise. We share people with both ministries — Mr. Callbeck is one of them; he's right here — and with other ministries. Management Services has some plans where we can work with them at the ministry level to access services that way.

J. MacPhail: The next key challenge is first nations relations. This is incredibly timely right now, given the circumstances the province faces around first nations relations. What role does the minister have to play? What is the minister's role in assisting the industry through these challenging times? I think Energy and Mines is the subject of some pretty interesting challenges.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have, within the ministry, people that work in aboriginal relations and negotiations. In the last number of months we've signed agreements with the Treaty 8 bands in northeast B.C. They call them agreements now, not MOUs. They would rather use the term "agreements."

We've been successful with that. There are other parts of the province where we have to work with first nations from the ministry, but in most cases, it's coordinated with a treaty negotiations office. It's a process where we work together on those issues as best we can. I know the member will remember from her time in government that these are not easy situations to deal with. They're difficult. Some of them are longstanding. We have to work at it the best we can to get the best satisfaction for respecting aboriginal rights and also industry's right to be able to access the land base.

J. MacPhail: The treaty negotiations office is, for all intents and purposes, not functioning right now. I do understand the concern; some of these are longstanding.

Let's look at the issue of Redfern Resources. That is an issue that spans two governments. Could we have a status on that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the Attorney General's ministry is leading the file on this one. We work with the ministry as close as we can, so does Sustainable Resource Management.

I would suggest that if you have some questions about what the government is doing, they should be more fairly represented to the Attorney General, who can answer those a lot better than I.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I don't know whether I can ask them of the Attorney General, but I'll do my best.

Let's just use that as an example of a problem that exists, in terms of first nations relations affecting development in the province. What does the Ministry of Energy and Mines have set up in terms of first nations relations to avoid a recurrence of this type of situation or to resolve situations like this, short of going to court?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member knows full well that this issue has been going on for a long time — in fact, a long time while the last administration was in power. It's a difficult situation to deal with; it's very intricate. Again, for me to comment on issues the Attorney General's ministry is taking forward on this certain case would just muddy the water. There's no point in me trying to do that.

We work as best we can with the Attorney General's ministry on these issues. As I said earlier, we have a small group of people who work within the ministry and who have been successful in dealing with the Treaty 8 issues to a degree. It's not perfect. It wasn't before; it isn't now, and I don't want to make that statement. It seems to be working to the benefit of everyone, first nations and others. We do our best there.

In fact, as I remember, we had the treaty negotiations office with us — the deputy minister — while we were in Fort Nelson this last fall, discussing issues around Treaty 8 rights and trying to bring the federal government to the table to start dealing with issues that Treaty 8 bands felt were long overdue and long outstanding. We're trying to facilitate that also. It's not easy, it's not fast, but it's a start.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I've acknowledged that we can't deal with the Tlingit case, so I'm asking for examples such as this. Perhaps the minister could fill us in in terms of the details of resolution as they stand now around the Treaty 8. I'm only just interested in it as it affects his ministry, Energy and Mines.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't want to seem as though I'm ducking this question, and I'm not. All of the agreements are posted on the website, with each Treaty 8 band that gives out the agreements that were signed between the bands and the ministry on how oil and gas activity takes place on their traditional territory and what the processes are in the consultation. The capacity building that is being done in each of the bands is actually funded by permits and fees that the oil and gas industry pays to the Oil and Gas Commission. Then the

Oil and Gas Commission transfers those moneys to the bands to be able to build capacity work with them.

They're trying to work with the bands as much as they can. In fact, they're bringing people from the bands — who look at all these programs — into the Oil and Gas Commission so they can see how it first comes into the process and so there's a better understanding between the first nations community and the oil and gas industry on the processes.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why I'm bringing this up is because, of course, the government and the minister are well aware that there have been some lawsuits, particularly the Haida lawsuit, that sort of focused all of our attention on investment in the province. A CP wire story in the newspaper this past Sunday talks about the Haida court decision in the context of how it will affect development in the province. The Redfern Resources case was raised, but it's not in this context that I'm discussing this with the minister.

The appeal court said in the Redfern decision that government and private companies must consult with first nations about how they develop Crown lands. That was reinforced under the Haida decision as well.

This is a quote from here. This happens to be a man I have great respect for, even though he's working closely with this government. Just kidding. It's David Emerson. I think his Progress Board report is extremely interesting, and I said so at the provincial congress meeting. David Emerson himself was concerned, in his capacity as chief executive of Canadian Forest Products, and said the land claims issue was only one factor in terms of stimulating the economy. He did go on to say that the latest court rulings in the Haida lawsuit certainly won't be helpful. This is his quote: "Now, when we're just on the cusp of maybe modifying policies and resolving trade dispute issues, we get this other issue" — land claims — "rising to a new level of potential aggression, and it can't do any good for the future of the economy."

It's only from that perspective that I wish to discuss with this minister today — economic development. It's not any other issue around justice, so we can all relax on that. I am very concerned about the issue of economic development.

When I had to go to New York, as is the obligation of every Minister of Finance — to sell the province, basically; to sell investment and to get people to invest in our public debt — New York was consumed. The people sitting in the 34th floor and the 50th floor of towers were consumed with the settlement of land claims because of the economic certainty that was required there. Has the minister had any feedback from the industry? Are there plans with the industry and the minister to try to avoid greater, or heightened — how does Mr. Emerson say it? — potential aggression in this area, formally or informally?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member brings forward a serious issue. It's not just the Haida or the Tlingit or any other issues that go with aboriginal treaty-making. That's what's prompted this government, I might add, to get on with trying to negotiate fairly treaties across the province. It is an issue for economic development. There's no doubt about it. It was ten years ago, in 1990, and it is today. You see a bit more action, maybe, today than you did about five years ago, but there has always been a certain amount of action, probably rightfully so, from the aboriginal community. I don't dispute that. They would also like to get on with making treaties and getting on with life.

I'm going to talk specifically about where I come from in meeting with the chiefs and the bands in Treaty 8 territory. Their desire is no different from ours in most cases. They have some issues they want to protect, but they also want to get on with their lives and with their children's lives, working into the future, being able to get into the economic mainstream as it relates to the industry. The industry up there is mostly oil and gas. There is not as much mining as there is in the rest of the province.

That's what they want for their communities. That's what I'd like to see, and I think — in fact, I know; I don't think — that's what this government would like to see. That's why we want to get on with making treaties and trying to work with first nations as best we can across the whole province of British Columbia to get those issues settled. It's not going to be easy; it's not going to be quick. It's not going to happen overnight — we all know that; everybody knows that — but first nations as well as the rest of the population, I believe, want treaties to take place and to actually be of benefit to both parties.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I accept the minister's sincerity. However, this is a huge issue in terms of economic development. I know the current government has placed a lot of emphasis on economic development, particularly in the energy sector. Have there been demands or requests from the industry that perhaps there be a more formal approach, rather than just goodwill in this area, a formal approach of actually setting up a mechanism where, short of treaty-making, these matters can be resolved?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly. Industry, to my knowledge, does a fairly good job of that, generally speaking. The Tahltan and the Eskay Creek are a good example, where the first nation bands and the developer of that mine got together and worked out an economic agreement whereby they could work together, whereby they're part of the process, whereby they can actually have jobs and those kinds of things. We want to encourage industry — and we do encourage industry, by the way — to work as closely as they can with first nations.

We have agreements signed with first nations in the northeast. That doesn't mean that industry now says: "Well, I don't have to talk to anyone. I just get my permit and go to work." No, they don't. They actually go

and meet with the first nation — whichever nation it happens to be, wherever they're doing work on their traditional land — and work with them to try and develop capacity, economic activity and economic well-being within the bands.

I might say that the bands in Treaty 8 territory — and I'll use Fort Nelson as an example — have done very well in getting into the economic mainstream with construction companies, with employment. They have their own school. In fact, it is a very progressive band that looks forward to those kinds of things, but they still have — and Chief Logan would say — their desire and their need to protect some areas of their traditional territory. Industry respects that, and so does government.

J. MacPhail: The reason I ask the minister these questions is because I think this is a very proactive industry that either pushes government to work with them to resolve matters or takes it upon themselves. They're not a sit-back industry. Sorry, I'm thinking mainly of oil and gas here, when I talk about this.

What has the industry advised the minister about how they're going to get through this referendum process?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I haven't spoken to anyone in the industry about the referendum process in Treaty 8 territories. That's already a treatied area.

J. MacPhail: It's one of the areas that I'm going to be watching, because I expect industries that are proactive in developing our economy — I don't just mean in terms of resource extraction and leaving the province, but in developing our economy — are monitoring and will monitor this extremely closely, the same way that people in New York are.

We're entering a time now, with this referendum, that is extremely fragile — extremely fragile, in my view. I would really urge the minister if indeed his government, as seems apparent, is 100 percent committed to this referendum, to start working with the industry now to allay any fears that could arise as a result of this referendum process.

Some of the discussions that will happen around the province, particularly around areas that this minister is specifically responsible for — land use and resource extraction — may have unintended consequences. I think it behooves the government, even though the Premier said he's going to take a hands-off approach, to work extremely closely with the industry to modify, or maybe mollify, any effects that may arise because of the referendum. That's just gratuitous advice.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate that advice. We will be working as closely as we can with first nations and with industry, as we go through this process, to make sure these things happen — that first nations do have the opportunity to get economically involved and that the province actually works towards solving or settling treaties as best we can.

J. MacPhail: The next key challenge I'd like to discuss is labour shortages. The minister started off by saying we have to do a better job, and I agree with this, in terms of advising our education system about resource extraction. I can't remember the words exactly.

What I wanted to ask the minister specifically is: in terms of the labour shortages, what is the plan for this industry? I'm sure I heard or saw a report on TV that confirms this point of view: that in certain occupations and geographic locations in the province it's difficult to attract skilled workers.

I also understand that some, or the vast majority, of the skilled workers are trades trained. Perhaps the minister could outline his plans for dealing with the labour shortage.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there are labour shortages in skilled trades. I'm going to speak to the northeast. The Northern Lights College runs some very good programs that facilitate training for oil and gas. The Technical University in the lower mainland does a good job of that also. Part of the problem ? again, I'm going to speak specifically about oil and gas ? in keeping people trained and having a workforce that's trained and ready in the province is that the industry is so cyclical.

The member will know that over ten years… In fact, she probably listened to me beg, borrow and try to get money for infrastructure in the northeast of British Columbia so that we could actually get some roads, and to that government's credit they did provide some money so that we can look towards actually drilling maybe eight or nine months out of the year instead of just the historical three or four months when the ground is frozen hard enough to do it.

That creates a problem all on its own and until we start working together with industry ? and I have been very vocal with industry, in that they start looking seriously at British Columbia as a base for their operations…. That doesn't mean I'm telling them to move their head offices. I'm asking them to look seriously at reducing their operational costs by starting to work more year-round in British Columbia. They can do that to a degree, even with the limited amount of infrastructure we have, by choosing and picking where and when they do their work.

Industry found that a year ago here they hit a crunch where they couldn't find anybody. Equipment was left idle, because they couldn't find any skilled trades. The member knows as well as I do that when you start getting people working on some of this equipment who don't have any skills, it's usually when someone gets hurt. It's usually when someone actually ends up in hospital, and that's not a place we want to go.

So industry recognized that, and they're going to start working towards trying to work more year-round in that part of the province so that they can actually have a good, solid workforce in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson to carry out the work.

It goes without saying that when you actually have an industry that works really hard for three to four months and then says, "By the way, goodbye, Joe or Mary. I'll see you next year," it creates huge social problems within those communities ? huge social problems for both men and women and for families. Heaven knows, in my part of the province there are a lot of young people, so it's families that get affected.

Industry is actually working with us to try and address those problems. We're trying in the tough fiscal problem that we're in to build more roads for industry. It's not in the cards right now, so we have to work the best we can to try and make that happen and start working people year-round.

I think industry hit the wall with not being able to get any skilled trades and found out that yes, they had to start training people. They had to start working with colleges. In fact, industry does work with the Northern Lights College in trying to provide equipment and those kinds of things so people get trained.

The mining industry has a very good record in British Columbia, and they work all over the province at having a skilled labour force, but that's waning also. There's not enough work around to keep them busy so much anymore. They tend to leave for South America or other parts of Canada — Ontario — and work there. That's why we want to look at increasing the mineral activity in British Columbia across the whole province in a good, sensible way and providing those highly skilled, well-paid, usually union jobs to people so that they can raise their families and do what everyone else thinks normally happens all over the place.

It doesn't happen in those communities out there in rural B.C. I just read some articles a while ago about how there may be some communities across British Columbia, especially in rural B.C. and in the north, that will be ghost towns in a while. I don't like to hear that. In fact, in some cases that will be true as some of the traditional industry changes how it operates. We have to work closely with industry to help provide those facilities so that they can train people.

The Chair: Minister, I was just going to ask if we could have a five-minute break, unless there are any objections. So ordered.

J. MacPhail: On the matter of training, does the ministry have any partnerships with the Ministry of Advanced Ed in order to attract young people into these fields, or are they contemplating any?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, we have no contracts with Advanced Ed, but as I said earlier, we will be working closely with Advanced Education in the college system and in the trade schools to try and get young people trained to do different jobs across the whole province in a range of industries. We'll work at that as hard as we can, knowing that we have to do that to get a skilled workforce out there.

Industry is working with us. As I said earlier, they work very well with training people, providing the equipment and those kinds of things that are needed to have that happen.

J. MacPhail: Does the industry have any movement toward being able to attract women into the trades, or are there barriers to women — real, physical barriers?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm certain there must be some barriers into the industry, but I know in the northeast, a lot of women work in the oil and gas industry in all kinds of different jobs. There are an awful lot of women who work in the mining industry. It's quite interesting when you go out to one of the sites and see the number of women actually operating these huge pieces of equipment. There are all kinds of them, but I'm sure there are some barriers, as the member knows. We have to get away from that.

If you want to go to the fishing industry, I have a daughter-in-law who is a fish biologist and works on the fish boats all the time. That's probably a pretty challenging job, to be out there on her own for three weeks to a month on a fishing boat.

Those things are happening and, as we move along, we'll have more women out in the workforce in non-traditional jobs.

Just advice on trades training. It's been my experience that if one can get trades training started in high school or K-to-12, rather than after, it proves to be incredibly effective. There's a huge opportunity right now to change, or add to, our curriculum at the K-to-12 level, specifically in the area of apprenticeship, because parents are asking for it. Parents are asking for alternatives to post-secondary education with college and university tuition.

The other thing also in my personal experience is that if one can actually assist women, young girls, to understand that this is a viable career option early on, then it proves to be much more effective. Just again, some gratuitous advice, but I really….

J. MacPhail: Yeah. Okay, objectives and strategies for the ministry. The minister's been talking about this, the objective of double oil and gas production by 2011, and this would be, I think, done by incremental production increases of 10 percent and exploration and drilling by 20 percent in each year. Is this in agreement with the industry? How is that going to be achieved?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, to her previous statement. The member across the way reminded me that

the mining association, again, does a lot of work in the schools with a program to encourage students in the K-to-12 grades to get into all kinds of trades that are involved in the mining industry, which is, like I say, a good program. I think what we have to do is expand those things. We'll work with the Ministry of Education on that.

As far as doubling the amount of activity in the province, we want to do that by a number of initiatives, one being opening other basins. I spoke about that earlier in my opening remarks. There are basins in the Cariboo, there's oil and gas activity that can happen in the lower mainland, in the southeast of the province and around the Terrace area. What we have to do is look at these as more frontier areas, because there is no development, and try to encourage development there. We're encouraging development of coalbed methane, which will help the economy in British Columbia, so those are the kinds of things. We've reduced taxes, and we're trying to attract more investment, as I said earlier, to come to British Columbia and start working year-round. There are lots of parts of the province that you can work year-round in the oil and gas industry, and we want to do that.

Further to that, the mining industry, which is very important to British Columbia — we want to encourage that development. We're looking at trying to get better access to Crown land. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is working to make that happen so that prospectors can actually go out there and do the things that prospectors do to find mines. It takes a long time from the time you first crack the rock and find it until it actually becomes a mine. It's a very important part of the economy of British Columbia, and we want to promote that as much as we can, remembering that we're in depressed commodity prices in both mining and oil and gas, to a degree, at the present time. We want to work towards that so that we can double that.

J. MacPhail: Is there an understanding by industry that these are achievable?

Secondly, I'm interested to know whether the targets are going to be reached in one certain area of the province, or is there ability to move exploration around in an environmentally sustainable way?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there is the opportunity to move that industry around the province in an environmentally sustainable way. That's why I talked about other basins in the oil and gas industry. British Columbia has huge mineralization across the whole province. It's going to take a little while to get the mining industry — and we're hopeful — to get going and start developing some mines in British Columbia.

Just for the member's information, I got an e-mail today from someone who says that they have found what looks to be some diamonds in the Muskwa-Kechika area. It's interesting. Northern Alberta has some diamond zones. There's huge mining in the Territories in diamonds. You never know. Maybe northern British Columbia will be a place where we'll find diamonds also, but to do that, you have to set the table, per se. That means you have to have competitive taxes. You have to have trained people, as we spoke about earlier. You have to attract that investment. You don't tell them what to do. They'll come and do it if the attractiveness is there and as long as we can compete with our neighbours, whether they're just east of us or just south of us.

J. MacPhail: That actually leads to my next point. One of the strategies the ministry plans to use is to develop and implement regulatory processes to provide clarity, certainty and timely access to the land base for resource development. Can the minister outline how that regulatory change or process is going to be developed? Who will he talk to? Will there be consultation? What's the time line?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, we spoke about this earlier. We want to work to performance-based, results-based, regulations — I think we've talked about that a bit — so that there is better access to the ground. We want to work on processes. I'll use the oil and gas industry again, where companies will come in with programs — a whole program of what they may want to drill on a huge tract of land — so that we can have all those negotiations with first nations and the oil and gas industry and go from there instead of well by well. There's a whole bunch of things we can do to streamline issues but still maintain the integrity of the environment.

J. MacPhail: Will there be consultation? Is there going to be public input, industry input or stakeholder input into those changes? How does it actually happen?

Hon. R. Neufeld: How that actually happens is, again…. And I'm not refusing to answer the question. For the environment side of it, we have the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, which will develop results-based processes that we have to meet or exceed. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is charged with getting that access to the land base. It's part of that minister's process to be able to make that happen for us.

J. MacPhail: I'll make this note for the minister. I'm concerned about deregulation, getting rid of regulations, as the Minister of State for Deregulation is doing, without a framework in place that meets the needs of a sustainable economy. I'll be watching that very carefully.

One of the issues that arises in this strategy section is that there's a plan to expedite permit issuance by implementing a one-window permitting authority, I think it says, for mining. I was part of a government where we were very committed to this one-window permitting authority. I hate red tape that interferes just for the sake of red tape, but I also have a huge commitment to standards in health and safety, the environment and sustainability. Can the minister elaborate on the one-window concept and who's going to monitor the expedition so that it doesn't interfere with high environmental standards. Is it WALP that will do that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, WLAP, Water, Land and Air Protection, will set the environmental standards. They will be high. This government is committed to high environmental standards. The single-window approach will be the Ministry of Energy and Mines, where they will get their approval for work they want to do, living within those regulations and legislation that come from Water, Land and Air and Sustainable Resource Management. Further, in the mining industry the EA process would also apply to getting those permits.

J. MacPhail: One of the issues that I'm very concerned about is protection of critical habitat generally, but also threatened populations. I think this industry has a potential, unless properly monitored, to have an affect on critical habitat and the protection of that. You might want to warn your colleague, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, that there'll be a lot of questions in this area.

When you go to results-based performance standards, what does the minister anticipate in terms of penalties for failing to meet results?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there will be some…. Let me back up. We haven't developed — or I don't think WLAP has developed — the process of how we'll apply penalties, because they could be very different for different types of industry. The severity of what takes place has to be taken into account. I don't think you can say: "Well, we're just going to have…."

I remember clearly something in the Forest Practices Code that we argued about for a long time with the last government: a truck driver could be fined something like $1 million because he or she didn't have the correct documentation in the truck. It was $1 million or $100,000. Either way, it was ridiculous.

What you have to do is look at all of these and apply some kind of fairly stringent penalties. If you're going to have results-based processes, you have to have some ability to deal with those — they're in the minority — that would take advantage of it. In most cases I believe that industry strives to have a very high environmental integrity within their respective companies. They know that they have to sell worldwide, a lot of them. Other ones are North America–wide. The consumers have a lot bigger influence on what happens with those companies now than they did even 20 years ago so most industries will have very high environmental standards.

I can tell the member that a firm that I worked for for 13 years in the oil and gas industry had higher environmental standards than governments did — and you'd better meet those environmental standards. It's not always to say or think that industry or individuals will try to do something to sneak around environmental standards. Everyone wants the environment to be protected for us and for our children.

J. MacPhail: I use the term performance-based standards, but I think the minister uses the term results-based standards.

In terms of developing the results-based or performance-based standards, what will be the basis for the performance-based standards? Is it land use planning? Is that the concept?

I'll just carry on. Let me put together several parts to this question. I'm interested to know whether this ministry is engaged in establishing performance-based standards that arise out of land use planning. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management said during his estimates that it'll take some time before land use plans are actually completed. I'm thinking about that in the context of this ministry's — Energy and Mines's — commitment to a new and improved regulatory process that's performance-based. How do those two jibe?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, many of the standards will be set by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air and other standards by Sustainable Resource Management. The work that goes on between the ministries…. I'm sure the member is quite well aware that there is an awful lot of work going on at the deputy minister's level and below that in working out and trying to do those things.

I'll give an example. This ministry — in fact, under the previous government and until the new government was elected — did some work in land use planning and development in the Muskwa-Kechika as it relates to oil and gas drilling. That's been transferred to Sustainable Resource Management, and they are working on that right now as we speak. They're working on one area called the Besa-Prophet so that we can get on with trying to get some drilling going on in that part of the Muskwa-Kechika. It is, again, to maintain high environmental standards but to be able to allow access in a controlled way so that we don't lose valuable habitat land.

The Chair: For the information of members, I would like to announce that the committee will have to

rise by 5:40 p.m. today, because the Lieutenant-Governor is expected in the precinct at 5:45 p.m.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I understand it's going to be a cross-government process: that moving to performance-based standards is not going to be done in a piecemeal fashion or ministry by ministry. But there has to be some base for judging performance.

One of those bases — the foundation for performance-based — is land use planning. It actually is a very specific technical question. I know it may come as a surprise to the minister, a technical question in this area, when I'm taking literally a mother approach to it.

Land use planning is one of the broad group of measures that could be considered for performance-based standards. In other words, you design a land use plan. The stakeholders agree on it or whatever. The government imposes it, and within that land use plan are the performance-based standards. Is this being contemplated by the government?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is responsible for doing the land use plan. I'll use one example that comes to mind right now of where industry, the environmentalists and locals are all sitting at the same table. I mentioned it briefly; it was the Besa-Prophet tenure planning that's going on. That's been going on for a while, and that planning is taking place with all of those people at the table so that there will be results-based work going on that respects what's going on with the animals that are in that region — when they calve, when they move and those kinds of things. Permits will only be allowed at certain times. Industry is part of that so that we actually have something that we can work with. That, again, is with Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: Yes, well, we raised this question with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. It was that discussion that gave rise to this discussion, I might say.

There is information out there. This is surveyed a lot amongst companies for the very reason that the minister himself brought up: that there are consumer standards that are ever more driving industry standards. That's certainly true in the forest sector; it's becoming increasingly true in the energy sector as well. You know, those standards are already in the manufacturing sector, when we talk about how we manufacture clothing, etc.

One of the areas that I think has been surveyed in this is that it's been demonstrated repeatedly in surveying companies themselves that the prime motivator…. Almost 95 percent of enterprises said that they establish environmental management systems — this is the company aspect, which we're relying on to carry out the standards — because they're being asked to comply with regulations. There is also flowing from that the kind of regulations that really get their attention.

I agree with the minister. I've no idea whether it's accurate or not — whether proper paper in a company glove box was a regulation under the Forest Practices Code or not. If it was as useless as the minister makes it sound to be, I don't have any objection to that going. However, what does get the attention of companies is director liability. That's a legal motivator. Those kinds of regulations are in existence now.

I just can't believe this is such a loosey-goosey process. There's got to be, somewhere, some group in government, other than the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection…. That minister would have a very different point of view, I think, than this minister about what kind of regulation is necessary. I just can't believe it's this loosey-goosey. When will we know exactly what the changes are that are arising out of the government's intention to move to results-based standards?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have a time frame. As I said earlier, there are interministerial working groups between our ministry, Water, Land and Air and Sustainable Resource Management on all of these issues. The member continues to ask the question. Obviously, it is difficult to get some results-based processes in place. We are determined to do that so that we're not so prescriptive.

I'll go back to the Forest Practices Code. Where you have prescriptive regulations that cover a province the size of British Columbia, with huge geographic differences of how you actually — this is forestry again — pull a tree out of the bush or cut it down or load it…. That's exactly what happened with the Forest Practices Code. You either get so much prescriptive stuff that it actually implodes on you…. A previous Minister of Forests said that. It was just so prescriptive that almost nothing could happen.

What you have to do is find that balance, where there is a result. This is what the result is that you want. This is the standard you must abide by. This is how you are to do it. Your job, as industry, is to go out there and meet that standard or exceed it. What I'm saying is: in most, or I would think almost all, cases, industry will exceed those standards to the best of their ability because of the pressures of where they sell their products or services in North America or in the world. That, again, is reflective of how the Forests ministry has to look differently at how we log. That's obvious.

It is an ongoing process. There is no written set of results-based rules right now, but I know that through our ministry, through the deputy ministers' council and through those that work under the deputy minister, they are working between ministries, across ministries, trying to get that developed.

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition — and I think this should be your last question today.

J. MacPhail: Oh. Okay. Why don't I just do a rant, then? No, I'm just kidding.

Let me just say, then, that we will be watching this very carefully. We will be spending time with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection for this reason: it is a substantial shift, there is no question. There are substantial consequences to market share on this basis. I have less faith than the minister does that it will go about smoothly with no unintended consequences, so we will be monitoring it extremely carefully. We will be hopingto have answers about what real, on-the-ground work is being done to develop the results-base standards.

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