Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 9 -- Monday, March 25, 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		2015

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2015
	Children's museum for Victoria J. Bray Mission school district R. Hawes Opportunities for northern and rural B.C. R. Harris

Ministerial Statements		2016
	Softwood lumber exports to U.S. Hon. G. Campbell J. MacPhail

Oral Questions		2020
	U.S. softwood lumber negotiations J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong B. Belsey Withdrawal of services by physicians J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell

Committee of Supply		2022
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Abbott Hon. T. Nebbeling

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2061
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. R. Neufeld Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

P. Wong: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House four distinguished guests in the gallery: Mr. Li Yuan-Ming, who has just recently moved from the Chinese embassy in Ireland to become the consul general of the People's Republic of China in Vancouver. Accompanying him is deputy consul general Cui Huixin, education consul Xu Lin and culture consul Zhou Yong. Will the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. S. Santori: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend and colleague of mine for many years in municipal politics. That's a director and chairman of the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, Mr. Rick Hardie. I would ask the House to make him feel welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: I'd like to introduce a constituent from Richmond, Pia Russell. I am told that Pia is a world traveller and has just returned from Taiwan, where she taught English. I hope the House will please make her welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a group of students here in the gallery. It is always great to have them in the precinct, and I know that you will help me make them welcome: from Camosun College, Kam Bhatti and Sandeep Nagra, and from the University of Victoria, Chris Lora, Sunny Sundher and Darcy Bal. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Chutter: It's my pleasure to introduce, from Lytton, the self-proclaimed hot spot of Canada, Mayor Chris O'Connor.

Hon. G. Hogg: There are two delightful young women here who have moved from Campbell River. I'm sure their hearts are still in Campbell River, but they are now living in Victoria, and one of them is working as the administrative coordinator for the Minister of Children and Family Development. Would the House please welcome Nicole Normand and her friend, Heather Wrightson.

J. Bray: It's my pleasure to introduce four members of the Victoria community. They are board members of the Children's Museum of Victoria Association: Patricia Lee, Gary Ostro, Donald Shields and Linda Shephard. These four board members represent many dedicated community leaders working towards the establishment of the Victoria children's museum, and I ask that the House please make them very welcome.

J. Bray: I'm really excited today to advise the House about a new initiative gaining momentum here in Victoria. I'm speaking about the potential founding of the Victoria children's museum. The Children's Museum of Victoria Association, a registered charity with a board of committed community members, has begun developing plans and started fundraising for the first children's museum west of Winnipeg.

Why a children's museum? Children will benefit from a museum of their own where they can learn about the world through hands-on experience. Imagine a place where science, history and art all come alive and learning is fun. Families will benefit from a special place to share the excitement of discovery. Schools will benefit from a partner that can enrich classroom education. Tourists will benefit from a place that the entire family can enjoy — the highlight of a Vancouver Island family visit. We will all benefit from a place that celebrates the joy of sharing and learning.

A children's museum is a place where children and families can go to explore and learn about the world from a child's perspective. In a traditional museum the focus of an exhibit is on preservation, permanent collections and behind glass displays with printed plaques explaining what the displayed object is about. For a young child and even some adults, this type of presentation is dull and doesn't meet the needs of how children learn.

Children learn by doing. They want to touch everything — manipulate, explore and experiment with their surroundings. All exhibits within a children's museum are designed with this in mind. According to research, learning is most effective when supported by active participation and hands-on experiences. Children are natural explorers — touching, tasting, hearing and experiencing. It's the way they learn. A children's museum is a place where learning and fun get all mixed up.

Mr. Speaker, we know that investing as a community in our young people pays huge dividends down the road. As a parent of a toddler, I cannot think of a more exciting community endeavour for all our children than a safe place for learning, discovery and fun.

The Children's Museum of Victoria Association is made up of members of our community who care about children and who want to see our children thrive. They have my support, and I ask the government to support this positive, exciting undertaking.

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure today to stand and offer congratulations to Mission school district 75.

In spite of the problems that we now have in our province and in spite of the full maintaining of school budgets, there are challenges that all school boards are facing. School district 75, however, has taken the situation they have and decided to be absolutely non-political. They've said they have a job to do with students, and they are willing to get on with that job.

We recently passed Bill 28, which gave new tools and flexibility to school districts. The Mission school district has embraced that new flexibility and taken action to be the first in this province to move to year-round schooling. It's an opportunity for students to get their education without the two and a half months off during the summer. The school district has looked at this as a way that kids can better retain what they've learned.

I'm very proud that our school district in Mission has taken the initiative to use that flexibility to make a better place for students and their parents. The choice is now being given to students and parents, and only because that flexibility has been offered to the school districts.

I'd like to offer congratulations to both the chair and the members of the board of the school district, as well as the administrator, the superintendent and all of their staff. I think it's a wonderful move, and it's a great example of how government working together with the school boards can make this a better place for students.

R. Harris: It was interesting to see the media coverage after the last census numbers came out recently. One story described it like this: the 2001 census tells the tale of two British Columbias — a vibrant lower mainland still experiencing strong population growth and an ailing northern rural region facing the spectre of ghost towns.

The saddest part of this coverage is that, in fact, it wasn't news to those of us that live in northern and rural communities in British Columbia. This census has only driven home and confirmed what every one of us who has lived beyond Hope has always known.

We have watched over the last ten years as policy decision after policy decision has strangled our rural communities. We've seen friends and family pack up and move away in search of work. While housing markets boom in the lower mainland, families in rural B.C. watch their life savings dwindle away as communities stagnate.

We've seen our forest industry suffocated by red tape and regulation that soothes the conscience of the south with little regard for the people of the north.

We've seen a mining industry told to do business elsewhere, a technology industry ignored, and we in rural B.C. have seen and now live with the results.

I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues in the northern caucus when I say that one of the prime motivations in seeking election or re-election was to create a new atmosphere of opportunity in northern British Columbia. We know what the problems are, and we are working hard with the government to find creative solutions that will be lasting and durable.

We need to build capacity. We need to present a united front. I know I'm running out of time at this point and will talk about it more during my private member's statement.

There is a crisis in this province in the rural communities. Every member of this Legislature needs to recognize and participate in reversing that trend of the last decade. It is in fact the resources that reside in our regions of the province that will be critical in restoring economic prosperity back to this province.

I can tell the House today that it can expect to hear a lot more from the northern caucus in the days, weeks, months and years ahead, and for that I don't apologize.

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise today to speak about the brutal decision that was made last week by the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose a 29 percent duty on our softwood lumber exports.

It is a punitive and outrageous action that will have heavy impacts on every single citizen of the province of British Columbia. It has also generated fear and frustration in communities across our province. But I want all British Columbians to know that we are going to fight that decision legally, politically and persistently, and we are going to win.

That duty is not just an assault on working families and forest communities across our province; it is the most serious threat to Canada–U.S. relations in our time. It is imposing a protectionist solution on the largest single trading initiative in the world. A government that claimed to be for free trade has turned the clock back to protectionism, and our challenge and our task is no smaller than to get that government in the United States to look forward again, to think of their consumers, to think of their workers and to know that we will not sacrifice our jobs in this province to a small, protectionist band of lumber barons in the United States.

The President of the United States is currently going through Latin America and espousing the benefits of free trade. Words mean nothing. There's only one thing that counts: action. The government of the United States failed. They failed to stand up for the principles which they espoused, and I want this House and the people of British Columbia and Canada to know that we will not fail to stand up for the principles that we espouse: free, open access to the American markets and to all markets to benefit all workers in all jurisdictions.

The lumber barons are fairly brazen — how competitive they are. They're afraid of competition. They're afraid to stand up to the quality of our product, to the

quality of our workmanship, to the quality of our workers in the province of British Columbia. I know that as we move forward together as a province and as a country, those lumber barons will fail. Their protectionist measures will fail, because we intend to harness not just the talents of Canada and the provinces and British Columbia but the talents of customers, of trade unionists, of builders, of workers in the United States that say it's time for the American government to put the interests of the public first, not those of a small minority of lumber competitors that are not able to compete in the world of today. We will defeat them.

What makes this most frustrating, I'm sure, to workers across our province is that in the wake of September 11, Canadian families from across this country reached out to help their American friends. They understood that when your friend is in time of need, you reach out and you help. The very families whose jobs are in jeopardy today are the families who were holding bake sales so they could send resources from their community down to the people in New York to offer support. They reached out. Now our best friend has decided to slap those families in the face. Hon. Speaker, that is not good enough. It's not good enough for us, it's not good enough for the American people, and it's not good enough for the workers in the province of British Columbia.

We must move forward and demand not just a fair deal but a square deal for the people of our province, for the workers of our province. I intend to work with the Canadian government, with other provincial governments, with industry and with the IWA to make sure that we speak with one united voice. I can tell you this, hon. Speaker: everyone who was there, everyone who was part of this negotiation, has said that the strength of the Canadian side was that we spoke with one voice. The fact that there was not the political courage to stand up to a small lobby in the United States was not the fault of the Canadian negotiators; it was the fault of a political system in the United States that did not have the courage to stand up to lobbyists in an election year.

One of the things we have to do now is map out a course that takes us through the next months and the next years to make sure that when we do win this case — and we will win this case — we have maintained and protected our valuable resource: the workers of the province of British Columbia.

I want to outline a number of initiatives that the government will take over the days and weeks ahead to try and deal with this issue. First, I am going to call an emergency summit on softwood. It will bring together the forest industry in British Columbia, the IWA, provincial and federal governments, and representatives of provincial and federal parties. I believe every British Columbian should understand this: this is not an issue upon which we are divided politically; this is an issue that we are united on. We are united behind the workers and the communities in this province. We are united behind a solution, and by being united, we are going to win this. The aim of the summit will be to come up with a comprehensive and coordinated strategy that is reinforced by each of those sectors: by industry, by other provinces, by the federal government, by the IWA and by our own provincial government.

Second, we will continue to work with the federal government to discuss options to create immediate relief and support to help forest families through this difficult period. I want to stress that we have been working with HRDC for some time to deal with the challenges that are faced in transition as we go through the difficult policy changes that we're all going to face in this province in forestry, if it's going to become more competitive.

I talked this morning and this afternoon with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Trade, the hon. Minister Pettigrew. They are aware of the fact that we are going to continue to work with HRDC to try and focus our best efforts on providing the families and forest industries and forest communities across this province with the kind of support that they can expect and deserve.

I want to be clear about one thing, though. We do not believe in subsidizing businesses. This is about protecting families, and as we move forward and we develop and finalize the strategy for doing that, it is important for us to remember and to keep our eye focused on those families. It is very difficult to win an argument that says we do not have a subsidized industry if we go out and subsidize the industry. I think most people understand that, including those in the industry. Our goal is to try and be sure that families have a sense of support, not just from the government of Canada but from the people of British Columbia as well.

We will carry on with our fights at both the WTO and the NAFTA panel which has recently been appointed. No matter how long it takes, we will pursue that endeavour. We will move it as quickly as we can. Let's make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: the challenge we face will remain that lumber lobby that tried to hold us up through this last negotiation. The challenge will remain that lobby. They will try and delay, they will try and put off, and they will try and hold up any proceedings that we undertake. We will act as aggressively and proactively as we can to make sure that this is resolved as quickly as possible, because we know that when our case goes to the WTO and to NAFTA, we are going to win. We are going to have the access to those markets that our workers and our communities deserve.

It's necessary for us to understand that we are also going to have to fight this politically. I noticed that on the weekend the IWA met, and they were going to be dealing with some of their friends in the United States. We intend to work with them. We intend to work with our industry. We intend to work with other governments. But we intend to take our case to the consumers in the United States. Thousands and thousands of homeowners are going to have homes put out of their financial reach because of this protectionist decision by

the Department of Commerce in the United States. We're going to talk to them. We're going to talk to the builders who want to use our products because our product is best. We're going to bring them together, and we're going to focus on the very, very important concerns that people will have across the economy in the United States.

At a time when we're all trying to turn our economies around…. In fact, housing was leading. Now, because of this protectionist measure, it is a tax on housing in the United States. It is tax on home ownership in the United States. It is a tax on homebuilders in the United States. We want to make sure that those people understand the impacts of their government's decision on their lives, because we believe they are on our side.

Now, some may say, Mr. Speaker, that we should have launched this earlier. You'll recall that we did have discussions in the House about the issue of softwood lumber last August. We pointed out that we did have a strategy that was set in place to carry that political message home to the American consumer, to the American homebuilders. I have had calls today from members of the American homebuilders association saying that they are there with us; they are there for us as we move forward.

After September 11 we decided not to do that, and I believe that was the right decision. We should remember that it's not our customers that are the problem; it's the lack of political will and the lobbyists in the United States that are the problem. Those are the people we have to defeat in this endeavour.

We will continue to work with all concerned to make our forest industry more competitive. We must carry on with our efforts to modernize our forest industry, to eliminate unnecessary regulation. We must carry on to look at tenure reform in the province of British Columbia. We must carry on to look at reforming our stumpage system, as we said to British Columbians that we would prior to the last election. We must carry on to work with first nations so they can have the benefits of the forest industry that all other British Columbians share and look forward to. We must carry on to develop a more competitive foundation upon which to build our forestry future in this province.

I want the word to go out across the province to each of those forest workers that in the province of British Columbia, forestry, the forest industry, is a sunrise industry with a bright future ahead of it, and we're going to work together to make sure we deliver on that.

We will work with our industry, with our workers, to diversify and expand our customer base. In the fall we visited Shanghai, in China, and started the long process of opening up that vast, vast marketplace to B.C. softwood. We have opportunities in the subcontinent, in India, to equally expand the marketplace for our softwood lumber. We have opportunities in Europe.

Remember, if we've learned one message over the last few days, it's that you cannot rely on your American customers to play by the rules. You cannot rely on our American customers to treat us fairly. So we must rely on ourselves to go out and build new customer bases, build new customer opportunities and expand our market share in other marketplaces. Again, working together, not just with our federal government but with forestry communities and with the forest industry across this province, I know we can accelerate the expansion of our market share in other jurisdictions, and we will work to do that with them, hon. Speaker.

Finally, let me say this. I understand the frustration that people feel. I understand the fear that many families are feeling right now. I understand the desire to be able to strike back or lash out and find some quick solution to this problem. Unfortunately, there is not a quick-fix solution to this problem. We are going to have to work together to find mutual support, to move forward and to speak with one voice. We should remember that in looking to save some jobs, we shouldn't lose others. I don't think we should jeopardize jobs in parts of the economy in the hopes that we can somehow bring the Americans to their knees.

Currently, in Canada and the United States, there is a $90 billion benefit to Canada in that trading relationship. Eighty-seven percent of our trade goes to the United States; 25 percent of their trade comes back. So as we look at all the opportunities as to how to pursue and how to go forward in this, I think we have to be careful that we don't jeopardize one segment or one sector of the economy at the expense of another.

What is equally important is that not one British Columbian or one Canadian lose track of the fact that the forest industry is the number one industry in British Columbia. It has been throughout our history. It is today. It will be tomorrow. It will be a decade from now. Working together, we can work through this adversity. We will succeed in our endeavours, and our forest families and forest communities will have a brighter, more secure future that they can all count on and depend on.

Hon. Speaker, I ask all British Columbians to join with us as we go through this time of trial. I want them all to know that we will do whatever is politically possible and whatever is legally necessary to make sure we secure access to the markets in the United States that rightfully belong to B.C. forest workers, B.C. communities and B.C.'s industry.

J. MacPhail: I rise today to join with the Premier in expressing the dismay and the concern for the families and the communities who are so tragically and devastatingly affected by the failure of any resolution for the softwood lumber dispute.

I was listening with interest to the Premier's remarks. I heard them for the first time as he spoke them, and I have a few comments to make on the basis of his remarks. I hope that we can actually learn from the

failed negotiations. As a province and as a country, we do have an opportunity to continue trying to resolve this dispute, at least for a few more weeks. That's why I think it's so important that we learn from the past — what exactly did happen during negotiations.

I know that the breakdown in softwood lumber negotiations has left people very angry on both sides of the border — and angry at each other. Canadian ministers and industry leaders charge that the United States was dishonest and bargained in bad faith. Frankly, in the United States they take that same position with the Canadian negotiators.

I think, to be fair, Canada does have reason to be angry. The U.S. duties that are now imposed on Canadian shipments of softwood lumber arise from nothing more than old-fashioned protectionism, as the Premier states. We know — and from day one we've known this — that there's been no sound basis in law for that kind of tariff.

But there have been other acts that have failed us. As British Columbians, the North American Free Trade Agreement has failed us. It has failed us desperately. I think those dangers were clear to Canada when it was negotiated. Free trade — I remember having the discussions in this chamber — dominated by one large country will not work if protectionist-minded industries in that country, in this case the United States, still have access to countervailing and anti-dumping duties, as we've experienced over the weekend.

You know, Canada was so intent on signing NAFTA that it deliberately concluded the agreement without having resolved the matter of dispute resolutions, notwithstanding the fact that it knew the consequences. As a province we have to be prepared to understand that those dispute resolution mechanisms are not available to us, as they should have been if Canada had pursued resolution on those matters under NAFTA. NAFTA is working against us.

There were elements demanded by the U.S. and principles upon which those demands were based that would be harmful to our industry that were well known by Canada at the start of the negotiations. Some were actually known by Canada to be absolute non-starters. Instead, Canada and the provinces failed to clarify its principles and to make clear to the United States at the outset which requirements were workable and which were simply unworkable and unacceptable. Instead, Canada and, I'm sorry to say, the provinces agreed to negotiate the very matters that it should have known would inevitably lead to a stalemate. We need to learn from that before we enter negotiations again.

Of particular importance, there was the demand from the U.S. that forest policy reform be on the table. The U.S. side was very clear from the beginning that it wanted to end the system known as stumpage, where provinces collect fees for the timber harvested. This system, as we all know, is at the very heart of the charge that Canadian lumber is subsidized. Notwithstanding the fact that past trade tribunals have clearly established that these fees do not involve a subsidy, the provinces, particularly our province and Quebec, agreed to negotiate a replacement for this system. More dangerously, they even asked the United States what replacement policy it wanted, to which the United States predictably demanded timber auctions.

We need to learn from this, I say again, so that we don't repeat these mistakes if we get to negotiate again. British Columbia and others agreed, thus creating the impression amongst the Americans that the existing policy is faulty from a trade compliance perspective and that the U.S. proposal was an appropriate position to negotiate.

Perhaps most telling of all was that Canada went into the negotiations completely naked in terms of negotiating chips. I understand the Premier saying that we have a $90 billion trade surplus, and therefore we have to proceed with caution, but over the coming days the opposition will be discussing with this government the negotiating chips that don't threaten our trade balance and don't threaten jobs that now exist in this province.

Of course, I totally agree that the best solution now is to go to the World Trade Organization and deal with what instruments we do have available under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canada's case is a good one, and the U.S. case is very, very weak. Canada, including the provinces, must now appear able and willing to negotiate the situation that will get us to free trade in lumber. We have to do a better job the next time around.

I don't think it's any surprise that there's a feeling in some quarters in Canada that both Canada and the provinces didn't do everything they could to stand up for the forest workers and the communities in a serious and deliberate way. I know that's the way communities are feeling today.

I urge the Premier and his government this: if and when the British Columbia government returns to the table, we must restructure negotiations. The principles upon which negotiations are to be based must be made very clear by Canada. Canada must be willing to use those things that will strengthen its hand at the table and not play into the American agenda. Canada and the provinces have to be serious about carrying through to the very end, if the U.S. remains intransigent. That means that this government, if pushed, has to take a lead on fixing NAFTA, because NAFTA as it stands now doesn't work for British Columbia.

I hope that the government and the Premier will be mindful, in the interim, of the cuts that are affecting communities beyond the softwood lumber dispute and that this province takes a moment with its leadership to revisit the harm that we now can undo in those forest-dependent communities even as we move forward — to have solutions, as the Premier outlines, to deal with the immediate effects of the softwood lumber dispute.

I say that as the days unfold, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will do everything we possibly can to learn from the mistakes and failures of the past round and to proceed forward in a way that works for all British Columbians — for those of us that

own the resource and particularly for those communities that rely almost solely on the benefits of those resources.

J. MacPhail: Carrying on along that line, we know that there are many communities that have been harmed and that are now deeply affected by the failure of the softwood lumber dispute. Many of these families are facing economic ruin.

Clearly, as I've just articulated, we have to regroup, and we have to develop new and tougher negotiating strategies with our American counterparts. We can't just repeat the mistakes of the past. We have to learn from the approach that didn't work. Right now we ship millions of dollars' worth of raw logs south of the border to be processed by American mills.

Has the Minister of Forests considered telling the Americans who now receive those raw logs free that as long as they impose unfair duties on our softwood, it's going to cost them a hell of a lot more to get their hands on our raw logs?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It's my first opportunity to provide a brief account of the extraordinary events of last week in Washington. I'll do that and answer the member's question in the process. I think the member knows that the team from British Columbia went to Washington to seek a deal, admittedly a deal that made sense and worked in British Columbia but not a deal at any cost. That was uppermost in our minds as the submission we received from people who are feeling pain right now and have been feeling pain….

We worked around the clock to try and get to that deal, but it became clear that there was not a willing negotiating partner on the other side. For the Americans, there was never an intention to get a deal. That was clear from their actions at the table. It was clear that they have a President who, as the Premier says, talks the talk but won't walk the walk when it comes to defending the principles of free trade. That is unfortunate.

The member identifies one potential lever. I think there are many. I think pursuing the legal challenges, as the Premier has said, is paramount — WTO, NAFTA. I think providing support…. Team Canada negotiated. We didn't get the result we wanted, and now Team Canada needs to step up to the plate and provide the support that those families are going to require to see us through this fight. I think we have to renew our campaign in the United States. The issue the member raises may well be part of that campaign.

J. MacPhail: Well, recently the Minister of Forests suggested linking our support for the war in Afghanistan with the softwood lumber dispute. The Premier referred to our support as Canadians that we gave to America post–September 11. But let me put this to the Minister of Forests: there is, as this government knows, an issue that is very close to the heart of George W. Bush, the President of the United States. That is that the President is desperate to get his hands on Alaskan natural gas. He needs our cooperation. There is no way he can get that Alaskan natural gas without cooperation from British Columbia. There are no jobs that will be at risk by linking those two. The trade surplus is not at risk.

To the Minister of Forests: will the minister, if and when he returns to negotiations with the United States — or today, as a matter of fact — make it very clear to the Bush administration that as long as President Bush insists on supporting unfair tariffs on our lumber products, he can expect no cooperation, zero cooperation whatsoever, on any plans the Americans are cooking up to pipe natural gas from Alaska through British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: The notion, I should say first of all, of returning to the negotiating table — whilst not ruling that possibility out — is one I have great difficulty contemplating. It's something like going back to a poker game after you've found the other guy cheating. Until we get a genuine indication…. I think the strategy the Premier has laid out is going to be key. Until we get some indication that the administration in the United States, President Bush, actually intends to take action to defend the principles of free trade, we need to consider seriously what is to be gained by re-engaging in an exercise that was a travesty and a charade, Mr. Speaker.

Imagine. At the very time the President of the United States is down in Mexico, in Monterrey, defending not just the principles of free trade generally but North American free trade, his political henchmen back in Washington are sticking it to British Columbia and sticking it to Canada. It made everyone in that room in Washington sick to their stomachs to watch that unfold.

I think the member points out with some validity the irony that would befall people who contemplate the construction of a particular piece of infrastructure through a town that has been decimated and left a ghost town because of protectionism on the American side of the border.

I say this to the member and to all members of the House: our challenge is to be smart, to be resolute and to be united, and when we are those things, we will ultimately be victorious.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: I hope this Minister of Forests isn't ruling out any potential strategy to assist the communi-

ties, the workers and the families who are devastated by this softwood lumber tariff. Every opportunity needs to be taken to assist those workers.

I say that the federal and provincial governments need to develop a new negotiating position with the Americans before the duties become final in early May. There is an opportunity here to carry on with what the Premier says, to do everything possible, but we also have to make sure in the meantime that forest workers and their families are saved from economic ruin.

Today I wrote to the federal Minister of Natural Resources asking the federal government to consider a plan to provide repayable loans to companies to cover the cost of the duty while we await the World Trade Organization ruling.

Along the lines of doing everything possible for these communities, the workers and their families, will the Minister of Forests support the opposition call for this plan that will keep B.C. forest workers on the job, the communities strong and families able to live?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm pleased that the member has taken the opportunity to engage with Minister Dhaliwal, who has had some specific things to say in the past. We are also working with him — have in the past and continue to do so — to finalize a plan. It's a plan made necessary by virtue of the fact that our forest-dependent communities and forest-dependent families are under attack by a hostile foreign power. It's that simple.

The member alludes to one strategy. The government needs, I think, first and foremost at a time like this, to focus its resources on the people, the families, that are impacted by this devastating trade sanction. In the days ahead I know and hope that the member will work, as we will, with the IWA, with the industry and with community organizations, so that we can focus in on where the need is greatest. If we do that, we'll be able to support one another in the way that we need to, to get through this challenge.

B. Belsey: Forest-dependent communities around this province have been devastated by the collapse of the softwood lumber agreement. I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

For many months you have been negotiating in good faith with the Americans, yet the Americans still imposed this 29 percent duty upon our lumber exports. This duty will close mills and hurt families throughout my riding. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what the causes were — why this collapse of these negotiations?

Hon. M. de Jong: Protectionism — ugly, self-serving, destructive, duplicitous protectionism — advocated by a small, admittedly powerful industry lobby and embraced by a U.S. administration that has not the courage to stand up to that lobby.

Our defence of the principles of free trade will most certainly challenge us in the weeks and months ahead, but as I said a few moments ago and the Premier emphasized, if we remain resolute and united, we will meet and overcome this challenge as well.

B. Belsey: Free trade in lumber is in the best interests not only for British Columbians and Canadians but also for Americans. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what other steps — we talked about the gas pipeline in the northeast — he is planning to use to continue this free trade fight?

In a sense, we are back to where we were at the outset in this dispute. I think there are essentially three tracks we need to follow. Obviously, pursuing the legal avenues with all vigour — the WTO, NAFTA and the domestic court processes in the U.S. — is going to be fundamental to ultimate victory. I think that in addition, we need to elicit domestic support across Canada for the workers and the families that are going to be impacted — provide that support while we engage in this fight.

As the Premier has again said, it is time for us to re-engage with the American public, who need to understand that as a result of their President and their administration's unwillingness to stand up to this domestic lumber lobby, they will be paying more for housing. Many of them won't be able to afford housing. We need to carry that message in ways that we had intended to prior to September 11 and, out of respect for what happened in the United States, chose not to. Clearly, there is no appreciation on the American side for the steps we took following the events of September 11, and it's time for us to be very active on the domestic front within the United States.

J. Kwan: Forest workers and their families are suffering because the Americans are negotiating in bad faith and refusing to honour signed agreements.

Well, today we see the patients in British Columbia suffering also, because this government is doing exactly the same thing with the health care professionals. Doctors in Victoria today announced that they're cancelling elective surgeries as of April 1. The Premier met with the BCMA. That gave rise to this dispute.

To the Premier: this government has been playing a game of chicken with the doctors, and patients are losing. What plan does the Premier have to make sure these surgeries are not cancelled?

Hon. G. Campbell: What this government has been doing is trying to resuscitate a health care system

which was brought to its knees by that member's former government. As we have…

Hon. G. Campbell: …said in the past, our goal is to make sure we are focusing health care resources on patients in the province. As the Minister of Health Services has said in the past, he intends to continue to work with the BCMA, to continue to work with doctors across this province to make sure that as we reform the health care system, the critical component is always what is best for patients — how do we provide patients with the care they need in the communities where they live? That is our government's objective. It's our goal, and it's what we intend to deliver on.

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

J. Kwan: This is what this government has done: by ripping up contracts, imposing settlements, ignoring binding arbitration and cutting services, this government has created an absolutely toxic environment in the health care system. Patients are paying for it, and they're paying for this government's reckless approach. This government's Minister of Health Services signed off on the arbitration process. He said it had his 100 percent support. He can't blame anybody else except himself.

Again, to the Premier: patients are demanding answers, and they're demanding answers now. What plan does this government have to ensure that patients don't have their surgeries cancelled? Or does he have a plan at all? All he can do is stand up in this House and blame somebody else, and he has to start taking responsibility for his actions.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me be clear. I'm not looking around for someone to blame for this. We all know who to blame for it. It's the previous government in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite asks: what has the government done? The government has restructured the regionalization system so that we can focus resources on patients — millions and millions of dollars on patients.

The government for the first time ever is letting health professionals look at how they can deliver services to patients in communities across the province. The government has allocated 392 million additional dollars…

Hon. G. Campbell: …to the doctors of British Columbia so that we can meet their on-call requirements, their sessional and salaried physician requirements, their fee-for-service requirements. All of those things are done because we know that without quality health professionals, we won't have a quality health care system. So, Mr. Speaker, we will have the top-paid physicians, the top-paid nurses and the top-paid hospital workers working here in British Columbia on behalf of patients in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, followed by the Ministry of Education. In Committee B, I call Committee of Supply as well, and for the information of members we'll 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: I have with me the press release and the signed document of the Canada–B.C. affordable housing agreement. It's a five-year agreement, and if you break it down, the $88.7 million from the federal government over five years averages out to about 700 units of housing that the federal government will be contributing to British Columbia for affordable housing over the next five years.

My first question to the minister is: are the 700 units the government just announced two weeks ago — those first 700 units under the federal-provincial agreement signed in the December 18, 2001, agreement — the first 700 units that the federal government is contributing under this agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, $9 million of the $88.7 million is used for the federal partnership contribution to the 700 units — or the 697 units, to be more precise — that were recently an-

nounced. The balance of the federal funds will be used for other housing initiatives over the next four years.

J. Kwan: The agreement is effective January 1, 2001. Does that mean there would be another 700 units then that the government will be approving after the April 1, 2002, time line?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, certainly there will be more successful housing projects in the future. As I laid out over the last couple of days that we have been debating this matter, we have developed in the ministry a sustainable budget line for housing. The member can make reference to the service plan that was released on January 17 to get the precise numbers. Generally, on the ministry side, it's running in the neighbourhood of $131 million to $135 million.

We will certainly have the capacity to be proceeding with more units in the years ahead. The federal contribution, which is an average of $25,000 partnership contribution per unit, will be most useful in achieving our housing goals as well.

J. Kwan: What I was looking for is to see whether or not after April 1, 2002, for this year's fiscal, there would be additional housing units that would be announced. I assume from the minister, with this federal-provincial agreement where it is over five years….The agreement was signed in December of last year, 2001. If you break down the $88.7 million at $25,000 per unit, it averages about 700 units a year. It may be that the government is not going to proceed with all 700 each year consecutively per se, but rather they will mix up the units over the next five years. Is it safe to say, then, that for April 1, 2002, there will be additional units being announced by this government?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's general sense of this is correct, I think, if we're reading her correctly. Again, I think we've emphasized this at a number of points. Given that we are building a partnership model that includes not only the federal government but also local governments, health authorities, non-profits and perhaps even in some instances the private sector, we will be examining proposals as they move forward. One can't say, given that we are building these partnerships on a daily basis, precisely what the rollout will be. I'm certain the member will be satisfied with it as it occurs.

J. Kwan: We already differ in terms of our priority for housing, to be honest, minister. Early on in the debate, as we engaged in the debate, the Liberal government had cancelled 1,000 units of affordable housing. I differ on that perspective. I don't think government should have cancelled 1,000 units of affordable housing. We see 1,000 units lost now in the housing sector in the broader community, which is in great need of housing. Yes, the government has come forward with 700 units of affordable housing, which they announced two weeks ago, but I think the government should have proceeded with the 1,000 units instead.

Having said that, it would appear that the answer is yes to my question: "Will there be additional units after April 1, 2002?" I think the minister's answer is yes, there will be units approved after April 1, 2002. How many remains a question. I assume that under the federal-provincial affordable housing agreement, federal dollars will be transferred into additional units after April 1, 2002.

If you use the numbers that are being put forward by the federal government on the amount of dollars they have put toward housing under this affordable housing agreement with the province, on the average of $25,000 per unit, you're looking at about 700 units on average, give or take, per year. One could assume that by the end of this fiscal year, we will be able to see about 1,400 units of housing out of the 3,500 units committed by the federal government. I would assume that is correct. While you may not be proceeding with exactly 700 at this point and it may fluctuate within the year, if you're using the assumption that those are the numbers we're working with, then one could assume that we'd be looking at about 1,400 units of housing out of the 3,500. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: First, to address the preamble from the member, it is correct. Of the 1,702 units that were placed under review — again, we discussed this quite thoroughly the other day — 697 will proceed, as was announced two weeks ago now. There are about 1,000 units that will not be proceeding at this time.

It's our anticipation and certainly the anticipation of B.C. Housing that in the longer run, a number of those projects…. I think there are 16 or 17 projects that encapsulate the 1,002. We anticipate that a number of those will in fact proceed. We have issued a challenge, as I described before, to our partners to see if there are ways in which those projects can be brought within our sustainable budget line. It's absolutely important that we have a sustainable housing program in British Columbia.

What we can't do…. It's all well and good for the member to get up and say we should do everything. The challenge we have is that we've got to bring back some fiscal discipline here in British Columbia. We have to find ways to get our fiscal house in order, to move away from the serious, serious economic and fiscal situation we face in British Columbia. As I noted in the House two weeks ago now, the budget line which I inherited around housing would have seen us move, all things being equal, from a budget of $126 million in fiscal '01-02 to $170 million in '04-05. That simply is not a budget line that is sustainable in any fiscal environment, never mind the difficult, seriously constrained fiscal times we live in today.

I do think we have made a great achievement in developing a sustainable budget line that runs, as the service plan notes, between roughly $131 million and $135 million for this ministry, complemented by additional housing investment from other ministries. That's a great achievement and certainly underlines the great importance that this government attaches to finding

To address again the member's point around whether there will be units proceeding, we can't say with certainty that there will be 600, 700 or 800 in any given fiscal year. What we do is develop sustainable partnerships with our partners — federal and local governments, health authorities, non-profits, possibly the private sector, and so on. If you do the simple math of $88.7 million divided by $25,000, it does yield about 3,500 units, which would be 700 times five.

We talked about this the last time we debated this. There are many occasions when B.C. Housing can provide a facilitation and assistance role in projects. We talked about one in the member's own riding the last day, and we also talked about a project in Nelson where financing assistance was all that was required to get a local housing project going.

There's a lot of different things we can do, and we hope to maximize, in every sense, the value of every taxpayer's dollar that's expended on housing. We intend to make the best use possible of the federal funds, as well, so there is much that can be done.

J. Kwan: The minister doesn't like to use units. That's okay. The $9 million that's been contributed by the federal government will divide up at $25,000 a unit, so it's about 600 units instead of 700. It's about 600 units, then, that the federal government has contributed under this agreement. Is that right?

Hon. G. Abbott: The agreement we have with the federal government, the Canada-B.C. affordable housing agreement, provides for an average of $25,000 per unit. When we use less, obviously that allows us to do more units. There is no obligation that it be precisely $25,000, and we will work to ensure that we get the maximum number of housing units, generally, from both provincial taxpayer dollars and from the agreement dollars of $88.7 million.

J. Kwan: The announcement that was made two weeks ago…. Were those the first contributions towards the housing agreement that the federal government has made?

J. Kwan: The minister talked about partnerships and that it would be mandatory for partnerships to take place before any other affordable housing projects were to be approved by government. I've heard that the new policy of the Liberal government is that B.C. Housing would not deal with a non-profit group unless they came forward with free land. Is that the new Liberal government policy on affordable housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The new partnership model is certainly mandatory equity. Whether in every instance it would be land or not…. We would have to look at the proposals that are brought before us. There are many different ways in which the partnership equity can be brought to the project.

J. Kwan: I'm glad to hear that societies are not required to bring land to the table before they're considered. I've heard that ministry staff from B.C. Housing have been telling non-profit groups that they have to bring free land forward for their proposal to be considered. I'm glad that is not the policy. I'm sure the minister will advise his staff to stop telling non-profit groups that their projects won't be considered unless they have free land on the table.

I'm glad I could have that confirmation from the minister, because it's an important point, and it's been under discussion by many of the groups out in the community who are concerned around that.

The minister also talked about the list of projects that have been cancelled in the community. The minister talks about how those projects may well proceed — or at least some of them may well proceed. When can the community expect a response, then, from the minister that some of these projects may be proceeding?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're clear around the point with respect to land, again, there is no obligation that societies provide land. Typically, land is one of the ways in which partnership equity is demonstrated. It frequently is something that's very important to the economics of a project. I don't want the member to go away thinking it's not important. Typically, it is very important, but we certainly are open to instances where partnership equity is provided in ways other than land. I don't want to theoretically dismiss those possibilities, because. again, we want to be open as an administration to innovation and flexibility with respect to that.

In terms of when…. Is it 16 or 17 projects that didn't proceed? It's 1,002 units, in any event — the 17 projects. We have already initiated discussions with those 17. Again, it is difficult, when one is engaged in a discussion, to know when that discussion will bear fruit. We will be working with those 17 to look at whether, first of all, the projects they are proposing meet the new direction of housing in British Columbia, which is to meet the needs of the most vulnerable.

Secondly, we will have to be working with them on an ongoing basis to look at the partnership equity which they are bringing to the table. It's the combination of those two things which will be the measure of success and will in large measure determine when we can make any further announcements with respect to those projects.

J. Kwan: Yes, I did misunderstand the point that the government is now going to require mandatory equity on affordable housing projects. That does differ, though, from the requirement, the mandatory application, of land and free land only. My concern is that I've

heard from the community that community non-profit groups are being told by staff from B.C. Housing that they need to come to the table with free land. I'm glad to hear that is not the mandatory issue. In fact, yes, you need to come the table with equity, but sometimes it's land and sometimes it's not. I'm glad to hear the minister clarify the point that non-profit groups don't necessarily have to come to the table with free land before their proposal is considered. I would hope that the ministry staff would stop telling non-profit groups that, because there is a lot of concern out there around this issue. I've been advised by community groups that they've been told by ministry staff that they can only come to the table if they have free land. I'm glad the minister has clarified that point.

The minister talked about that they will take some time to go through the 1,002 units that have been cancelled to see which ones meet the criteria. If they meet the criteria, both on the equity envelope side and on the vulnerability side in terms of…. I think the minister used the words "the most vulnerable." Can the minister advise the House what he means by the most vulnerable? What kind of categories are we looking at?

Hon. G. Abbott: We've discussed this earlier in the estimates at some length as well. Some of the principal groups considered in that description would be, for example, the frail elderly who, in the absence of appropriate housing opportunities, might find themselves inappropriately in acute care beds or residential care beds. As well, the mentally ill are a group that we certainly need to consider as among the most vulnerable. The developmentally disabled and vulnerable families — a woman, for example, and a child or children coming out of a violent or abusive relationship — would, I think, certainly be among the vulnerable — and the homeless as well.

J. Kwan: The minister talked about the frail and elderly, the mentally ill, etc. — people who clearly would need some assistance to live independently in affordable housing units. Yet, at the same time, the Ministry of Health Services is cutting back on home support for individuals who are living independently. In fact, when I travelled up to Williams Lake — I guess it will be three weeks ago now — and visited a seniors home there, the seniors were just telling me that the government has implemented the home support cuts by a significant amount. In many of the instances, they told me that they were only able to access personal support. There's no more support for shopping, cleaning, cooking and all of those things that make independent living essential for the frail and elderly, people with disabilities, illnesses and so on.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister has any plans to address this issue, or maybe he has already spoken with the Minister of Health Services. When the Ministry of Health Services estimates come up, I'll be sure to ask those questions, because those two things go hand in hand. We can't have one ministry agency providing for housing and to support the frail and elderly to live independently, but at the same time home support services are being cut, which will jeopardize their ability to live independently.

Hon. G. Abbott: This ministry is certainly looking forward to working with the Health ministries with respect to the very considerable challenges we have with respect to the frail elderly and other groups, which the ministry has responsibility for. I'd welcome your guidance, hon. Chair, but I think the member's question is clearly one that she should direct to the Minister of Health Services at the appropriate time in the estimates of that ministry.

J. Kwan: Yes, I will be asking the Minister of Health Services those questions. I'm curious, though — from this minister, who is developing housing…. Part of the goal is, as he said, to provide housing for those who are frail, who are vulnerable. For them to live independently, they actually need the support of Health Services in the area of home support. Those supports are being cut. As we speak now, they are being cut. When I spoke with this one senior…. Actually, about eight of them that I spoke with all told me essentially the same thing: their home support hours have been cut by two-thirds. They're reduced down to about one hour's worth of home support, and they're utilizing that towards their personal care. In many of the instances, the seniors are talking about that assistance for them to take a bath. There's nobody there to assist them with cooking, cleaning, shopping and all the other elements that are essential to independent living.

I certainly hope that the minister has taken this issue into consideration because with all that home support, the supportive housing units that would be there for these seniors, for the people who need home support, would be compromised severely. I worry that people will be sent to the hospital as opposed to being able to stay in their own homes, which is why I raise this point.

Let me talk about the list of cancelled projects for just a moment here. A couple of weeks ago we engaged in the issue around compensation. The minister was uncomfortable in providing the information to me. He has outright refused to do that. Let me ask the minister this question: when the negotiations are completed, will the minister then commit to providing a breakdown of the mitigation package that the government has provided to those societies that had their units cancelled?

J. Kwan: I appreciate that. If the minister could provide that information as soon as it's available, when the negotiations are complete and the mitigation packages are complete for each of the housing societies that had their housing projects cancelled….

I'd like to ask the minister some questions around the status of some of the projects. We touched on a

particular one two weeks ago when we were debating these estimates. The one that I'm particularly interested in, of course — although I'm interested in all of them because they provide important affordable housing in all the communities — is one that's of significance in my own community of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: the Woodwards project.

The Woodwards co-op was slated and approved to develop 226 units of affordable housing under the family and the LIUS component of the housing project. I wonder if the minister can tell us what the status of the Woodwards project is. What is the vision of the government for this project?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to provide the member with some comment with respect to the Woodwards Building and the Woodwards project. Certainly, we know from the city of Vancouver that, from their perspective, the Woodwards Building is a very important piece in terms of the housing challenge that faces Vancouver and, additionally, a very important piece in terms of the economic and social revitalization of the downtown east side of Vancouver. We are working intensively with the city of Vancouver to try to develop a proposal that is going to work for that building.

The original proposal — which, as we've noted, will not be proceeding — combined commercial with housing. In fact, there was a considerable interest from Simon Fraser University, as well, in doing something innovative with that. While it had many beneficial aspects to it, the cost for that project is in the $90 million range and simply cannot work in the current fiscal context.

We are working, as I noted, with the city of Vancouver and with others to develop a fiscally responsible proposal for the Woodwards Building. We believe that a strong private-public partnership is needed and that we will be able to develop a project which not only is fiscally sustainable but which also provides affordable housing for some citizens in that area.

J. Kwan: Indeed, the Woodwards housing project is one that has been cancelled by this announcement from the minister a couple of weeks ago. I know that in speaking with Mayor Philip Owen prior to the election, he was very supportive of the development of Woodwards, in that it was not only important from the point of view of providing cooperative housing that would see a range of people with different incomes living in the project but also to see the revitalization of the community impacting the downtown east side, the Gastown community, the International Village area, the Chinatown area and the Victory Square area so that the entire three-, four-, five- or six-mile radius around the Woodwards Building would see significant economic and cultural revitalization in the area. Mayor Owen was very supportive of the Woodwards project, and our government worked with them in trying to see how we could see that project come about.

Partnered with that, of course, was the SFU component which would bring an arts precinct to the downtown core, offering educational opportunities not just to the downtown east side community but to the broader community as well. SFU has said that it was their first priority in terms of capital investments from the provincial government with that institution.

The minister is now saying that's all gone, so that's completely by the wayside. Is the minister saying that the SFU arts precinct is no longer on the table for consideration within the Woodwards development? And when the minister says that on the housing component…. Is he suggesting that there would still be affordable housing, and that is still the vision of government to see affordable housing within the Woodwards project under the co-op model?

Hon. G. Abbott: The SFU component of the previous project is off the table to the extent that Simon Fraser, if they want to proceed with it, has to find some capital to become a part of the project. We would continue to welcome Simon Fraser as a potential partner, but we're not excluding any potential partners at this point in the project.

Again, I know Mayor Owen has been supportive of the revitalization of the Woodwards Building, and we share that with him. I know that the city of Vancouver is looking for opportunities to become a strong partner with us in a project in that building, but it has to be a project that's going to work from a fiscal perspective. We are not going to be building the fast ferries of affordable housing in the Woodwards Building. We are going to have a project which can work for all of the partners, for the city of Vancouver and for those who need affordable housing in the neighbourhood. We'll be entertaining proposals from any potential partners who can bring some resources to the table.

J. Kwan: The minister was trying to infer that the Woodwards project, if it proceeded — that the government will somehow be building the fast ferries of housing in the downtown east side…. I'd like to remind the minister it's the same staff that he praises highly, who are sitting with him right now, who worked with the previous government in that proposal development and in coming to the plans that they have recommended to the previous government on the Woodwards project. I'd just like to remind the minister of that.

I still speak highly of the staff that were there, because I think they did an excellent job, irrespective of their political masters, in terms of ensuring that housing is delivered in a way that is fiscally and socially responsible. I'd like to remind the minister of that simple fact.

There is no doubt about the significance of the Woodwards project. What SFU was going to bring to the table, while it's not a capital contribution, was the operating dollars of the arts precinct in the downtown core. That would save the government in the Ministry

of Advanced Education significant dollars in operating the building. SFU was going to solely fundraise for that entire component, so, yes, the partnerships worked in different ways. It wasn't necessarily capital, but it was operating that was going to make a difference for the long-term sustainability of the Woodwards project.

Now that SFU is off the table, as confirmed by the minister, I ask the minister whether or not affordable housing is still going to be part of the vision of this government for the Woodwards project. Previously it was the co-op model. Is that model still being considered by this government? Is affordable housing still a component of the future of the Woodwards Building?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the latter point is yes. I noted in a previous answer that affordable housing does continue to be a goal in any future project that's undertaken in the Woodwards Building.

As regards Simon Fraser University, again I'll reiterate the point: we certainly welcome any thoughts, any proposals Simon Fraser may want to make with respect to the Woodwards Building. It's certainly our understanding that the $40 million that Simon Fraser would have needed to raise for this…. We understand it was pretty much all public dollars rather than private dollars that have been raised for that purpose.

Again, while we welcome them, we can't be directing our potential partners to do this or that. All of our potential partners are going to have to move forward in the knowledge that they need to bring new resources, new partnership equity, to the table to make the project work.

J. Kwan: The SFU proposal, at least when I was with government…. Yes, the capital dollars were to come from the capital envelope of Advanced Education for SFU, but the operating dollars for the facility, for the institution, once it's completed…. All of the operating was to be paid for by SFU. That makes the sustainability of the Woodwards project viable in the long term. As you know, hon. Chair, it isn't the issue around the capital investment per se, but rather it's the long-term operating that will make the difference. SFU was going to bring the operating dollars to the table, and that makes the Woodwards project viable on a long-term, sustainable basis. Is it the intent of government to sell off the affordable housing component, or is it the intent of government to maintain that as part of its work under B.C. Housing?

J. Kwan: When the minister says he has no plan for that, that is to sell the housing component of the Woodwards project. Am I correct in understanding that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is correct. The affordable housing component we would not be selling off. It would be market housing in that case.

J. Kwan: I'm glad to have that clarification from the minister. That's exactly where I'm going — to make sure that it is not the vision of this government to forgo the affordable housing component of the Woodwards project and see it go market. The minister has confirmed that, so I'm pleased around that. I would urge the minister, though, to go back and check with Advanced Education on the SFU partnership component. This is actually very important for the viability of the Woodwards project.

My understanding was that SFU was to come to the table and provide for all operational dollars for the arts precinct with the Woodwards development. If that is the case, that's significant savings for the government on the whole, albeit in a different government envelope — significant savings for the government on the operating front with respect to its operating dollars and operating budget for Advanced Education. Perhaps that development could still proceed. Perhaps that development, as envisioned, could still proceed. I'm not suggesting that other partners shouldn't be brought to the table. I know that B.C. Housing staff, when we were in government, were working very hard to try and bring other private partners to the table for the Woodwards project, to make it viable for the community economically and culturally and of course, most important of all, to make the community stable once again. The Woodwards Building is seen to be an icon, if you will, or a landmark, if you will, to provide stability for the residents in that community and for the businesses in that community.

When can we expect the work of the Woodwards project, in terms of creation of partnerships, to be completed? Is there a broad time line that the minister is looking at — half a year, a year?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, just to address the member's preamble, in theory Simon Fraser would have brought $40 million to $45 million in new capital in the previous project. That never advanced beyond the stage of theory from anything we have seen on the housing project side of this equation.

In terms of when something will be an announceable for Woodwards, again, it's very difficult to predict when we remain in discussions with potential partners on the project. I know that with the former government, one of the things they always did early in negotiations was set out a date when they wanted to conclude them, thereby always placing themselves in the worst possible bargaining position as those discussions proceeded.

We're not going to do that. We're going to work with our partners, whether it's the city of Vancouver or the greater Vancouver housing authority or the private sector — whoever our potential partners may be. Those discussions continue as we speak. They will continue, and they'll continue until they reach fruition, which will be a fiscally sustainable project that will work for the city of Vancouver, work for the downtown east

side and certainly work for the many people who will enjoy a revitalized Woodwards Building.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps wanting to imply that somehow the previous government was fiscally irresponsible pertaining to the Woodwards project, in the development. Again, I remind the minister that the same set of staff that the previous government had been working with, the current government is working with now in terms of developing the Woodwards project. Of course, on the fiscal side, with all due respect, yes, the market has changed since that time, but the deals that were put on the table and negotiated with the previous government were sound, fiscally responsible deals. I hope the minister will take time to review that information and talk with his staff to get clarification on the fiscal side of the Woodwards project.

The minister said he would not sell off the housing component of the Woodwards project. Will the minister, then, also advise the House if it is the government's intention to sell off the commercial side of the Woodwards project? Are there plans to do that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, to address the preamble to the question, yes indeed, we do still have the same excellent, professional, highly competent staff that the previous administration enjoyed. However, we do have a new and improved group of politicians who are leading the housing area now. I think we're all probably relieved with respect to that.

In terms of the commercial component in the Woodwards Building, as has always been the case, including in the original project, the intention has always been for the sale of the commercial portions of that project.

J. Kwan: Perhaps the minister himself and his Liberal cronies would be the ones that are actually relieved by the fact that they're at the helm, because the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, the community group that deals with affordable housing issues for the province, has this to say about the minister's announcement of cancelling a thousand units of affordable housing. This was sent on March 13, 2002. The headline is: "Liberals Cancel 1,000 Units of Affordable Housing While Wait-lists Grow." Taking a paragraph from the press release, it reads:

I would ask the minister to please not take too much comfort in his decision to cancel a thousand units of affordable housing, because that's left a thousand people, feasibly, or perhaps more who would otherwise get affordable housing from this province and who will now not be able to because of the cancellation of those units. The Tenants Rights Action Coalition surely has a different message for the minister on that score.

The minister talks about private partnerships, and I think he said the private component of the Woodwards project will be looking for partners, but not…. I'm sorry, I didn't catch whether or not the minister said whether they'd be selling parts of the land space, the air space, for private development. Will they be selling it off, or are they looking at a leasehold arrangement, or are they looking at all the combinations? I'm sorry. Maybe the minister did answer, but I didn't catch it.

The other question I have for the minister is about the private side. I've had people approach me — film industry representatives — who are interested in becoming involved with the Woodwards project, perhaps putting forward investment dollars, because they actually see that project as a critical piece to the development of the film industry for British Columbia.

Has the minister engaged in any discussions with the film industry on that front?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member references the comments of Vanessa Geary and the TRAC organization. The other thing I recall from the media interviews with respect to this was, I think, a sense of relief and appreciation on behalf of that organization that this government had authorized the completion of about 2,000 housing units that were under construction in British Columbia at the time. I put the 1,702 under review last October. So certainly, in terms of balance, I think…. We've had a very good relationship with Vanessa and her organization. I certainly intend to continue to enjoy a good relationship with the organization. I thought their comments, while appearing one-sided from the member's comments, were actually pretty balanced. I do look forward to working with them and with the non-profit societies, and so on, in trying to achieve their objectives in the future.

In terms of the broader issue of exactly what might happen in the Woodwards Building, one of the keys to developing a project that's going to work for the province in a fiscally sustainable way is to be flexible and innovative in the kinds of things that we would look at.

If the film industry, the commercial sector, the market housing sector, the non-profit housing sector or any of those groups and others want to come forward with innovative proposals for the Woodwards Building, we welcome them. We're going to work with the city of Vancouver particularly on this, but certainly not exclusively on this. A range of partners could come

into play on the Woodwards Building, and we welcome the thoughts and the proposals of all of them.

In relation to the film industry, I'm advised that the film industry has at least some space in the Woodwards Building. We are currently engaged in discussions around longer-term leases with the film industry. That's a good example of the kind of flexibility and innovation we might bring to bear in making this very important piece of the revitalization of downtown Vancouver, particularly the downtown east side of Vancouver, a reality.

J. Kwan: I don't doubt that the Tenants Rights Action Coalition would want to work cooperatively with any government that wants to provide for and develop affordable housing. They're strong advocates on behalf of British Columbians in the areas of affordable housing and tenants' rights. They are a welcome voice, I think, for British Columbians in this context.

I don't doubt for a minute that they would want to work cooperatively with government, but I hope the minister will take to heart what they have said to the government. The headline of the press release that they have sent out reads: "Liberals Cancel 1,000 Units of Affordable Housing While Wait-lists Grow."

I can read the whole press release onto the record, but I presume that I don't need to. It does recognize that the government is proceeding with 700 units from the frozen 1,700 units, but then it goes on to talk about 1,000 units that the government has cancelled and their concern around that.

The reason I raise this is that while the minister says he values the work of the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and will work cooperatively with TRAC, I hope he shows his sentiments not just through words but rather through action.

The minister celebrates that he's able to maintain 700 units of the 1,700 units of affordable housing that were approved, allocated and funded by the previous government, but that celebration stops short at 1,000 units of lost affordable housing. We need, and the minister needs, to be reminded of that.

I hope he will go to the cabinet table and advocate for these units to be reinstated. Not only that, but I hope new affordable housing units will be announced in the future — not the unfreezing of the 1,700 units, of which 700 will proceed and 1,000 are being cancelled, but rather that the Liberal government will approve new affordable housing units and inject them into the housing system in British Columbia to reduce the 10,000 people already on the wait-list. The list is still growing, as the days and the years continue, of the shortage of affordable housing that is critically needed throughout British Columbia.

The film industry on the Woodwards project. I'm glad that the film industry is leasing space at the Woodwards project, because they have mentioned to me on numerous occasions their interest in the project.

The reason I ask is simply this: if the minister is not already engaged in those discussions with the film industry, I have some names to forward to make sure that engagement is in fact in place and to create and enhance the partnership opportunities to make the Woodwards project viable. I have already asked some of these folks to contact B.C. Housing; I'm not sure if they have.

It sounds like maybe they did, and I'm glad, because I think that is an important industry. It's one that actually does a lot of work in the downtown east side community. The Woodwards project is one that I know they are interested in, and perhaps some investment dollars could be sought from that.

The minister has not answered the question of whether or not the government is looking at selling off any of the air parcels, air space, of the Woodwards project. I assume the answer is yes, given his vague words around flexibility. That seems to be the choice of words with this government: access and flexibility. I assume that the answer is yes.

There's no hidden agenda around this question. I'm just curious. Are air parcels available to be sold? Is that the intention of this government with the Woodwards project? If so, there may well be others who would like to come forward, if that's the intent of government — to invite participation from that point of view. If that's not on the agenda, then simply say so, and make sure that people understand that it's the leasehold investment that the government is looking at and to invite participants to come forward on that front.

Previously, in speaking with the federal government around the Woodwards project, the federal government had also expressed keen interest, especially in relation to the Vancouver agreement development, in investing some dollars into the Woodwards project. Has the minister spoken with the federal government in terms of federal dollars being invested into the Woodwards project?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are, I guess, a few aspects to the question that the member puts forward. First of all, I just want to be very clear about this. We've talked about how the downstream subsidy arrangement works on these projects. The 1,702 units that the member said the previous government funded…. That's incorrect; they did not. The subsidies don't kick in until the projects are completed and the units are occupied. It's only at that point that the contractual subsidies are engaged. That's true for any of the projects that we have completed in the last several months or a year, as well as the 700 that are coming on stream as a consequence of the decision that was announced a couple of weeks ago. I think that's an important point to note.

I don't want to revisit some of the previous rhetorical debate that we had around…. You know, it doesn't really matter who announces a project. Rather, it's more important to know who's going to pay for it, and that's us. It's even more important to note that in fact, it's the taxpayer of British Columbia — not B.C. Liberals, not NDP — who pays for these things. It's the hard-pressed taxpayer of British Columbia.

The member's second question around the air parcels. It has always been the proposal, including in the original project, that the air parcels be sold. That's a part of the project. Again, we are looking for new, innovative possibilities and new, innovative partnerships to make this project work for British Columbians and for Vancouverites.

Yes, we have had discussions with the federal government with respect to the Woodwards Building. We are going to need to engage the energies and the resources of a range of partners, including the federal government as represented by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There have been discussions with them.

The key here is public-private partnership. This is a very big project, a very important project. We're going to have a project which works both socially and economically when it is concluded.

J. Kwan: The one piece I'd like to add to the minister's statement is that yes, under the previous administration, the dollars don't roll out for the projects until they are completed, until the subsidies are required when occupancy takes place. The fact of the matter is that the previous government, in its approval of the 1,700 units of affordable housing, had gone through all of the processes around that in terms of Treasury Board approvals, and so on and so forth. Those dollars are meant to be there for affordable housing. It was accounted for in that regard.

Yes, I acknowledge the fact that when dollars are being spent in housing and, for that matter, any government program, those are taxpayers' dollars. There's no doubt about it. And you know what? The majority of people in British Columbia support the investment of government in affordable housing. Polls have been done in that regard. British Columbians understand the need for affordable housing and the investment from government into it, and 91 percent of the people that were surveyed support continued provincial investment in affordable housing.

I think British Columbians more and more are coming to understand, as well, that housing is part of the preventative arm of health care costs, criminal justice costs and other costs that other systems within government would have to carry. They understand. That is why they understand that investment. The previous government understood that as well. That's why there were strong commitments from the previous government in the area of housing.

I hope this government will come to a realization that the investment is sound. The minister keeps saying that housing is not sustainable somehow. The question is: can we afford not to build affordable housing in British Columbia? It's not a question of whether we should build housing at all. We should definitely be building housing. The question more to the point is: can we afford not to invest in affordable housing in British Columbia? The costs will come back to haunt us, as we see in the health care system and in other areas within the government.

The minister says he has spoken with CMHC on the Woodwards project and their partnership, perhaps, with them on it. Is that discussed under the Vancouver agreement initiative, or is it just a housing initiative that the minister is engaging in those discussions?

Hon. G. Abbott: To address the member's preamble and the contention that in fact they had funded this, let's keep it simple. There's a big difference between ordering a meal and paying for it. This is a government which rightly takes account of its ability to pay for a meal before it orders it up. The previous administration was great for ordering up big steak dinners but never giving, I don't think, proper due to the concern of the average taxpayer in having to pay for that.

I've been through this a few times now, but I'm always happy to revisit it for the edification of the member. The budget line which I inherited upon becoming minister responsible for housing was going to see the budget expenditure line rise from $126 million in fiscal '01-02 to $170 million in fiscal '04-05. As we look at this in terms of not ordering up a meal we can't pay for, we have worked very hard, and we have developed both a model and a sustainable budget line which will ensure that we will able to meet some of the needs, at least, of the most vulnerable in society, and we will be able to do it in a fiscally sustainable and responsible manner.

We had our discussion early on about the importance of housing to health, and I agree. There is no question that safe, secure, affordable housing is key to the health of British Columbians. We do intend to address that challenge on the non-market side, which we've been talking about, through program dollars targeted to the most vulnerable in society — the frail elderly and so on, as we talked about previously — and also address the very critical need for more market rental housing in British Columbia. Again — and I dealt with this at some length a couple of weeks ago — we need to eliminate barriers to investment in market housing, and we need to get rid of regulations which inhibit or constrain investment in new market housing.

J. Kwan: If the minister wants to engage in debate about what we can and cannot afford, we can launch once again into the whole debate about the big tax breaks that this government has given to the wealthiest British Columbians and the big corporations before they even looked at the books. If the minister wants me to embark on that road, we certainly can. We've been there before, and I'm happy to travel that road once again. Let's just be clear on the question around affordability and ordering up a meal whether or not you can afford to pay it.

The fact of the matter is: the $2 billion tax breaks that this government had given before they even looked at the books could well have paid for the housing units that we're talking about — the thousand units

that have been cancelled. The minister knows that; I know the minister knows that. If the minister wants to challenge me to engage in that debate, we could, or we can stay focused and engage in the housing estimates. I'm flexible, to use the words of this government. I am flexible, and I can meet that challenge if the minister wishes to embark on that debate as well.

In terms of the status of the Woodwards project, I'm wondering: has the government paid the Woodwards co-op society the project development funds for them to continue to work on the development of the Woodwards initiative?

Hon. G. Abbott: Like the member, I would delight, actually, in talking about how the tax cuts which have been initiated in British Columbia — I think courageously — by this government have been a tremendous advance in our opportunities to provide market rental housing in British Columbia among many other things. I don't think it's any accident that we have seen both housing construction and housing sales really take off since the election of our government in May of 2001. In fact, what we have seen is British Columbia leading the nation once again with respect to housing sales and housing construction.

Obviously, that's reflective of the confidence that has been instilled in the public of British Columbia by again seeing some prospect of being rewarded for their wages rather than the old Albanian socialism-in-one-country route of the former administration, where every dollar was plucked out of the taxpayer's pocket just as quickly as it went into it. Now people again have an opportunity to work hard and be rewarded for their effort here in British Columbia.

I am completely proud of the tax cuts that have been undertaken. It will be a critical element in leading us out of the grim morass that the former government brought us to in their ten years of incompetence and mismanagement. If she wants to engage on tax cuts, I'm very happy to do that. I hate to say this because you've scolded me before, Mr. Chair, about my rhetorical flights around fast ferries, but that might be another little element that I'd want to inject into the discussion. I know the member opposite delights in those kinds of discussions of that particular element too. We can do it all here, I know, but I'm going to be guided by you, because you bring that sober kind of demeanour to the House that's so important in keeping us all in line, so I celebrate that as well.

In terms of the member's question around the cooperative society, we certainly look forward to working and consulting with the cooperative society and indeed others that may have some constructive ideas for the future of the Woodwards Building.

J. Kwan: The minister talks about the tax debate. Let me just make one point around that. The fact of the matter is that the previous government brought in the lowest tax rates for the lowest-income British Columbians. The minister knows that. He knows that the difference between the previous administration and this new-era Liberal government is that they have chosen to give tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations. Who's paying for those? The people who would lose out on the housing — those 1,000 cancelled units of affordable housing that this government keeps on saying they can't afford to sustain — are the people who are paying for it. They're not the only ones. The list goes on and on and on. At the risk of disembarking on the housing estimates, I won't go on with that list. The fact of the matter on the tax rates issue is that the lowest tax rates were already afforded to the lowest income brackets by the previous administration.

The minister talked about the society, the Woodwards Cooperative Housing Association, and whether or not the government is working with them. I asked the question of whether or not the government had provided the project development funds to them. Has that been paid to the society? That was my specific question. A simple yes or no on that question will suffice.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, just for the edification of the member, in terms of tax cuts, I'm delighted and proud to be part of a government that provided a 25 percent tax cut for all British Columbians, regardless of what income level they are at. While it may be inconsistent with the Albanian model of socialism in one country, providing a tax break for higher-income earners is clearly a critical piece in revitalizing investment in the province. I know the member fundamentally agrees with that. She is still seized of a notion of class conflict and class division that I think is better suited to the nineteenth century rather than the twenty-first, but that's part of their ideology. I suppose one has to respect that they continue to be gripped by that particularly outmoded view of the world.

I'm also happy to note, particularly given the member's comments, that British Columbia now has the lowest base personal income tax for those British Columbians who earn less than $60,000 — the lowest in Canada. The commitment we have shown for those people is absolutely remarkable.

In terms of the question of how many housing units this or that would buy, if we look at the fast ferries project — which I know the member is still very proud of — in our estimate that would have produced something like 5,000 new units of housing had it been directed that way instead of the rather less productive way that it was.

In terms of the society, we don't anticipate that there will be any need for additional provincial support with respect to ongoing consultation with that group. We are looking forward to constructive proposals from all corners. Certainly, we will be intensively evaluating those proposals as they come forward.

J. Kwan: You know that the minister is running for cover when he starts to call me names. He likes to invoke the notion that I have a socialist approach when I

advocate for housing. You know he is running for cover when he invokes name-calling.

I've said this before. If the minister wants to call me a socialist because I advocate strongly for safe, secure, affordable housing for all British Columbians, go ahead. Call me any other name. I couldn't care less what you call me. For any other advocate who's out there trying to advocate for safe, secure, affordable housing, if you want to attach them with yet another name, go ahead and do that too. If that's the belief that they have and this minister takes issue with it, and by taking issue with it, he's going to call them all kinds of different names, go ahead and do that. If it makes the minister happy, if it makes him chuckle, smile and be happy, go ahead and do that, because I know the difference.

Yes, I advocate. I proudly advocate for safe, secure, affordable housing. There's no doubt about that, hon. Chair. When I first came here with my family, I lived in a basement suite — 700 square feet, a family of eight. Safe, secure housing was not always an option for me and my family. I understand what that's like and how it feels to be in a situation where, in one day, you may find yourself out there on the street, homeless. I know what that feels like. I have lived that experience, so I know what it feels like for British Columbians who are struggling now to find safe, secure, affordable housing.

Yes, I'm a strong advocate, and I am proud to be a strong advocate for safe, secure, affordable housing for all British Columbians. For a province as rich as ours, I do believe there is no reason — no reason at all — why anybody should be sleeping under a bridge. There are no reasons.

If the minister delights in the idea that somehow I have this ideology within me and delights in calling me a socialist or any other name, go ahead. If it makes you happy, attach any name you want because, quite frankly, I couldn't care less. Neither, I think, would the advocates who are out there doing this day in and day out.

I don't think anybody who sees a person who sleeps on the street would say: "Gee, you know, if we provided a housing unit for that person, those socialists are going to damn the entire province." I highly doubt that British Columbians will have those thoughts cross their minds. I think that by and large, British Columbians are compassionate people. The thing that makes us distinctive as Canadians is the fact that we value our compassion. We want to share what we have with others, collectively — not just to say, "We can hoard everything for ourselves," but rather to say: "Make sure everybody else has equal access and opportunities as well." There, too, their quality of life improves.

If that ideology offends this minister, I make no apologies for it, because I do believe that all British Columbians should have equal rights and equal access and, in the area of housing, safe, secure, affordable housing. That is my fundamental belief.

It makes not just social sense; it makes economic sense too. It saves government money. On average, 33 percent more is spent for those who are homeless in the areas of health care, criminal justice and social services. If they don't have housing, it increases other costs for government. It makes financial sense to invest in safe, secure, affordable housing.

In terms of the tax scheme, I support progressive tax schemes, not regressive tax schemes. I don't support taking moneys away from people who need it the most to pay it to the people who need it the least. If we can afford to — great. Pay everybody. Give everybody a huge tax break. If you're faced with a financial crunch, then I would advocate not to take it from the people who can least afford it. That, too, is my ideology. Yes, I believe in that, and I'm proud of those beliefs.

On the housing question, we were just canvassing the status of the Woodwards project in terms of what's going to happen there and whether or not affordable housing would be kept. I'm glad to hear that the affordable housing scheme is still intact, by and large, although the time line is fuzzied. There's no time line around that.

The number of units targeted for the Woodwards project, which was, I believe, 226 units of co-op housing — is it still the intent of government to see the Woodwards project be developed with some 200 units under this perhaps revised scheme that the government's looking at?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always delightful and remarkable to see how, through these very complex and circuitous routes, we arrive at agreement and the estimates become, effectively, a kind of love-in around certain ideas. I think that's very good. Certainly, like the member opposite, we are strong supporters of safe, secure, affordable housing. We believe, as well, that housing is a key determinant in the health of British Columbians. Certainly, the policies we've undertaken are reflective of that.

Where I guess we differ is around, for example, the importance of having a healthy, dynamic, vibrant investment climate where people will want to invest their capital, their energy, their ideas and their efforts in affordable housing — market rental housing, in fact. That, we believe, is critical if we are to address the needs of many British Columbians as they attempt to secure what's fundamental in everyone's lives: safe, secure and affordable housing. We believe that the government alone cannot provide for the housing of all its citizens. We need to have a dynamic, attractive marketplace in which people will want to invest in affordable market rental housing. It is only through that route that we will ever be able to meet the market, to meet the housing demands of British Columbians.

Also, through the both important and absolutely vital step of tax cuts and the program we have set out in the housing area, I believe we have achieved that difficult and occasionally elusive balance between economic and social justice. I think that has been, to date, an achievement of this government. I'm sure we will

look forward to achieving even greater things in the years ahead through the economic stimulus that was added by tax cuts and the very judicious, very careful, very cautious expenditure of every single tax dollar we take from the pockets of British Columbia's taxpayers. I'm very optimistic on that count.

I think the member is trying to ask me what exactly Woodwards will look like after we have completed a partnership agreement. Again, it perhaps shouldn't come as any surprise that the exact complexion of the project or the development will be very much dependent on the partners that come into play with respect to it and the resources those partners bring to the table. Again, we are open to flexible, innovative ideas on how to achieve the successful redevelopment and revitalization of the Woodwards Building. We don't know exactly what it's going to look like, but that's no different than any other project, whether it's market or non-market. We will dot the i's and cross the t's as we conclude those agreements with our public and private sector partners.

J. Kwan: The minister would have you believe that under the previous administration, affordable housing in British Columbia was developed without partnerships. If the minister checks with his staff, he'll know that the 700 units of affordable housing he announced were projects developed under the previous government with extensive partnerships in a variety of ways, whether it be with local government, church groups, non-profit societies, the aboriginal community, health authorities and so on. Those partnerships were there, and yes, we ought to continue to work towards developing those partnerships. There's no doubt about that.

The Woodwards project, I gather from the minister, is one that this government is committed to. He has said they're not going to sell the land. He has said they're going to see affordable housing there. It's not going to be market housing. On the commercial side, they're looking at a variety of partners, whether it be leasehold or a share in ownership. Those will be the things the provincial government is looking at, and I'm glad. I'm glad the government is not planning on selling Woodwards, and I'm glad the minister is not planning on bringing market housing to the Woodwards project. I think the co-op model is one that is sound. It would bring mixed housing into the community and revitalize the community, so I'm pleased to hear that from the minister.

I would offer this as well. If there is any place where I could be of assistance to make the Woodwards project come together for the community, irrespective of party lines, I want to extend my hand to the minister to work with him to develop the Woodwards project, to see it as a positive contribution for every single member of the community. As the minister knows, it is a very important project in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I'd like now to turn to another project in the community that is of significance in my riding. That is the CBA project, the Chinese Benevolent Association. I see that the project has been cancelled. Could the minister advise of the status of the CBA project?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to clarify the point around the sale of the Woodwards Building, the member is taking some liberties there with my comments. There has always been, even in the original proposal, a part of the project which was market-oriented and involved market-commercial components. The intention was always to sell those portions to help finance other parts of the project. The affordable housing side, again, to be clear, will in all likelihood be done through a non-profit sponsorship by a society. We remain open to that. Perhaps the member understood that. I just wanted to make sure the record reflected that.

In terms of the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver and their proposal, I'm advised that the equity contributions that were brought by the partners in that case simply didn't measure up to the partnership equity that was brought into play in the 20 projects we announced would proceed.

J. Kwan: Does that mean that the CBA project is now dead, completely gone for consideration?

Hon. G. Abbott: Like other projects that were not proceeding, the Chinese Benevolent Association certainly can go back to the health authorities, the city of Vancouver and other partners they had in the project and see if they can strengthen the proposal that they could bring to B.C. Housing. Again, this is no different than any other project that did not proceed. We've put out the challenge to find ways to strengthen the proposals, and we welcome continuing discussions with them.

J. Kwan: Were there any projects on the list of cancelled projects that brought equity to the table but were not awarded units?

Hon. G. Abbott: All of the projects brought some equity to the table. Comparatively, though…. There is a continuum here, from some projects which I think are relatively close to being approvable to a number where the equity contribution is very slim. You can't generalize on those 17 projects. I think that in one or two cases, in fact, the housing societies themselves asked for the approval from B.C. Housing to be withdrawn — either because they didn't feel that they were ready to proceed at this time or whatever. But typically, there is a kind of continuum from those who are near to being in a position for approval to those who are a long distance from it.

J. Kwan: Is there a minimum threshold of some sort for the equity? The minister said that virtually all projects brought some sort of equity to the table.

I recognize that sometimes societies come forward and ask for their projects to be withdrawn. I've seen

that before. The minister keeps on mentioning that. I understand that happens from time to time. But is there some sort of minimum threshold, then, in terms of equity before the minister would consider their project for approval?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is no strict rule around how a project would be partnered. In different parts of the province, for example, land values can be quite different. They can be quite different between the north and downtown Vancouver — a big difference.

Where I think some generality might be attached to how we proceed is, again, going back to the issue of how these projects will be funded. This is the case in the former government's day, as in ours; the projects provincially are funded by ongoing subsidies of the units involved. What we have to look at, both at B.C. Housing and in the ministry, is the units that are being delivered and at what downstream subsidy cost. Again, they have to fit within our sustainable funding envelope.

J. Kwan: Welcome. I think this is my first time having you as the Chair in this House. I think we had you in the other House for a short period of time.

The minister says that there's no minimum threshold. I understand that, because different communities have, perhaps, different land values, and the contribution from a particular society for a particular project may vary. But is there then a percentage of equity within the entire project that would be taken into consideration? Is there some sort of ballpark that the government is looking at?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, there is no arbitrary percentage figure attached to this. Again, we have to measure need and demand within the communities and weigh that against the partnership equity which is engaged in any given project.

J. Kwan: In terms of targets within housing initiatives, I know that from time to time, governments look at targets — as an example, towards women. Governments would want to develop affordable housing that's targeted for women only or for the aboriginal community — those kinds of things. I know some of the projects that were approved from the 700 units that were announced a couple of weeks ago included those kinds of targets. Is it the government's intention to still continue with such targets?

Hon. G. Abbott: To answer the member's question, yes, we believe that the resources of government need to be targeted to those who are most vulnerable in our society. Again, politics is the allocation of scarce resources. What we are doing here is ensuring that every taxpayer dollar that we secure is maximized in terms of its public benefit, particularly for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We have talked at some length about that.

To reference a couple of the projects which we authorized to proceed almost two weeks ago now, the YWCA project on East Hastings in Vancouver is a remarkable project in terms of the funding that was raised. I think it's a very remarkable project and obviously very much targeted to women at risk. Similarly, among the 20 that were authorized to proceed is the Lu'Ma Native Housing Society on East 8th Avenue in Vancouver — again targeted, obviously, to first nations. Where those kind of innovative partnerships come to us, it's very, very enticing and positive — the kind of proposals that are put forward.

I think one of the best of the projects that we approved close to two weeks ago was the Salvation Army, B.C. South Division project on Homer Street — 30 units. The partnership equity that came to the table there was remarkable for those 200 units — about $14 million to $15 million in partnership equity brought to bear in a project that cost us around $17 million to $18 million. For the provincial cost of about $3 million, we secure affordable housing, or temporary housing at least, for the homeless at risk and those making the transition from being homeless-at-risk to secure, affordable housing — whether in the market or non-market sector. That Salvation Army project is an absolutely remarkable one, as well, in terms of the partnership equity that is brought to bear to achieve the social good.

Those three projects are among the best examples of how the province can target its dollars strategically with the private sector, the non-profits, the health authorities, and so on, to ensure that we get the maximum bang, the maximum public good, from every taxpayer dollar that we expend.

J. Kwan: I just want to go back to the Woodwards project for one minute — thinking back to the comments from the minister. The minister advised that the affordable housing component will likely be proceeding with a non-profit society. Right now, as I understand it, the Woodwards co-op, as a society, is working on the development of the Woodwards project.

Is it the government's intention that the society would actually change? Is that what the minister was referring to, or is it just that he was already referring to the Woodwards housing co-op?

Hon. G. Abbott: We cannot nor will we tell the non-profit sector what they should do in terms of proposals. I really want to emphasize this, as I have previously. We are looking for new, innovative proposals from the non-profit sector. We're not saying that the cooperative association was out of the picture at all. We hope they remain very much engaged.

J. Kwan: Is it the intent of government to invite other non-profits to see whether or not they'd be interested in developing or being a sponsor group for the Woodwards co-op?

Hon. G. Abbott: We do intend to continue to work with the Woodwards co-op on this project. Again, we aren't excluding anyone from the discussions of the future of the Woodwards Building. I'm sure the member would not want us to exclude anyone from the discussions of the future of the Woodwards Building. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but we don't know exactly what the outcome of our discussions will be with respect to the Woodwards Building. If we knew precisely what the outcome of the discussions was going to be, we wouldn't have to have the discussions because we'd already know the outcome. The very nature of discussions is that you consider innovative proposals and try to make them work from both an economic and a social perspective.

We do hope that we can continue to work with the Woodwards cooperative, but at this point we are not excluding anyone from the discussion of the future of the Woodwards Building.

J. Kwan: When the minister says they're not excluding anyone from the discussion of the Woodwards project, is he talking about the affordable housing component? I'm just trying to get clarification on this, because right now there already is a non-profit society working on the Woodwards affordable housing component. They are called the Woodwards Cooperative Housing Society.

Now, on the private component, yes, I understand that the government will be looking for the creation of partnerships on that front. I completely understand that, but for the sponsoring society for the Woodwards co-op, what is the intent of the government? Is it that the Woodwards Cooperative Housing Society themselves have decided to pull out and say: "Hey, we can't handle this project, and we're going to hand it off to somebody else"?

Am I understanding correctly? Is it not the intent of government to say to the sponsoring society that we're now going to open up the process for other housing societies to see whether or not they want to sponsor the Woodwards affordable housing development?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to get some understanding of what the member is saying here. Is the member saying that if other community groups or other housing societies come forward with ideas, we should exclude them and should not talk to them? Is that what's being asked here?

J. Kwan: I'm asking the minister his intention with respect to that. Is it the government's intention to say that the Woodwards development on the affordable housing side is now opened up for every sponsoring society to come forward with a proposal? Is that the government's intention?

Hon. G. Abbott: Our intention is to have an affordable housing component to this project that works both socially and economically. We do hope to work with the Woodwards Cooperative Housing Association around this point, but we are not going to exclude any group from the table in terms of bringing new ideas or innovations into the mix.

If the member is suggesting that we should exclude other housing societies or community groups from bringing forward suggestions or innovations with respect to the Woodwards Building, I'm glad to hear that suggestion, but it is not the government's intention to do so. If the member wants to suggest such exclusion, I'll gladly bear her comments in mind.

J. Kwan: My question is to the government. It is now the government's decision as to how they're going to proceed with the Woodwards project, so I'm trying to canvass for clarity on what the government's intention is in this development.

What I heard the minister say is that they're not excluding other sponsoring housing societies from perhaps putting a bid in for sponsoring the Woodwards project. Is the government intending to go forward with an open bid process?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are not excluding anyone from the consultations around the Woodwards Building. I'm not sure where the member is going here. I'm presuming she's trying to score some points with somebody here.

The critical element, again…. There's no mystery about this. Because the Woodwards Building is a very big challenge, we have to try to develop a partnership with the private sector, with the city of Vancouver, possibly with the greater Vancouver regional district. Who knows who all our possible project partners might be in this?

We haven't found, to this point, a partnership agreement that works. We are not excluding anyone from the discussions, from the consultation, from bringing forward proposals. That's the last thing we would want to do.

If the member is proposing that, I'm glad to hear that suggestion on her part, but we're not a government that is going to exclude people from discussions in their community as it is being reshaped.

J. Kwan: The minister is, of course, highly suspicious, I think, at all times. He mentioned that I'm trying to score points. There are no points to be scored here. The Woodwards project is one that is paramount to the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It is a project that I have been working on for more than ten years, before I got elected to city council, since I've been elected to city council and since I've been elected as the MLA for the riding. It is absolutely vital that the project proceeds with safe, secure, affordable housing for the development of the downtown east side community, for the Victory Square community, for the Gastown community, for International Village, for the Chinatown community — for all these residents who care

about the economic, social and cultural development of our community. That's why I ask these questions.

Maybe the minister can put his suspicious mind to rest for just one moment. There is no hidden agenda here. I am just simply trying to get clarification. What is the intent of this government in the development of the Woodwards project? I heard the minister say it was one society. Under normal circumstances, when you have a society sponsoring a project, government works with that particular sponsoring society and then proceeds. If the government is suggesting that in this instance the sponsoring society for the Woodwards project is opened up — the process is being opened up, and being invited…. That's what he's saying. He's inviting other sponsoring societies to come forward with a partnership.

I'm trying to get clarification on what the intent of this government is with respect to that project, so he could simply put his suspicious mind to rest and just answer the question straight up around that. That's all I'm trying to understand. What is the intent of the government with respect to that?

It is an important point. The community themselves — right? — are wondering: what is the government's intent with respect to the Woodwards project? They know it's been cancelled, with the 1,000-unit allocation they formerly got, and that the project is not proceeding at this time. People are wondering: is it still the intent of government to proceed with that project in some way in the future — and, hopefully, in the near future rather than the distant future? Is it the intent of the government to sell the project to a private individual and forgo the affordable housing component? This is why I'm glad the minister is saying that, no, the government is not going to forgo the affordable housing component that it was going to maintain as the development of Woodwards.

These are important questions that members of the community have been asking, even those who are outside the community who care about what goes on in that area and want to see the revitalization of that area. That is the premise on which I'm asking the questions, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the Woodwards project, I think I heard the minister say that he is not opening up a call for proposal for sponsors, if you will, for the Woodwards project but that if other people have equity that could be brought to the table or suggestions on the sponsoring side of the non-profit, affordable housing side, the government is prepared to entertain all of these proposals.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think we've been over this ground, frankly, but if we're trying to grind out till dinnertime or something, I'm happy to do that. We've been over this before.

I have said and will continue to say that a safe, secure, affordable housing component to the Woodwards project is still part of the plan here. I hope that's clear enough. The government's intent with respect to Woodwards was laid out in a letter to the society of a couple of weeks ago. I think it's straightforward enough.

Again, as we have discussed at some length, in the government's view the original proposal, with a cost of some $90 million, is too expensive. It's not on. As a consequence, we have to go back, metaphorically speaking, to the drawing board to talk to the city of Vancouver, the private sector, the non-profit housing society, and so on, about whether there's a new partnership agreement that's sound and sustainable and that we can work with and move the project forward.

J. Kwan: The city of Vancouver had approved bonuses for the Woodwards project — heritage bonuses and the like. Is it the intent of government to maintain those bonus provisions from the city of Vancouver? That is, then, not to change or jeopardize the heritage bonus that the city of Vancouver had awarded to the building for its development. You would only be able to maintain those bonus provisions if you actually met the criteria of the city for maintaining, let's say, the heritage component of the building. Is it the intent of the government to still preserve those bonus provisions from the city of Vancouver?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is yes. Our discussions with senior city officials in the city of Vancouver do continue to include discussions about bonusing for the heritage provisions in that building. We expect — and I guess in no small measure it is my responsibility as heritage minister — that the heritage features will continue to be celebrated with respect to that project.

J. Kwan: Will the parkade component that the city of Vancouver owns off the Woodwards parkade be part of the discussion for the development of Woodwards?

Hon. G. Abbott: The parkade across the street on Cordova is owned by the city of Vancouver. That parkade is part of the discussions around the redevelopment of that area.

J. Kwan: In this reshaping of the Woodwards project, is there an intention from the government to develop the parkade into housing? Is that part of the discussion with the city right now?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted, the parkade is owned by the city of Vancouver. As a member of this assembly I can't — nor can B.C. Housing, as we don't own it — make definitive statements about the future of the parkade. I'm happy to say this: obviously, there is a parking issue for the Woodwards Building as housing units are developed there, so it's part of the broad look at how we're going to manage those issues in that corner of Vancouver.

J. Kwan: What about the empty lot behind the main Woodwards Building — the empty lot that fronts, I

believe, Cordova Street on the other side behind Woodwards? I believe it's owned by the province. If I'm incorrect on that, the minister could correct me. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that site is owned by the province as well. First, maybe we could answer that question. Is it?

Hon. G. Abbott: If we're understanding the member correctly, and I believe we are, the property in question is privately owned — not by the province.

J. Kwan: I assume that when the minister says the intention is to build a Woodwards housing project, then the minister is saying that the housing development will remain on its original site. In other words, there won't be a swap-site sort of consideration to switch the development into the back of the building — the site that is now privately owned. There's no intention to swap the sites for the development of the Woodwards project.

Hon. G. Abbott: The question the member is asking is of a highly hypothetical character. We don't anticipate, at this point in time, that the scenario the member outlined will occur. Again, when B.C. Housing is attempting to work through a project with a range of partners, then we have to be receptive at all times to ideas and proposals that will enhance the opportunity to move forward. We can't anticipate what every twist and turn might be with respect to what parties may bring forward for redevelopment consideration. I don't think I can really satisfactorily answer a question which is that hypothetical in nature.

J. Kwan: I'm glad to hear from the minister that there are no intentions, at least at this time, to swap the sites. The reason I asked the question is that there is speculation in the community around the potential swapping of sites from the main building to the back lot of the Woodwards site in terms of affordable housing.

I want to ask the minister questions around the Black Thursday service plan summary in his ministry. One of the commitments concerning housing was to implement a flexible, innovative program to increase the supply of affordable housing. The minister says that the staff are working on such a plan. Could he advise the House: with whom are his staff consulting? Have they begun that consultation process yet? If so, with whom are they consulting?

Hon. G. Abbott: Like all the initiatives being undertaken both by the ministry and by B.C. Housing, we have a broad range of potential partners we want to work with. It shouldn't be a surprise, given that, as the member rightly acknowledges and as I have confirmed, we do want to ensure that our housing policies and our housing programs become something that enhances the health and well-being of the most vulnerable British Columbians.

That will involve us in cross-ministry and stakeholder discussions that will be extensive in their breadth. I expect those will be continuing on as we proceed through the years ahead. It's not something where we develop an instant formula and then are forever bound by it. This is a dynamic and important area where innovation and flexibility will be key. There are going to be a lot of discussions with partners in the months and years ahead.

J. Kwan: I'm interested in knowing which groups the minister has consulted with to date.

Hon. G. Abbott: Among the groups that we have formally consulted with and actually frequently informally consulted with, as well, around policy development would be included the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, the Canadian Home Builders Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Cooperative Housing Federation of B.C., the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the city of Vancouver, the greater Vancouver housing authority, and so on. That's a shortlist of some of the folks we've talked to, but there've certainly been many more than that.

Again, we do consider this to be a very inclusive process. We don't just talk to people who we know will always agree with us. We try to engage those who at times may have a different view of the world as well. I think, actually, we've done very well in terms of the breadth of those discussions.

J. Kwan: Could the minister — not at this time — provide a list, after the estimates are completed, of the groups he has consulted with to date on the development of the government's affordable housing program?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I'd be happy to provide a formal list. It might be somewhat longer than this one, but I think many of these are the main players.

J. Kwan: Yes, I assumed the list would be longer than what you've just named. In order to save time, if the minister can just provide that information at a later time, that would suffice.

How many FTEs are assigned to the development of the housing program for the ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to be as precise as I can. The total is 13 FTEs, and the approximate breakdown…. I'm sure the member can appreciate that there's some overlap with respect to what folks do. Generally, eight FTEs are working on the housing policy side and five on the building policy side. Again, depending on what particular issues confront the ministry, there may be some movement, obviously, between those two, but that's an approximation of the human resources we have to work with.

The Black Thursday announcement announced that the ministry would be faced with a 30 percent cut in the FTEs within the ministry. How many of these FTEs who face cuts with the government downsizing are involved with the policy component, whether it be in the housing policy or the building policy? Are they being impacted at all?

Hon. G. Abbott: The 30 percent is an across-the-board approximation of the reductions. In the housing and building policy area the reduction is a zero.

J. Kwan: In the area of staffing cuts — I think the number is 66, if I'm correct; it's 66 or 67 or something like that — where will the impacts be felt within the ministry in terms of service provision?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be helpful, I want to be sure that we're talking apples and apples here. We understood the member's earlier question to be with respect to the housing and building policy contingent that we had in the ministry. That's the 13 figure that I put forward.

It would appear from the reference to 66 or whatever that the member may be referring to B.C. Housing. It currently has an FTE component of 360. That obviously includes the management as well as the policy shops, and so on, in B.C. Housing. The reduction will probably be in the neighbourhood of 66 over three years, but B.C. Housing has not completed the core review process. There may be considerable fine-tuning with respect to that number as we get guidance around the core functions and core role of B.C. Housing.

J. Kwan: When will the ministry have its core services review completed? When will we know where those 66 FTE cuts will actually take place?

Hon. G. Abbott: The core review process will be over when the core review committee signs off its recommendations to cabinet and cabinet provides its endorsement for that. That's not something I can finalize or provide a definitive answer on today. I think we're relatively close in terms of completing that process. Again, one can't anticipate what direction we might receive.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that the minister has to bring the matters to cabinet for discussion and so on, but is there a time line — within a month or within two months? Are we looking at a longer period than that? Does the minister have a sense…?

Hon. G. Abbott: For the reasons I set out in my previous answer, we can't provide definitive dates. We expect that the core review and the implementation plan that would follow core review would likely be something that would be developed and implemented over a couple of months. Again, that's as precise as one can be. That's a guesstimate, given that we don't hold all the marbles in this particular game.

J. Kwan: The service plan with the ministry indicates, of course, partnerships with municipalities and especially with the community charter in terms of overcoming some of the challenges in housing. In fact, the B.C. Housing website states: "Municipal governments can assist in the development of new affordable housing alternatives and limit the loss of existing rental stock. For example, they can create favourable property tax policies, regulatory policies and zoning bylaws and can make land or financing available to support construction." My question to the minister is: what is meant by favourable tax policies?

Hon. G. Abbott: In the provincial context, I guess an example would be the corporation capital tax. This government has committed to eliminating the corporation capital tax for non-financial corporations. That's a very critical piece in terms of making affordable market rental housing an attractive place to invest in British Columbia. The member may disagree, but the tax cuts that this government initiated in June of 2001 are a very critical part of ensuring that people want to bring their investments back to British Columbia after a long period away, so that's important.

Also, in terms of tax policy, we certainly join with Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, and so on, in urging the federal government to look at ways in which they can eliminate barriers and provide incentives in tax policy which would encourage people to put their investment again in market rental housing.

J. Kwan: No, the minister has misunderstood me. I don't wish to embark on the provincial government's tax policy debate. We've been there.

My question is with respect to the municipal government tax policies. The website states: "Municipal governments can assist in the development of new affordable housing alternatives and limit the loss of existing rental stock. For example, they can create favourable property tax policies, regulatory policies and zoning bylaws and can make land or financing available to support construction."

I take it from this quote that the website is referring to the municipal government's tax policies and not the provincial government's. If the minister can explain the favourable tax policies in that context.

Hon. G. Abbott: I do apologize to the member. I did misunderstand her question. It's a good one.

Generally, on the municipal side of the equation…. I don't want to give the member the idea that what the federal government does and what the provincial government does are not important — I think they're vital pieces — but the member's question did reference the municipal level particularly, and it's a very good question.

Generally, one of the key factors, certainly in non-market housing, is the issue of property taxes. I'll provide the member with, I think, an excellent example of where the municipality has come forward to help make the economics of a project much more practical, and that is the Esquimalt Lions Seniors Housing Society on Lyle Street, Esquimalt. In that case, the city of Esquimalt is granting some property tax reductions to this new supportive seniors project. Again, it's one of the partnership elements which the city of Esquimalt has brought to that particular project, and it had a very beneficial impact in terms of allowing that project to proceed. That's a very good example of where the property tax element became an issue in resolving the need for affordable, supportive seniors housing in Esquimalt.

J. Kwan: Indeed, municipalities can contribute by way of eliminating or writing down the property taxes for safe and affordable housing. I know the city of Vancouver used to do that for seniors housing projects. I don't believe they're continuing to do that, but they have done it for some seniors projects.

That's one example in terms of writing down property taxes to encourage affordable housing. Is the minister also thinking that perhaps municipalities could create a tax for affordable housing, as an example — to allow municipalities to create some sort of tax and for those dollars to be dedicated for housing? Is there any consideration for that kind of scheme?

Hon. G. Abbott: Another frequently very important element in the economics of projects, whether on the market or the non-market side, is development cost charges. Municipalities have the ability to level development cost charges for developments obviously. They fund the extension of infrastructure, and so on, through those charges. Again, I'll use the example of Vernon, where last week we announced a new seniors supportive and assisted living project for Vernon. In that case, the city of Vernon actually waived $170,000 in development cost charges. It had a very important and beneficial effect in terms of the economics of that project.

I guess the short answer to the question is that certainly DCCs can enter into it. Property taxes enter into it. Just the cost of servicing itself can perhaps become an issue. I know, because I was on a council for a long time and a regional district for a long time, that local governments are constantly wrestling with where to appropriately set their fees, their development cost charges. They are constantly in a kind of tension between ensuring they have sufficient proceeds from development cost charges to take account of their infrastructure needs but trying to balance off the very critical need to be competitive in their development cost charges so that they don't push new development out of their communities. That's a short summary of that issue.

J. Kwan: Is the government contemplating allowing local governments to levy a new tax for the purposes of affordable housing development?

Hon. G. Abbott: If you would like to raise that issue with the Minister of State for Community Charter at an appropriate time, you could do that. Certainly, from my shop there are no plans for that.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm sure we'll get to the areas around the community charter, and we'll get to that soon enough, but I asked that question in the context of the website implication in terms of favourable tax policies. I am just wondering whether or not you, as the minister for housing, are contemplating levying a new tax for the purposes of housing in this context.

The service plan also states that "rising rents and declining vacancy rates have led to an increasing need for housing options for low-income households." That's a quote from the service plan itself. It goes on to say: "There are more seniors today, many of whom require support to live independently. Supportive housing and assisted living are cost-effective alternatives to facility care but are not affordable to nearly half of all seniors."

Is it the intent of the government to have supportive housing and assisted living housing replace some of the other health care facilities by way of a housing program — have the housing programs replace some of the health care facilities such as long-term care, intermediate care? Is that part of the consultation with this ministry and with the Ministry of Health Services?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, hon. Chair, I can't speak to the issue of replacement. Clearly, that goes to the purview of either the Minister of Health Services or the Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care. I can't speak to that. I have no independent knowledge or authority with respect to that.

I can only say that the new direction of B.C. Housing is to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable. We have talked, for example, of the frail elderly and the importance of having safe, secure, appropriate housing for them so that they are not in a position to have to inappropriately occupy acute-care beds. The issue of replacement is not one I can speak to.

J. Kwan: How much money from the ministry is being placed into supportive housing right now?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is not possible at this point to give the member a precise number with respect to how much of B.C. Housing's dollars go to supportive housing. I'm presuming that the member's talking about supportive seniors housing. The lion's share of the $14 million from other ministries in cross-ministry initiatives goes to supportive seniors housing; most of the $14 million would be support of seniors. We can provide the member with a close figure, but staff will have to review that. It's not possible to provide an immediate breakdown of that.

J. Kwan: If the staff could provide that information to me at a later date in the areas of supportive housing and assisted living, I would appreciate that. If the staff

could also provide what services are currently provided under these two respective programs, I would appreciate that as well. I would assume that because it's a three-year plan, you would be able to provide that information under the three separate years. Or is it just for this year? I'm canvassing that question because it's a three-year plan.

Hon. G. Abbott: We would be able to provide the definitive figures for the current fiscal year. Again, given that we don't know precisely the nature of the partnerships that we will engage in the new housing model, it's difficult to anticipate precisely what those figures would be for years two and three. Staff could perhaps guess at it, but we would be able to provide the more definitive figure for year one.

J. Kwan: The estimate of those figures would be fair enough. I understand that as the minister is continuing to develop his budget for the next two years, those numbers may well fluctuate.

I hope that when I ask for the information, I could get it in a timely fashion. I'm just wondering what's a reasonable time frame for the staff to provide that information.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we need to get some clarification from the member about exactly what she's seeking here. B.C. Housing supports the housing side of support of seniors or assisted living care. The health authorities and the ministries provide all of the support services. Presumably, it would be more appropriate to canvass them with respect to those, rather than B.C. Housing. We're not in a position to be able to quantify what other ministries and health authorities do. Am I correct in understanding that you are looking simply for the housing side of this equation?

J. Kwan: I will be asking the Minister of Health Services these questions and also the minister responsible for intermediate care and long-term care. What I'd like to see, hopefully, from each of the respective ministries is a full picture of what's being put forward by government in this area.

On the question around time frame, what's a reasonable time frame to get this information?

J. Kwan: Just continuing on with the service plan that is in the government's documents, it states that the ministry will develop options for the delivery of non-market housing and other forms of delivery of non-market housing and other forms of housing assistance.

Could the minister please advise what is meant by other forms of housing assistance, and is this other form currently underway?

Hon. G. Abbott: A few examples here for the member in her question re others. The shelter aid for elderly renters would be one example of a program that would fall in the other category. Rent supplements are another way of delivering that housing need. An additional example is supported independent living, which might be sponsored by other ministries.

J. Kwan: How many individuals now have access to rent supplements from the government? Does the government anticipate seeing that rent supplement program increase, decrease or maintain the status quo?

Hon. G. Abbott: We currently have 15,400 rent supplements. Depending on the economics of non-market rental housing development versus rent supplements, the advantages and disadvantages of those can vary, given the situation. We certainly don't exclude the possibility that that number may expand.

J. Kwan: The minister's talking about an increase in the rent supplement area, but he's not looking at a decreased potential in the rent supplement program. I understand that it fluctuates in terms of what's going on out there in the market, but if developments were to take place in the private market for renters even now, it would take a couple of years for the projects to be completed, in any event.

Is it the intention of the government, then, to maintain the rent supplement program at status quo, or are there any plans within the government to see that program increase or decrease?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, rent supplements make sense in some cases; they don't make sense in others. We don't anticipate that there will be a dramatic change to this number, but we haven't been through core review. Alternatively, we don't know what kind of proposals might come forward to us. Again, it goes back to rent supplements being the best way to address housing challenges in some instances but not others.

The short answer to the question is: we don't anticipate any dramatic shift up or down, but we will respond to the kinds of proposals that we receive.

J. Kwan: Does government anticipate that B.C. Housing would be looking at the privatization of the management arm of B.C. Housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to add some further clarity around the expectation of government in terms of targets or benchmarks, currently about 15,400 households are receiving rent supplements. We expect that might grow to about 15,800 in '03-04 and 16,200 in '04-05. That's a relatively modest increase in the number of rent supplements that's anticipated, with all the caveats around that for reasons that I've articulated.

In terms of B.C. Housing's management function, that is something that will be considered in the core review process.

J. Kwan: So the privatization option is one that is being considered under the core review for B.C. Housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally, what core review attempts to do is look at the most rational, most economic delivery of government programs and responsibilities. Typically, one doesn't exclude any possibility from that. It's a theoretical possibility.

J. Kwan: Is that something that the minister himself advocates — the privatization of B.C. Housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: That will be part of the core review discussion as we move forward.

J. Kwan: So the minister himself has no vision for it one way or the other — for the question of privatization of B.C. Housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: I didn't say that. I said it will be part of the core review discussion as we move forward.

J. Kwan: I'm wondering if the minister can share his personal view on this question. Does he advocate for the privatization of B.C. Housing in the core review process for his cabinet's consideration, or does he not advocate for the privatization of B.C. Housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we look at in core review is a cost-benefit analysis of different approaches to management. While we don't exclude the possibility that the management services of B.C. Housing might be delivered in a different way, it's a matter that will have to be discussed and will have to be concluded on the basis of analysis.

J. Kwan: As the minister responsible for B.C. Housing…. I'm just simply asking the question: do you have a perspective on it one way or the other?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly do have a perspective, but it's no more relevant than the member's perspective. What we do is, in a professional way, look at the issues that confront us. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of undertaking a rigorous analysis of the task at hand and ensuring that, in terms of affordability and administrative efficiency, the best decision is made to maximize the resources of the taxpayer.

J. Kwan: On the contrary, I would argue that the minister's perspective on this issue is of paramount importance. Nonetheless, it would appear that we differ in terms of the roles of the minister and what the minister will bring to the cabinet table or otherwise.

Formerly with B.C. Housing, my experience is such that if I have an individual who comes into my office, and this particular individual is in dire straits — as an example, a single mom who's just fleeing a violent situation and looking for housing, a place to go with her children — I would be able to phone up B.C. Housing, contact someone there and advise them of the situation. B.C. Housing would immediately respond to the critical need of such a person. I'm using this as hypothetical, and while it's hypothetical, it happens quite regularly throughout the communities in British Columbia.

Since the change in government and, potentially, in the core review process where there may well be change with the management of B.C. Housing, I'm wondering whether or not, in a situation where someone phones up B.C. Housing and is in critical need of safe, secure, affordable housing — otherwise, they would face imminent homelessness and be put at risk — that service would still be accessible from the government.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member, again, is going into the realm of the hypothetical. Again, I will try to play along for a time.

The housing stock will still be available to the groups that need it. We will continue to have B.C. Housing. We will continue to have, either directly through B.C. Housing or through contracting by some other delivery agent, the same advisory capacity that exists today.

When we enter the realm of the hypothetical, we can quickly get into problems, but again, we'll try to guess where the member is going. Presumably, the issue is having that service available so that when the hypothetical woman coming out of the abusive relationship needs to make contact with either B.C. Housing or a contractual agent who is engaged by B.C. Housing, they can get the advice they need. I can assure the member that that will continue to be in place. Beyond that, it becomes a bit of a mug's game in trying to guess hypothetically where the member is going and what information she's attempting to secure. I've already said that this issue is a matter that will be discussed at core review, and the conclusions of it will be based on rigorous analysis.

J. Kwan: While I used the hypothetical example with the minister, I actually have a lot of real-life examples. I don't wish to bring each letter into the House and go through it with each individual who is seeking assistance from the government.

I know from practice with B.C. Housing that where we have a situation and individuals come into my constituency office and sometimes, quite frankly, not into my own constituency office…. I've had a number of constituents from outside of my riding come and ask for assistance in the area of housing. The times when I've referred the matter to B.C. Housing have only been when it is absolutely on an emergency basis and this individual, this family, is faced with a critical crisis on their hands in terms of needing assistance from government. In those instances, I would have either my staff or myself phone up B.C. Housing, advise of the situation and explain the situation.

B.C. Housing would not only give advice; oftentimes they would offer solutions to the difficulties the individual was faced with, to prevent homelessness. I've always thought B.C. Housing was great at providing that assistance to individuals. What I'm trying to make sure of is that that kind of service is still available to such individuals, whether it be people who come to my office or to other government MLA offices asking for help from the government. I just want to make sure that this will still be in place and that people will respond. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know whether this will help or not, but I expect we will continue to have, within B.C. Housing, a policy function, an advisory function. I think the member should note that there is a difference between the property management function and the function of assessment and placement in one of B.C. Housing's units. We certainly anticipate that the latter will still be in place.

Again, I don't know what the outcome of the core review process is, just as I don't know exactly what will come of our negotiations with our many partners.

I think I've gone as far as I can, hon. Chair, in trying to guess the future. I think it's not a terribly productive exercise to do that.

J. Kwan: As I mentioned earlier, while I'm using this as a hypothetical case, it's a real-life experience that goes on virtually every day of every week within my constituency office. I can tell you that there was a constituent, actually, from Vancouver-Kingsway who came into my office — a single mom escaping a violent situation, with children, absolutely in dire straits. All the shelters were full, and they could not assist. It was coming up to a weekend. The person phoned up the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway, could not get assistance and phoned up my office. I happened to be there that Friday afternoon and picked up the phone. The person was absolutely in tears, asking for help because she would find herself with her children on the street. That's a real-life situation.

I phoned up B.C. Housing and explained the situation to the staff person on the other side, and the person endeavoured to work with this individual to make sure the person didn't end up being homeless. What they often do is put it on a priority basis. There is a priority listing for individuals who are absolutely in a crisis mode and absolutely at risk of homelessness. They managed the case very well, and the person was taken care of. It was also a long weekend. Oftentimes, we get these kinds of things just before a long weekend, and individuals are absolutely in crisis mode.

That's what I'm trying to get at: to get some assurance from the minister that those kinds of supports will still be in place with this government. It gives comfort not only to me and my staff but, I think, to many British Columbians out there who know of individuals who may be faced with those situations from time to time, just to make sure that assistance will still be in place from the government.

I hope the answer is yes. Maybe the minister can't give a definitive answer on that, but if he can simply rise up and commit and say: "Yes, we'll strive to make sure those kinds of services will still be in place to assist individuals or families who are in crisis for housing assistance…."

Hon. G. Abbott: I suspect the member and I are agreeing, so I'll try to be as definitive as I can, and perhaps we can move on.

The last thing this government or any other government would want to do is eliminate the opportunity for professional and compassionate support for those who are desperately in need of housing, whether it's on an emergency or non-emergency basis. Clearly, we would want to retain that capacity. Now, if the member is saying that capacity can only be provided directly by government, there may be a difference of opinion, but I don't think she's saying that. I am glad to say definitively that I and, I'm sure, the government will work tirelessly to ensure that those professional and compassionate supports are in place for those who need housing.

J. Kwan: Thank you, minister. Actually, that was the answer I was looking for. I'm not suggesting that only government can provide for housing assistance — clearly that's not the case — but the government does have a critical role to play within that. I just want to make sure that service would still be in place if indeed changes are coming to how B.C. Housing operates and that when my office or any other MLA's office, as an example, phones up B.C. Housing and brings forward a critical case to them, they would simply attend to it and not say, "I'm sorry; that's something we can't do or we don't do," and then it's end of discussion. I just want to make sure that is not the case. That's good news indeed.

I have a few other questions, and they relate to the Olympic bid and housing. I'm going to ask the minister for his advice on whether or not he'd like me to engage in this set of discussions around the Olympic bid and the housing ramifications at this time. Or should I save those discussions for the minister responsible for the Olympics?

Hon. G. Abbott: It might depend to some extent on the direction of the questions, but generally speaking it would be more appropriate and more fruitful to address the questions to the minister responsible.

J. Kwan: In that case I will save these questions. I have a series of questions that relate to the Olympic bid, whether it be housing, transportation or environment, and the list goes on. I was just wondering how

the minister prefers that. I can certainly save these questions for the Olympic bid component.

With that, these questions wrap up the questions that I had on the housing estimates component of the ministry. I note that there were some rough waters, if you will, during some moments of the estimates where answers were not forthcoming, but I have to say that this last three or four hours of the housing estimates, by and large, were productive, and I was able to get answers from the minister on these issues. I appreciate that very much. I also appreciate the participation from staff and their information that will be forthcoming to the opposition caucus in relation to housing.

No doubt, as we continue to look forward in terms of the development of housing and its importance for British Columbians, the debates will continue to surface. The advocates out in the community will continue to advocate for safe, secure, affordable housing for all British Columbians. I hope that one day we'll all arrive at a place where we believe that safe, secure, affordable housing is a fundamental right and that it ought not be a privilege. I hope one day the minister will come to see that and share that view, as well, and not be compelled to pin people with names — any other name that you can call it. I am proud to be an advocate for affordable housing and will continue to be. I urge all British Columbians to take that compassionate view and to see it as something we can afford to do and indeed as something that we cannot afford not to do.

As I say, this wraps up my piece on the questions around housing in the housing estimates.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her questions. I'm not aware of any additional questions from elsewhere in the House. If there are, I guess we'll soon find that out. I do thank the member for her questions and her generous comments with respect to staff. I certainly share the view that we are indeed well served by the very professional and very capable staff that we enjoy.

J. Kwan: My apologies. This is one question that just got brought to me by a message from someone who's phoned into my staff. I feel compelled to ask this last question on behalf of this individual.

Regarding the housing estimates, the question is: why is there no board? There is still only the interim acting chair for the B.C. Housing board since last July. That's Kaye Melliship, the ADM. The question to the minister is: why is there still no board, and when can one expect the board to be appointed to B.C. Housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't anticipate a change in the board, appropriately, until after the core review process is completed. I gather that answered the member's question, and I'll continue.

In summary around the housing issues, if I can, I'll ask the member as I make my concluding comments on the housing side if she can provide any advice to me with respect to the order in which they wish to proceed tonight — not out of any convenience for me, because I'm going to be here regardless — just so we can understand what staff should be available and for what duration. Could the member give some thought to that and perhaps provide some clarity as to the opposition's intentions this evening, so we don't unnecessarily have staff staying till 9 o'clock for questions that may not confront them in any event…. If the member would think about that, that would be useful.

I do want to just say this. I think that in a lot of areas, there is a broad consensus across British Columbia with respect to the importance of housing. On numerous occasions, in fact, the hon. member and I have agreed about the very critical importance to individuals and families of safe, secure, affordable housing. We may disagree at some points on how to get there, but I think everyone agrees on the critical importance of that.

I think I have articulated a view of how we get there which combines the targeted resources of government to the most vulnerable in society with the market rental housing side of things. I do think that we will never be able to meet the needs of the average British Columbian for safe, secure, affordable housing unless we bring about some very important reforms in both the tax and the regulatory areas. We need to address that not only within our own government, but we also need to address that in partnership with the federal and local governments.

The economics of every project is determined by the components and elements which make it up. We want to work on both sides of the equation, both market and non-market housing, to try to address the very considerable needs of British Columbians. As long as we have vacancy rates of 1 percent or less in our major metropolitan areas, we know we have an enormous challenge to face.

I do look forward to working with all members of this House and certainly do look forward to working with the very capable and professional staff that we enjoy both within the ministry and within B.C. Housing to try to meet that challenge. It won't be simple or easy, and it won't come without its bumps along the road, but I do believe that through a sustainable, long-term partnership model, we have taken some important steps to moving ahead.

If the member has any light she can shed with respect to the order of things tonight, that would be very useful. Then I would be happy to move that we rise, report progress, etc.

J. Kwan: I thought that before we begin, the minister would be interested in introducing his staff.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I would like to introduce staff that are with me today. As we are starting with the Olympic bid, I'd like to introduce Brian Dolsen, who heads the bid secretariat. On my other hand we have Dale Wall, who is the assistant deputy minister from CAWS, and Bob de Faye, who is the deputy minister of course, as many of you well know.

J. Kwan: I would like to canvass questions around the Olympic bid process. I understand the government is committed to winning the 2010 Olympic bid, and the opposition supports this bid. However, the budget indicates that the government will be eliminating the athlete assistance program.

My first question to the minister is: how will B.C. athletes be able to compete in the 2010 Olympics if this program is discontinued and they're not receiving financial assistance from the province?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, the question is really related to the budget that is handled by the minister responsible for sport, but I can say to the member that there's actually a comprehensive program within the bid elements that is focused on providing funding right now under the Legacy Now program. That is funding created for the purpose of getting young athletes from British Columbia exposed to new programs and new opportunities to participate in sports. There is obviously a hope that this program will enhance the quality of our young athletes and have them ready for 2010 to participate in, for example, the Winter Olympic Games.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question, as I understand it, is around the athlete assistance program. One of the things we need to do in order to balance the budget in '04-05 is look for program reductions across the ministry. In the case of the ministry of sport, we have looked and made some difficult choices. One of the choices is that in '04-05 the athlete assistance program will be ended. We are always looking for opportunities to engage the private sector and others, the federal government notably, to find ways in which we can effectively generate broader participation in athletics and promote excellence as well.

J. Kwan: Just to preface the next set of questions I'll be asking during these estimates, some of them may well go to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, and then, of course, some of the questions may go to the Minister of State for Community Charter, who is also responsible for the Olympic bid. From my perspective, it doesn't really matter who answers, as long as somebody does. It will be entirely up to the two ministers to determine who is best for the question.

The athlete assistance program would be eliminated, and I know from some of the athletes that they are very concerned about this. Some of them have even gone so far as to state that the elimination of the program would curtail their opportunity to engage in the amateur athletics arena. In light of the cancellation of the program, we may well see athletes dropping out of this arena, and I think that would be very problematic. While the minister talks about how he can rely on the private sector — it seems like that's the answer for everything — is there anything concrete from the private sector that they'll be forthcoming to fill in this hole?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to add a little bit to the answer I gave to the member's previous question, when we make difficult decisions about funding for sport, we believe that it is most appropriate and most advantageous to concentrate on core funding for sport generally. We've done that.

Nevertheless, we are very cognizant of the need not only to continue to promote broad participation in sport but to be relentless in our attempts to ensure that athletes who want to achieve excellence, even up to the Olympic level, are provided with support. We will be working with public sector partners — i.e., the federal government — and with private sector partners to put together alternative programs which indeed will allow us to pursue greater excellence among our young athletes.

Hon. G. Abbott: There has been considerable interest, both on the part of the federal government and on the part of the private sector, to assist in that regard.

J. Kwan: Could the minister advise what kind of scope we are looking at? Are there any numbers being talked about in terms of financial assistance for the athletes, both from the federal government and from the private sector side?

Hon. G. Abbott: Last year the federal government announced $10 million in additional sport funding. We believe that we will be able, through our discussions with the federal government, to enjoy at least a strong portion of that. We have also had some useful and, I think, very promising discussions with the private sector. Those discussions are still ongoing. I won't speculate on what the outcome of those discussions may be.

Again, the objective is to ensure broad participation in sport among all young people. It's very critical for their health and social well-being that there be broad participation in sport among young people. The other

side of the equation is to encourage excellence. We'll be looking for innovative ways to bring that support to bear so that young people can achieve excellence.

J. Kwan: Who from the private sector has the minister engaged in consultations with?

Hon. G. Abbott: We have engaged a variety of private sector people. In fact, some have actually spoken to me and to the minister responsible for the 2010 bid — particularly enthusiastic around ensuring that in the future our young athletes do well at both the Summer and the Winter Olympic Games. I think there is a good deal of interest in the private sector. Of course, I'm not going to engage in speculation around who's going to do what. Those discussions continue.

J. Kwan: Could the minister provide — not at this time, if he doesn't have it — a list of the groups that he is engaging in consultations with in this regard? Also, one would assume that those discussions are broader than the 2010 bid — but, rather, ongoing support for amateur athletes.

Hon. G. Abbott: We are very interested in engaging the private sector to see what can be done for amateur athletics. Of course, Olympic athletes are amateur athletes. We have, for example, the Legacy Now program, which is $5 million. We already have some corporate interest in that, and we expect more private sector interest as well.

J. Kwan: I ask the minister if he would be prepared to provide me with a list of the groups and individuals he's consulting with right now for assistance for amateur athletes. The minister doesn't have to provide me with that list on the spot today. Rather, could he just provide that information to the opposition at a later date?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can assure the member that as we conclude discussions with participants, certainly it's in our interest and in their interest that their contributions are well known, but it is not possible to generate a list of those who might hypothetically be a part of this. It would be entirely unfair to them, until something is concluded, to release that publicly.

J. Kwan: Is the minister then soliciting support broadly, sort of just inviting people to come forward? Or does the minister have people come to him? How is this process proceeding? How does one go about suggesting to the government: "Here's an idea. Here's how I can contribute in this area"? Is the minister inviting people to come forward with proposals, or are individuals going to him to provide input? How is that process taking place, and what kind of parameters are we looking at? Are they looking at contributions in this area, and then in return the government would provide for something else? I'm just curious in terms of what kind of partnerships we're looking at. How does one go about engaging with the government around that, and what process has the minister put in place to facilitate those kinds of discussions?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the member's question is both. We've invited interest, and we've been recipients of interest. It works both ways. We are very much engaged with the federal government in discussing some of the challenges around sport, in particular both the broad-based funding for sport and the pursuit of excellence for particularly gifted young athletes. We are, with the federal government, looking at what other jurisdictions in the world have done with respect to young athletes and the encouragement of excellence in those jurisdictions. In some cases the federal government may be looking at tax initiatives or tax incentives which might prompt additional corporate and private sector interest. That, I think, is the answer to the member's question.

J. Kwan: If the government is inviting the public community to come forward with proposals on that, are these individual invitations on a one-on-one basis only, or is it broad scale? How does one get an invitation to engage in this process?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member will note that the athlete assistance program remains in place until fiscal '04-05. That was kept in place specifically for us to have some time to develop alternative models and hopefully better models for funding young athletes.

We are, as I noted, working with the federal government. The federal government has a committee which is directly looking at the issue of corporate private sector participation in athlete support.

J. Kwan: Would the work that the minister is undergoing right now sort of tag onto the federal government's committee, or is it a separate process that the minister has under his own process, Mr. Chair? I'm unclear. It sounded like maybe he did have a process, but then it sounded like it was an add-on to the federal government's.

I'm just trying to understand what kind of process is in place and how one goes about engaging in that process. The minister said earlier that it's both by invitation and by individuals coming forward. So by invitation, how is that invitation being extended to members at large?

Hon. G. Abbott: Business has always been involved in our consultations around sports. Again, to emphasize this point, the athlete assistance program remains in place until fiscal '04-05. That will provide us with a great opportunity to work with the federal government and work with the private sector to build an alternative model. We are still building that alternative model. That's why fiscal '04-05 was the date until which we've retained the athlete assistance program.

The strategy generally is to work in concert with the federal government around their initiatives in this regard. Many of the initiatives will involve tax issues, and the federal government is looking at those issues. We're going to work with them and the potential private sector partners to build the model that's going to work for British Columbia's young athletes.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can answer this question first: does he have his own process separate from the federal government on this matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: The processes that we have engaged in provincially are informal processes at least at this point in time. Business has always been part of the consultative process, as have a host of stakeholder groups on our sport development. There may well be at some point an occasion where we formalize those discussions and that model. I don't know, but I would suspect that it will be influenced somewhat by the outcome of the 2010 Olympic bid which we will hear about, I think, in July '03.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a committee within his own ministry that's working on this issue now?

J. Kwan: I'm not sure if that answer sounded like yes, we do have a committee; no, we don't have a committee; or maybe we will have a committee.

J. Kwan: Okay. The minister has just said: "No, there isn't a formal committee." It's just sort of being worked on by some staff around that.

The minister talked about tax issues earlier. Can he elaborate on what he means by tax issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again we are in the realm of future policy with respect to the member's question. The issues which she's attempting to canvass are still very much under discussion. Further, it's not only in the realm of future policy but also future policy of the federal government. They are taking the lead with respect to this issue, and we're going to work with them to ensure that B.C. athletes and Canadian athletes get the kind of support they need.

J. Kwan: Is the provincial government considering tax-related matters on this issue?

J. Kwan: You know, we're engaging in discussions on a bid that is to be hosted in 2010. That is definitely in the future, but no doubt a lot of the questions that will surface will be around the future, because the Olympics is to be hosted, if we were to get the bid, in 2010. Really, there's no way to get around the issues around future policies. We're talking about something that is going to take place a number of years from now, but yet the provincial government is trying to put forward strategies, if you will — proposals, a bid — to win the Olympic Games for British Columbia. In that process, it would also involve, I think, a variety of other things that would impact our communities if we were successful in that bid. As part of the packaging of the bid, I think we need to talk about what the government's plans are in these areas.

I'm outlining this for the minister because the very nature of the Olympic bid necessitates the fact that we talk about future policies. It's in 2010, and yet we are doing the preparation work now in order to try and win that bid. That's why I'm asking some of these questions. By the nature of what we are dealing with, it has to be for the future.

I am unclear about the number of jobs that would be generated by hosting the 2010 Olympic Games. The minister, actually, has on different occasions given different figures for the number of jobs that would be created through the Olympic Games in British Columbia. I've heard 180,000, 240,000 and 280,000 jobs. I'm just wondering: from the minister, which is the accurate figure?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are different numbers because we looked at three strategies. One was a low number. We had a moderate impact and a high tourism impact. If we take the moderate tourism and delegate the impact, we're looking at 182,000 jobs. If we go with the high tourism and delegate the impact, we're looking at 228,000 jobs. That includes the activities related to the convention centre, as well, for both numbers.

J. Kwan: I don't have to have this information today, but would the minister provide this information to the opposition caucus? That is, how did he arrive at the projections of these numbers of jobs — 182,000, 240,000 and 280,000 — in terms of the range of possibilities? How did those calculations come about? Could the minister provide us with detailed information with respect to the breakdown of each of these categories?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There's a number of pieces of information that we can give the member opposite, reflecting how we have come to our numbers. There are also a couple of sections that we keep to ourselves

because we do not want the opposition in Europe, or any other continent that is looking for a bid as well, to have that information available. We will make available what we feel is doable.

J. Kwan: The minister says: once he feels it's doable. Could he elaborate on the "doable" part? I'm just wondering: would it be like 2010, and when we arrive at 2010, then that information would be forthcoming? I'm hoping that's not the case. I'm hoping the minister would be able to make that information available, because he's already got these projections of these numbers. I'm most curious to know how these job projections were arrived at.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: When I say "doable," I mean that whatever we can release right now to the member opposite, we will. The full package, obviously, will be available after July 2003, when the decision has been made in Prague as to what area will be hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games. It will not be 2010 before we have the full package available for you, but we will see to getting you…. At least you'll understand the thought process behind how the calculations were made. I think that is what you would be interested in.

J. Kwan: Would that be in a week's time, two weeks' time? What's a reasonable time line to receive this information?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I will ask the people that have been involved in creating the information package for our benefit to do it as fast as possible — a week, two weeks or maybe three days. What is available will get to you quickly.

J. Kwan: I'll take it from the answer that it will be no longer than two weeks' time. It will be somewhere in there.

The Olympic bid will have impacts in our community — some very positive impacts and maybe some negative impacts. There are a lot of concerns, especially on the negative impact side. Of course, in putting together a strategy that speaks to a winning bid, one would assume the government will be looking at the negative impacts, as well, to mitigate the negative impacts for the community and truly come forward with a package that will be a winning strategy for British Columbia.

I'd like to go through a number of areas where those impacts may be felt and to canvass with the government what mitigating measures, if any, they will be investigating and embarking on.

The first issue centres around housing. In the housing estimates I asked the minister if he would prefer these questions to be canvassed during the housing estimates or separately with the minister responsible for the Olympic bid. He advised that he would prefer the housing questions to be raised here. I'm going to begin with this: the community is advocating for the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen the residential tenancy laws to prevent unreasonable rent increases in the area of housing.

We've seen other situations — like Expo 86, as an example. When Expo was brought to Vancouver, while it highlighted the city of Vancouver and brought it to the world stage, it also had very negative impacts for the residents in the city. In the downtown core a lot of people were evicted from the hotel rooms they were staying in. A lot of people actually became homeless in that process. Some even died because of the trauma of that eviction.

I'm hopeful that we have learned something from Expo 86 and that as we put together a winning bid for British Columbia to gain the 2010 Olympic bid, we will turn our minds to addressing issues around residential tenancy laws, particularly to prevent huge rent increases like the members of the community had to endure during Expo 86.

Is the government looking at any such legislation? I know this is dealing with future policy. Perhaps the government will rise up and say that, but I'm hoping they won't, as it's an approach to really engage in the thought processes around the strategy for this winning bid. Is it included in that approach that one would look at the impacts on housing and the issues around eviction, particularly around significant rent increases that would result in homelessness for many people?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. Not only is she in the area of future policy, but she is also in the area of the Solicitor General rather than either of the ministers whose estimates are under consideration here tonight. I don't think the members opposite afforded themselves the opportunity to discuss residential tenancy issues with the Solicitor General in his estimates.

The only thing I can say with respect to this is that Expo was a six-month exposition; the Olympics are approximately three weeks.

The Chair: Members. I'd like to remind the members that the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

J. Kwan: Yes, Expo was a longer period of time, and the Olympic bid is for a shorter period of time. Nonetheless, I believe that if we don't take the precautions now as we put together the bid to win the Olympic bid, in terms of looking at all of these potential ramifications, we will see the negative impacts that result.

We know that in Utah, as an example, they were faced with huge problems around affordable housing and the impacts felt there. This was reported out on March 18 around the Salt Lake City experience where people were advocating for the poor and for housing. Of the 360 affordable housing units the city was promised by the Olympic organizers, only 156 were built. Noting that the units were used by international media

during the games, another 43 homes built near the cross-country runs were relocated to Indian reserves.

Then it goes on to say that during the games about 100 people were evicted from their residences, mostly low-income motels. At the Zion's Motel on Salt Lake City's State Street, customers paying $180 a week suddenly had to pay rates that jumped to $735 a week. The article goes on to note that a homeless shelter was built for the Olympics after organizers realized people would be on the street.

This is the kind of situation that I'm hopeful will not happen, which we can prevent, if we actually give some thought to the process and give it attention. That is why I raise these issues.

Yes, the minister says the residential tenancy laws do not relate to his ministry, but surely in the government's cross-agency approach in working with one another, the government would be working hard to ensure that there is some strategy by government to prevent unreasonable rent increases, particularly in the low-income hotel-motel areas. Are there such thoughts from the government as a strategy to win the Olympic bid for 2010?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Obviously, we are all aware of potential risk in the area the member has described. For that reason, I'm pleased to say that actually today we have signed an agreement with the city of Vancouver dealing with the impact on the downtown east side. I think that is the area that would be of most concern to the member as far as the impact is concerned. That agreement has been signed with the city of Vancouver.

I should also say that we have established an aboriginal secretariat to deal with issues related to aboriginal members in the community.

At this stage we're covering all these bases to make sure that we have the right answers and do the right thing when it comes to the Winter Olympics.

The agreement that has been signed on the impact on the downtown east side was done under the auspices of the Vancouver agreement team. I think the member can be assured that we recognize we have to assure that the people living in the east side are not going to be impacted unfairly or negatively. That's what this study is all about.

J. Kwan: First, let me just ask a question around the city of Vancouver agreement. What was in that agreement that was signed today? What was agreed to with the city of Vancouver in terms of mitigating impacts from the Olympic bid? Could the minister please advise?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Exactly what the member said — the study will be done to measure the impact of the Olympics and how to avoid some of the concerns that the member has expressed. I think the city of Vancouver, the Olympic bid people and the provincial government certainly want to ensure that the Olympics are going to be positive for all living in Vancouver, Whistler and British Columbia. As the concerns have been expressed by certain groups in the downtown east side about the impact on the poor in that area, the decision was made to look at that issue and come up with answers to make sure that the impact will not be a negative one.

J. Kwan: Is the agreement with the city of Vancouver and the province to do an impact study? Is that what the agreement was?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That's not a bad analysis. It is a study done to look at what the concerns are of people living in the downtown east side. Some organizations have spoken up and come with answers to avoid these concerns coming to fruition. Like the mayor of Vancouver said not long ago, we have seven years to make sure that the impact will not be a negative one on the downtown east side and on the people that live in the downtown east side. The study will certainly help to clarify what the concerns are, as have been expressed today, and what the answers are to prevent situations from developing that would be considered negative.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I'm just trying to clarify what the minister said. He said that he signed an agreement with the city of Vancouver today. From the answers he gave, I am making the assumption that the province and the city of Vancouver signed an agreement to study the impacts of the Olympics on the community. I think the minister has confirmed that, and that's the agreement signed today. If that's the case, will the minister first please provide a copy of this signed agreement so that I can look at the terms of the agreement that was signed between the province and this city?

The other question is: is it the city's responsibility, then, who will lead the impact study, and do we know what process they'll be embarking on in terms of that impact study? Will they be hiring a consulting firm who will undergo that process? What process is in place to understand the impacts of the 2010 Olympics?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The agreement was only signed today. I haven't got a copy in front of me. The bottom line is that the community members that have spoken out during the last couple of months about some of the concerns they have about what the negative impact could be of an Olympic…. These will be the people, I'm sure, who will be talked to, consulted and then asked, also, to be part of a solution to make sure the negative impact will not be as has been threatened by these groups.

J. Kwan: I understand that the minister doesn't necessarily have a copy of the agreement in front of him right now. Could he provide me with a copy of that agreement that is signed, tomorrow when we leave this House, so I can take a look and see what process is in fact in place with the city of Vancouver to

address the issue around the impact? That's my first question. I'll come back to this later.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If I could give it to you tonight, I would. If I can give it tomorrow, I will. It is something we quickly have to check with the city of Vancouver. The moment it's here, we have no problem sharing it with you or anybody else. This is not something we're going to do in isolation. This is going to be done with the community members that want to be involved. This is not something we would consider not sharing with all the people who are interested in these particular matters. That includes you as well, member.

J. Kwan: I assume the agreement was signed with the city and the province. Am I hearing the minister correctly that he doesn't have a problem with sharing the information, and he has to check with the city of Vancouver to see if they have a problem with sharing the information? Am I understanding the minister correctly?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to second-guess what the opinion of the city of Vancouver is. I've said that I will try to get it here for you. If the city of Vancouver will not release it, then I'm only guessing…. I don't even guess if that is an option or not. I don't see why they wouldn't release it, but the point is that if the member doesn't get it tomorrow, she can always apply under freedom of information, of course, and she will get it in due course. I will see if I can accommodate it. I will talk to the city of Vancouver, and we'll take it from there.

J. Kwan: One would assume that if there was an agreement signed with the city of Vancouver studying the impacts to the city, that would be a public document. If the minister is suggesting that I would need to go through freedom of information to attain that information, surely, yes, I would, if I need to, embark on that process. But one would assume that one would not have to go through that process to get what is presumably a public document signed between the city of Vancouver and the province of B.C. I don't know if I heard this correctly. The minister keeps on saying: "I'm not going to presume what the city of Vancouver is going to say." Does he need the permission of the city of Vancouver to see whether or not he could release a jointly signed agreement between the two parties?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to speculate what the city of Vancouver's reaction is to this. If the member doesn't have patience to get it when it is available, I would suggest she apply for the document under freedom of information.

J. Kwan: Perhaps the minister of state needs to take a lesson from his Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. When they signed the housing agreement on affordable housing with the federal government, they posted it on the website for everybody to see and for everybody to access. Somehow, with this minister, there's some sort of veil of secrecy with some sort of agreement he has signed with the city of Vancouver with respect to the impacts of the Olympics for British Columbians. I fail to see what the secrecy is around that. I fail to see why the minister can't just get up in this House and commit to saying, "Yes, we will release that document to you," and then that is not an issue. Somehow it's become an issue for this minister of state. Perhaps he can take a lesson from his colleague the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services in that regard.

I don't understand what the secrecy is about. The minister suggests that when it's available, you'll be able to get it. One would assume that the document is now signed. One would assume that it's available. When does the ministry expect that information to be available? Why is there some sort of holdup? What's the holdup?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm just going to say what I said before. I have no problem with the document going out, but I haven't got it. The city of Vancouver has got a signer of the document. They must be comfortable as well, so I am not going to second-guess where they are in that process. Like I said to the member, you know, the freedom of information is available to apply for the document. It will come to her in due course. It may well be on the Internet before that. There's nothing mysterious here. There's nothing secret here. It is just that I'm not going to second-guess what the city of Vancouver feels about the release of the document and what they want to have in place before that happens.

J. Kwan: Given that the ministry is reluctant to commit to providing this information publicly, I'll just go through this agreement item by item to see what's in this agreement and to see what the mitigating impacts might be through this set of estimates. If we had the document, then we wouldn't have to do that. Given that the minister is not prepared to make that information available, then I'll just canvass broadly in terms of what might be in this agreement, what terms we are looking at and what kind of conditions are being applied under this agreement.

Let me first ask the question on the mandate of this agreement. What is the mandate within this agreement?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: To study the impacts that potentially could happen on the community living in downtown east side and what type of steps to take to avoid a negative impact.

J. Kwan: The minister has asked me to repeat the question. My question is: what is the process envisioned in this study?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The only thing I can say, based on what I know, is that the city of Vancouver will canvass organizations in the downtown east side who have expressed concerns and work together with these groups to make sure their concerns will not become reality and the impact on people living in downtown east side will not be a negative experience when we have the Winter Olympics and Paralympic events here in Vancouver and Whistler.

J. Kwan: Will the city of Vancouver staff be engaging in this work, or would it be a consultant?

J. Kwan: Whose decision is it to decide that? Is it the city of Vancouver? Is it the province? Or is it a joint decision?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It is the city of Vancouver, but they are working together with the provincial government.

J. Kwan: Sorry, what was the last part? It was the city of Vancouver and…. Was it the provincial government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: It's the city of Vancouver working together with the provincial government.

J. Kwan: Who makes the decision? Is it the city of Vancouver or the province, or is it both?

J. Kwan: Who's paying for the impact study? Is it the city of Vancouver, or is it the province?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: That information will be available once we see the outline of how the program will work. Based on that, the dollar value will be associated with that study, and at that time I will happily release it to the member.

J. Kwan: What is the budget allocated from the province under this agreement?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The money will come out of the Vancouver agreement allocated funds. It's a budget which is close to $3 million, I believe, and a small portion of that will be allocated to deal with the impact study. How much that is, we don't know. That will be determined by the scope of the study, the cost of bringing in contracts or doing contracts with various groups in the downtown east side. Once we get that number, I will happily give the member the total number.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There is a budget. The only thing is that we don't know how much of that budget is actually going to be in dollars and how much of that budget will be in kind. It really is not possible for me tonight to give the member opposite a definitive answer on exactly what the dollar value of this impact study will be and remedial steps that may well come out of that study to deal with the level of comfort that the community living in the downtown east side needs to feel comfortable with the Olympics.

That's where it is now. If I had the number I would give it to the member, but it isn't there because of the different factors that will make up the total contribution that will be made to support this particular impact study.

J. Kwan: I understand if the minister doesn't have the exact figure, but surely the minister has some sort of approximate figure. He just said that he's signed an agreement with the city of Vancouver on the issue around the impact of the Olympics and the problems associated with it. He has said that the province is paying for this work, so surely there must be some sort of ballpark figure.

He's also suggested that the dollars for this work are to come out of the Vancouver agreement, which the minister says has a $3 million budget of which a component is being directed towards this work. How much are we anticipating? Is it $1 million out of the $3 million towards this agreement with the city of Vancouver? Yes, while part of it will be in kind in terms of staff, others of it may not be. Even if he didn't have that breakdown in terms of in kind or actual dollars, there's got to be some sort of ballpark figure in terms of what we're looking at with this piece of the work.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, I did not sign an agreement today. It was somebody else. It was signed today on behalf of the provincial government and the city of Vancouver.

The dollar number that the member is looking for is something I can't give. As I said, there are three or four different areas where the contribution will come together that will be backing the objective of the agreement financially and through support work and through other activities. How that falls into place dollar-wise, I can't say. If I could, I would. The member just has to wait till that information comes to me. I would think that the city of Vancouver is also trying to figure out how these numbers will work. I would not give a number by just guessing here today. If I gave a number, that's what I would be doing, and I think that would be wrong.

The member has to have a little bit of patience. I think she should actually celebrate the fact that we recognize that there are groups in the downtown east side of Vancouver that have concerns. The member should celebrate that we're actually making an effort to meet with these groups, listen to these groups and work out with these groups how we can alleviate the concern they have on behalf of the people living in the downtown east side.

We can go on for another half an hour or an hour on this. If I gave a number, it would be guessing, and I think that would be fundamentally wrong. I ask the member to move on and to celebrate the fact that we are recognizing that people have concerns. We want to address it, and we want to deal with it. It is seven years from now before the Olympics would be here, so I think there is ample time in which situations will arise and solutions will be found. I cannot, at this point, prejudge what the cost is of that. I cannot prejudge what the cost is of setting up the base for the team to work on these issues. The moment that comes through, the member will find out.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting that I should celebrate the fact that the government is doing its job. At the minimum, I would have expected the government to engage with the community and to ensure that their concerns are addressed. It's a component of the work and responsibility of this government. To suggest that I should somehow cheer and celebrate the fact that government is doing its job…. You know what? From the community, it's the basic minimum expectation of this government that it go out there and do its job.

What I'm trying to determine in this process is whether or not the government is doing its job effectively and whether or not it's living up to its responsibility in those tasks. I think it's too early to celebrate. What we have learned from this government is that we have to read between the lines. What they say is one thing, and what they do is another. Often those things actually don't match, just like in the estimates of Education which are going on right now in the small House. When the Minister of Education says that they're protecting education, what it really means is that they're cutting educational programs.

It would behoove me if I were just to run out this door and start to celebrate because the government is claiming that they're doing their job. What I'm trying to determine is whether or not they're doing their job appropriately and effectively and whether or not they're addressing the concerns of British Columbians. Once those results are available, then I'll let the minister know whether or not I'll be supporting the government's effort in this regard.

The minister doesn't know what the budget is. The minister doesn't know what the process is. The minister says he signed an agreement with the city of Vancouver on the issues around impacts. The minister doesn't know whether or not consultants will be hired to study these impacts. It doesn't seem to me, so far, that the minister knows very much.

Let's see if the minister knows this answer. He talked about groups from the downtown east side community who have raised concerns around the impacts of the Olympic bid. What are these groups? Who are the community groups that have raised these concerns?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I repeat: I was not the one in Vancouver to sign. The member is fully aware that I was sitting opposite her all day in the House. An agreement between the provincial government and the city of Vancouver was signed.

As far as knowledge, we know what the purpose of the study is. How the impact is going to be dealt with and how we are going to canvass the downtown east side community will be up to the city of Vancouver. They will be the workers behind this particular agreement to get, indeed, the information that we need from the downtown east side community organizations to make sure the Winter Olympics and the Paralympics will not be a negative experience.

The way this little debate is going, it's a little bit like, you know: is the glass half full or is it half empty? I believe the glass is half full. What happened today is a good thing. The member is more in tune with "the glass is half empty" and is therefore negative about this. I think we allow the city of Vancouver to give body to this new initiative. Let them choose the people they will be working with so that the best people will be involved doing the best job for the people living in downtown east Vancouver. Just look forward to some good recommendations so those living in the downtown east side will avoid becoming victims, as the member likes to describe the people living there, but will experience something that is positive for all people living in that area.

J. Kwan: The minister says he wasn't the one who signed the agreement. He is the minister responsible, is he not? Should he not know, then, what was signed, what was in that agreement and what's involved in that agreement? He is, after all, the minister responsible for the Olympic bid. Am I not right?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I said before, I was not the one to sign it. The city of Vancouver, recognizing our concerns in the downtown east side, asked us if we would assist them in finding the funding for this particular initiative — the impact of the Olympics in 2010 on the downtown east side and its residents.

I also explained to the member that the funding comes through the Vancouver agreement budget, which is in place. The member knows how much that is. What portion of that Vancouver agreement budget will go towards this particular study and action program to deal with these concerns, I can't tell her. I won't guess.

As I said, we can go on, but that's the answer she's going to get. The money is there. It is in the Vancouver agreement. That is where the funding will come from

to the city of Vancouver, who will be leading in making this study as successful as possible. It will come out in the end how the funding falls, when we know what components will have to be funded and what components will be a donation of time and other activities.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister if he is the minister responsible for the Olympic bid. One would have assumed that the answer is a simple "yes, I am." The minister says, "I didn't sign the agreement," but as the minister responsible, even if you didn't sign the agreement, you're responsible for knowing and understanding what the implications of that agreement are. That is the job of the minister: to understand that and to have the information before that agreement is signed, whether it be delegated to another staff or another minister who signed on this minister's behalf or another minister who signed on behalf of government.

Given that he is the minister responsible for the Olympic bid and given that we're talking about the impacts of the Olympic bid in a particular community, one would have thought that he would have more answers than what he's given so far. I asked the minister the question: who are the community members who are raising concerns with him and with the city of Vancouver around the impacts of the Olympic bid? So far I haven't got an answer on that. I don't know who the groups are, and it would be useful. If the minister says that there are community groups who are raising these concerns — which, no doubt, there are — please advise the House of who these community groups are.

The minister says that I look at the actions of this government not so much as a glass that is half full but rather as a glass that's half empty. I make no apologies for doing that. We just finished the housing estimates. What we learned is that the government has cancelled a thousand units of housing. Pardon me if I don't rejoice at the cancellation of a thousand housing units and at the government only proceeding with 700. The fact is that a thousand units have now been lost and cancelled for the community in the area of affordable housing.

The Chair: Member, I think we have to stay on the secretariat for the Olympic bid.

J. Kwan: Yes, I am looking at these questions, hon. Chair, with a very critical eye in terms of the actions of this government in the area of the Olympic bid and its impacts for the community.

The minister says that the budget will come from the Vancouver agreement, but he doesn't know what portion of the budget will be taken from the Vancouver agreement for this work. He has no idea.

He's shaking his head. Maybe he does, after all, have some idea. If he does, perhaps he'd like to share that information with this House.

The Chair: Member, I have to say that that question's been asked quite a number of times by yourself to the minister. He has tried to answer that question. I think we should proceed and carry on to a new topic, please.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I accept your advice on this. The trouble is that there wasn't an answer forthcoming from the minister. The minister actually didn't provide an answer. He talked a lot about everything else, but he didn't actually answer the question — not on the budget question and not on who the community members are that were concerned with this issue. The minister simply has not provided an actual answer to the questions I've asked.

Let me ask the minister this question. He has said that how the impacts will be dealt with is something this agreement is looking at. Can he advise the House how the impacts will be dealt with?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: No, I can't say that. That's why there's a study going — or it will be started soon — to see, first of all, what the considerable impact, as has been presented by some downtown community organizations, is. No doubt, together with these groups and other input, the city of Vancouver will come up with some recommendations to alleviate these concerns.

J. Kwan: Okay. Here's what the minister doesn't know. He doesn't know what the budget is. He doesn't know who he's talking with in the community. He doesn't know what the impacts will be and how those impacts will be dealt with, but he says we should celebrate. We should celebrate because they have an agreement. He says he knows what the agreement is to do — it's to look at the impacts — but he has no answers for anything else around that.

The minister also says the agreement would not be available — not right now, in any event. Perhaps the opposition caucus could FOI that information. The minister says there is the aboriginal sector within the agreement and that they'll be looking at aboriginal issues. Who has the minister consulted with on the aboriginal issue side?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The secretariat was originally formed by the two aboriginal members who are on the bid committee: one representing the Mount Currie band and one representing the Squamish nation. They have been joined by the Musqueam band and the Burrard band. Together they have formed this secretariat, this committee. They work with the bid group involved with the Winter Olympics 2010 bid to make sure that issues of importance to the aboriginal communities are up front and part of the discussions the bid group has, like any other issue that is related to the bid to get the Olympics here.

These four members, who are also board members, have created this working committee — secretariat, as I call it — to make sure not only that part of the Winter Olympics we propose will have a good aboriginal component which we can showcase to the world but

also that issues which are important to the aboriginal communities are addressed up front and directed and guided to the solving of these problems by these four members.

J. Kwan: The four members of this aboriginal secretariat that the minister references — do they report directly to the minister? Are they funded to do their work?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: They work together with the bid group. They are not funded by the provincial government.

J. Kwan: They are not funded by the provincial government, the minister has said. They work together with the Olympic bid team as a component of that team? Are they also looking at negative impacts, or is that solely with the city of Vancouver?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: At this time we haven't discussed funding. They are not looking at the negative impacts, as the member tries to say. They are looking at the positive impact and how the positive impact of the Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games can be turned into a stronger contribution toward the well-being of their community as well. This is not driven by negative feelings or concerns. This is driven by opportunities for the aboriginal communities. We want to capitalize on it as much as we can, and the best way we can do that is by these four individuals focusing on these opportunities and working with the bid corporation to make sure that it will truly come to fruition.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: They don't report to anybody. What they will do is share with the board of the bid group when they see opportunities they would like to pursue within the context of the Olympic bid. They are four individuals that do their own work looking at what kind of benefits can be derived for their communities from the Winter Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games in 2010. They do that of their own accord with the objective that when they see opportunities, they share them with the bid group and see how they can harmonize the bid objectives and the aboriginal community's objectives.

J. Kwan: The minister said that they don't report to anybody, that they're just a group of aboriginal people who've come together to put forward advice for the Olympic bid team. In other words, anybody out there who may have some advice for the Olympic bid team could just come forward and put forward some information. Is that what the minister is stating? He said that there's an aboriginal secretariat. Who set up the secretariat?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the member would listen, she would have heard in my very first response to her first question that it was an initiative by the Lillooet people and the Squamish nation, with further input from the Musqueam nation. They're separate, but they have input. That's the intent.

This is an initiative done by the aboriginal communities. They are not accountable to anybody. They are not mandated to report to anybody. What they're trying to do within the concept of the bid group is ensure that the opportunities that are there for them as aboriginal communities can be capitalized on by working together with the bid group. They are the people they will be working together with. They are not reporting to them. It is a partnership. It is not a situation where they provide information in the hope that they get something out of it. This is a concrete example of how the bid people and the aboriginal communities work together for positive impact.

I find it sad that the member opposite continues to look at the negative impact or side of whatever is happening within the bid corporation. There are so many good things happening. This is one example, and I think the initiative that is backed by the provincial government with the city of Vancouver is positive.

We have several years to go. We're not waiting until July 2003 to see if the impact on the downtown east side is negative. We're doing it right now because right now we hear the concerns. These are all positive things. I think they are reasons for celebrating, even if the member doesn't think so.

J. Kwan: The Olympic bid process was initiated by the previous government. What is important, of course, in the Olympic bid process is that as governments work on a winning bid for British Columbia, we look at all of the issues, not just the issues that are easy to review — happy issues, as the minister perhaps would like to refer to them. Also, what is critical to a winning bid is to address the negative aspects of it and make sure that you mitigate the negative aspects it. That's what makes a winning bid.

The part that makes it hard in that process is to try and process and determine which are the negative impacts and how one goes about doing it. What is the process that would be in place? What kind of budget is being put in place to address that? Who is going to be ultimately responsible for paying for these issues, and who will be involved? All of that creates and contributes to a winning bid.

If the minister does not see it that way, I think that is what's truly sad for British Columbians. If you neglect that part of it, then you create a situation whereby what would be a very positive event could be turned into a negative event. That is something that I think we have to try and circumvent, which is why I'm asking these questions.

If the answers are forthcoming, we can proceed far more quickly in these estimates. The minister has not been forthcoming with his answers, so I have to probe deep and hard to try and find the answers to these questions that are important to British Columbians.

The minister said that the aboriginal secretariat was something that was established by the aboriginal community on their own. They don't report to anybody. There's no budget attached to it in the work that they do. They're simply carrying on that work. Let me ask the minister this question: is there a specific look at the Olympic bid process in terms of aboriginal community impacts?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One of things that the member keeps doing…. She gives labels to statements I've made that do not reflect my statement.

I have not said that this was an initiative by aboriginal communities. These were two members on the Olympic board that represent aboriginal communities. These two members have taken an initiative to look at what kind of great opportunities there are related to the bid and how they can tap into it and how they can capitalize on that. That's what I said. The member shouldn't say that this is an initiative by communities, because she's misrepresenting my words. She has been doing it all the time tonight.

It is two individuals who are members of the board who understand that this Olympic bid, if and when we get it, is going to be a tremendous opportunity for these communities economically, socially, culturally. They want to make sure that they get the very best bang for the buck out of this winter event. That's what the focus is. It is not looking for negative impact. It is searching for the good things that are related to the Olympic bid. That's what this is all about. That's all I can say to the member on this subject.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the minister: is he looking at aboriginal impacts as a result of the Olympic bid for 2010?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: One of the reasons that we have two nations on the board, almost from the inception of the board, is that it was always a recognition that there would be an impact on aboriginal communities. There would be chances for aboriginal communities. Aboriginal members on the board make very sure that, indeed, if there are concerns, they are expressed to the bid board. The bid board, together with these aboriginal members, finds solutions. That is what I think is the great thing about this. We do not have aboriginal communities standing on the outside. They have been part of this whole drive to bring the Winter Olympics here from day one.

Why do they do this? As I said before, they see tremendous opportunities for their communities, and they're going to make sure that the opportunities come to fruition. It may be painful, if I judge the expression on the member's face, to realize that aboriginal communities actually see opportunities with the bid group related to the Winter Olympics, but that's where it is. The member can ask questions about negative impacts and other negative elements. It is a positive thing. I will stand here for the next hour-plus stating the facts. It's a positive contribution not only to getting the bid but to the communities these members represent. That's it.

J. Kwan: I hate to say this, but the answer from the minister is, quite frankly, clear as mud. He first just got up and said: "You know, these two members are only looking at positive aspects of the Olympic bid." Then he turned around and said: "Oh no, they're looking at negative impacts as well, but then I don't want to talk about anything negative." He was trying to charge me with speaking of negative issues when I was trying to canvass what work is being done here and if we're looking at negative impacts as well as the entire component of the Olympic bid. The minister has just contradicted himself with his own answers.

The minister said, when he was responding, that I had a pained look on my face. It's true. I was trying to decipher what the minister was trying to tell me with his conflicting messages. I have to be very honest. The minister just fully contradicted himself in this last round, so I am unclear as to what the answers coming from this minister are.

Let me just try a different area, then. Maybe this will perhaps be easier for the minister. Let me try this — the city of Vancouver. As we know, in the downtown core there will be huge impacts on the issue around housing. Maybe the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services can actually answer this question and shed some light in this area. The city of Vancouver advocated for the province to allow them to put in anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaws, and the provincial government did give them that authority under the Vancouver Charter. As part of the impacts issue, would the government be going to the city of Vancouver and advocating for the city of Vancouver to enact an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw to prevent the loss of single-room-occupancy units in the downtown core?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm a bit puzzled by the question, frankly. Is the member suggesting that this question has something to do with the Olympic bid? Or is her question around whether the city of Vancouver has the authority, under the Local Government Act — or under the Vancouver Charter, I guess, in that case — to undertake that? I'm not sure what the member's question is, frankly.

J. Kwan: The city of Vancouver already has the authority. The city of Vancouver a number of years ago asked the province for the authority to bring forward an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw. The previous government gave them that authority in changes to the Vancouver Charter.

The question I'm asking the minister is relative to the Olympic bid for 2010. Will the provincial government be advocating for the city of Vancouver to enact an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw to prevent huge losses of single-room-occupancy units in the downtown core?

Hon. G. Abbott: We wouldn't presume to tell the city of Vancouver what to do with respect to issues like that.

J. Kwan: This goes right to the heart of the issue around the loss of affordable housing units in the downtown core. Under the scenario back in Expo 86, for the six-month event a large-scale eviction took place in the downtown Vancouver area. A lot of people lost their housing and became homeless as a result. Some members of the community even died from the trauma of that. As a protection, perhaps as a housing strategy to prevent large-scale homelessness caused by the Olympic bid for 2010, the city of Vancouver could bring forward an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw to safeguard and protect those housing units.

My question is: will the province be advocating for that? Not that the province will force the city of Vancouver to act, but rather, will the minister be advocating for an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw for the city of Vancouver?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm a little puzzled here. Clearly, the responsibility and the authority around the issue of demolition and subsequent reconstruction rest squarely with the municipality. I certainly don't anticipate us either suggesting or encouraging, or anything else, the city of Vancouver on how to carry on their business over the next eight years.

If the member is suggesting that somehow the province should suggest or require the city of Vancouver to effectively freeze their whole development processes in Vancouver for the next eight years, she can say so. I certainly think it would be entirely inappropriate, whether from the context of municipal affairs or housing, for the province of British Columbia to begin to tell the city of Vancouver how to do their business. Frankly, I think it's quite a preposterous notion.

J. Kwan: The minister suggests that the province would not intervene with the development rights of the city of Vancouver. That's fair enough. Nobody's asking the minister to intervene on whether or not the city of Vancouver should have developments in the city for the next eight years. What I'm asking is something very targeted, very specific, in relation to the impacts of the Olympic bid if the province of B.C. should be successful in gaining that bid for 2010.

When Expo 86 came to the city of Vancouver, we saw large-scale evictions take place from single-occupancy hotel rooms. Many people in the downtown core in Vancouver, in the downtown east side, reside in these single-room-occupancy units as their permanent homes. They are by no means adequate housing; they are simply 10 by 10 in size. If you're lucky, you have a hotplate; if you're doubly lucky, you have a sink. Many people live in these housing units because they are their only form of housing. Because of wide-scale evictions as a result of Expo 86, people lost that substandard form of housing.

What I'm now asking this government is whether or not they will be advocating for an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw for the city of Vancouver during this period when the Olympic bid comes forward. No doubt, if there is no protection there, we will see wide-scale evictions take place in the downtown core, and no doubt the rent increases will also take place.

I asked the minister earlier whether or not there is any vision from this government in terms of strategy in looking at preventing large-scale rent increases for the community for the period of 2010. The minister said that's not his area of responsibility, that it falls under the Solicitor General's area of responsibility.

There needs to be a housing strategy overall to protect the existing housing stock for the existing residents in our community — that, as part of the mitigating efforts.

I'm asking whether or not the government has any strategy in this regard — whether it be through the Residential Tenancy Act in protecting against large rent increases or whether it be through anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaws preventing the large-scale evictions that would result from the Olympic bid for 2010. What is the government's strategy in terms of housing preservation for residents in the downtown east side community?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm beginning to get some sense of what the question is. I'm also beginning to get a much clearer sense — perhaps a timely reminder — of, again, why we're in the economic mess we're in, in British Columbia — namely, ten years of absolutely fly-by-your-pants notions about how to manage the economy.

First of all, I guess this may be a difference between this side of the House and that member. In fact, government doesn't need to micromanage at every turn the fundamental business of municipalities in this province. I think, in fact, that municipalities, including the city of Vancouver, are way better positioned and far more knowledgable with respect to what their communities need than what Victoria might want to tell them that they need.

The Olympics will be a three-week event in 2010, if we're successful. To suggest that somehow the province should step in, at this point — either through some legal mechanism or some other notion of directing the

city not to demolish or not to develop and so on… I think that is, frankly, a level of micromanagement which is entirely inappropriate to our circumstances in British Columbia. The city of Vancouver is well placed to understand how to manage its housing needs.

We certainly are happy, through B.C. Housing and through the ministry, to assist where we can. But, again, if the member is suggesting that we need to implore, demand or through some other means effect a resolution by the city of Vancouver that their housing stock go unchanged for the next eight years, then we're on different planets here, because that's not where we're at.

I think, as the minister said, this is a spectacular opportunity. I think we can achieve a whole lot in economic, social and other areas through the 2010 bid. Frankly, to now suggest that we should hamstring the city of Vancouver and curtail what they can legally do — I think this is entirely in the wrong direction.

J. Kwan: The minister suggests that it is somehow wrongheaded to bring in measures of protection for residents who would face homelessness because of pressure being brought to bear in their respective communities with upcoming events such as the Olympic bid for 2010, if we should get it. I can't tell you, hon. Chair, how much I disagree with the minister's statement on that.

The fact of the matter is that when you have a spectacular event, such as the Olympic bid being successful in your community, homelessness issues surface. We see that happening already in other communities that hosted the Olympics. We saw that in Salt Lake City, where a hundred people were evicted from their residences, mostly from low-income motels similar to those that now exist in the city of Vancouver in the downtown core — but not just in the city of Vancouver, because there are other communities which have these SRO units.

In that process, in Salt Lake City, people who were paying $180 a week in these motels — their form of home because they don't have access to better housing — suddenly saw their rates jump up to $735 a week. This is a reported fact in Salt Lake City.

We saw a similar thing take place in the city of Vancouver during Expo 86. The minister says that Expo was a six-month event and that the Olympics is only a three-week event. In three weeks someone could be evicted. In three weeks someone will find themselves homeless. In three weeks someone could die as a result of that. I was an advocate during that time in the community. It seems like centuries ago now, but it wasn't that long ago, I suppose — back in 1986. I learned of situations where members of the community did die because of evictions. We saw housing units where people lived — their homes…. We saw the increases in their rents — not just a minor increase but a substantive increase — and they lost their homes as a result of that.

So, yes, I'm advocating at this juncture, as the government puts together its Olympic bid for 2010, that this government takes into consideration the issue and the impact of homelessness, and that they look into the issue of an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw for the city of Vancouver to prevent homelessness, to prevent large-scale evictions and to prevent large-scale rent hikes. I'm advocating that the government also look at a strategy that would incorporate changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and for that to be inclusive in the housing component of the impact of the Olympic bid. Yes, I am advocating for those changes to ensure that people don't find themselves without a home in this process and for that to be a component of the winning bid from government.

Both ministers make light of this matter, as though somehow homelessness is not a reality, as though somehow three weeks of the Olympic bid would not render people homeless and as though somehow in three weeks of the Olympic process taking place in British Columbia we will not see rent hikes. I predict that we will unless we put the measures in place to protect those who are most vulnerable.

It's not a laughing matter. I see it day in and day out in my very own community where people are homeless. I see it day in and day out, and, yes, I want to make sure in this winning bid for British Columbia for the 2010 Olympics that we don't render people homeless. You can laugh all you want and make light all you want, but these are serious issues, ministers. These are serious issues, and…

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

J. Kwan: …one must take into consideration how to ensure that there is protection for the most vulnerable in the community.

The Olympic bid with the three levels of government and the community — are there any plans from the government? We now know that there is no plan for Residential Tenancy Act changes, and there's no plan for advocating for anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaws. Is there any plan at all to adopt and implement measures to increase the supply of affordable housing in the host cities, as a legacy beyond 2010?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll let the minister responsible deal with the 2010 elements here, but I thought we had thoroughly canvassed the housing issues in the 14 hours prior to this evening's sitting. Obviously, there's an appetite to continue it.

One of the points that was made over and over again to this member through the estimates was that in fact we consider the homeless to be among the most vulnerable in society. We will continue to direct resources at attempting to meet the needs of the homeless in our society.

The member mentions that in Salt Lake City there were presumably short-term evictions of some 100 people. That is a fair concern for those 100. No doubt it was a concern.

The opportunity we have — and I don't think the member should underestimate it — is to work over the next eight years with the city of Vancouver, with the greater Vancouver regional district, with the federal government, with non-profit partners, with a range of possible partners to address the needs of the homeless.

It's not going to be a strategy that's designed around a three-week period. It's going to be an ongoing attempt to deal with a compelling social issue. I hate to go over old ground, but it appears that we need to do that here tonight.

The member likes to take other people's words and deconstruct them and then misconstrue them. That's what's being done around the point on residential tenancy. It's not the responsibility of any of the ministers here tonight to talk about residential tenancy.

The opposition had the opportunity earlier on in this session to canvass the issue with the Solicitor General. Amazingly, if one peruses the Hansard record of the debates around the estimates of the Solicitor General, one will find questions and interventions by a variety of private members on the government side. One will find absolutely no questions or interventions from the opposition to the Solicitor General. Suddenly, somehow, tonight ministers who have absolutely no responsibility for residential tenancy are supposed to have answers that they never took the opportunity to canvass the appropriate minister with earlier on in this session.

I think it's entirely inappropriate that the member take our comments out of context, given that she never took the abundant opportunities they had to put these questions to the Solicitor General.

Finally — and this is an important point, and I hope we don't have to revisit this point again — Homeless–At Risk. Just to provide an illustration for the member, in the 697 units that we announced 12 days ago, we find, for example, 22 units at the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation in Vancouver Homeless–At Risk project; the YWCA, 12 Homeless–At Risk units on East Hastings in Vancouver; Salvation Army, B.C. South Division, 30 units on Homer Street in Vancouver; Portland Hotel Society, 41 units on Carroll Street in Vancouver; and, as well, the Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society, 24 Homeless–At Risk units.

The government, as I said at the outset, considers the homeless to be among those who are most vulnerable in this society. We will continuously and relentlessly, year after year, try, in both an economically sustainable and a socially responsible manner, to deal with the issues around homelessness.

To say that the entire strategy should be predicated on the 2010 Olympics is preposterous. Further, the notion that we should somehow stand up and say to the city of Vancouver, "Well, we know better than you, city of Vancouver, how to manage your issues in Vancouver. We think that you should have an anti-demolition bylaw, because we see that as the silver bullet that's going to save the day around homelessness…."

That is just more of the kind of thinking that brought us some $17 billion further in debt and that brought us a $3.8 billion structural deficit. Frankly, that kind of misinformed, uninformed and completely naïve notion is not something we are going to be pursuing as a government.

J. Kwan: It is absolutely outrageous for this minister to rise up and say that somehow the issue around homelessness is not the responsibility of this government to engage in if the impacts of 2010 arrive at the doorstep of British Columbia and that somehow the province should not be involved with the city of Vancouver on the issue around anti-demolition and anti-conversion bylaws. It's absolutely outrageous that the minister would rise up and take that position. Yes, quite frankly, I take the opposite position. I think that the province has a responsibility to work with the city of Vancouver on anti-demolition and anti-conversion bylaws as part of the Olympic bid process. I do think that.

The minister likes to rise up in this House and say: "Where were the opposition members? Why weren't they engaging in the discussions with the Solicitor General?" For the record, I would like to….

J. Kwan: I would like to put this information on the record. Yes, the Minister of State for Community Charter is chuckling and laughing in his seat, saying, "There are only the two of us, and we work so hard," referring to myself and the member for Vancouver-Hastings. The fact is that it is true. There are the two of us.

Yes, when the estimates came up for the Solicitor General in the small House…. I believe the day that took place was on the Thursday, the eve before International Women's Day. I was doing estimates in the small House. Half an hour before the House recessed, I had to leave early to get back to Vancouver to meet with a group of women on women's issues in light of the cuts that this government is proceeding with on women's issues. I had to go back and meet with the women's groups.

Yes, I missed the estimates process, and there wasn't an opportunity to raise questions around the Residential Tenancy Act. Even if those questions were missed, the fact of the matter is that the Olympic bid ties the other ministries together in this issue.

Maybe under the Liberal government in this new era, each and every one of these new ministers, in their own right, operates in their own little silos. They don't see beyond the area of their responsibility, and they see no connection of interministerial responsibilities. They see no connection at all. Therefore, if you branch out on the question around the Olympic bid for 2010, what the impacts would be and whether or not there's an overall

housing strategy to prevent homelessness, to prevent evictions, to prevent large-scale rent increases that we have seen other jurisdictions experience, this minister says: "Don't look at me. Don't talk to me about it. It's not my area of responsibility. My own tiny little silo is on this one issue only. It has nothing to do with the others."

With all due respect, I disagree with that. Government actually has a responsibility to work across ministries. When you have an area as broad as the Olympic bid for 2010 and you're looking at the impacts of the Olympic bid, then one ought to look at it across the ministries — what those impacts are and what work is being done. This minister would have an area of responsibility for that.

The fact is that we're faced with a situation where there would be impacts for residents in the community relating to the Residential Tenancy Act around rent increases. The fact is that we've seen this in other jurisdictions. There would be large-scale evictions. The fact is that beyond what this government ought to be doing in the area of housing — notwithstanding that they have already cancelled 1,000 units of affordable housing and are only proceeding with 700 — there ought to be a larger look at what the legacy of the 2010 Olympic bid would leave for British Columbians, beyond what this government is doing as part of their regular housing programs.

Yet the minister laughs at the suggestion that there should be such a legacy left for the Olympic 2010 impacts for British Columbians. They're not interested in looking at the long-term legacy, a positive legacy that could be felt beyond the three weeks when the Olympics is going on. Beyond that, what is that legacy? Is there a vision from this government in this regard in the area of housing?

I think the answers I got from both of these ministers so far is that no, they're not interested in looking at that.

J. Kwan: The minister says I have to ask the question. I asked the question already. The minister says: "Oh, we have to go and canvass housing all over again. We've only just done that." I asked the minister precisely.

To the minister's question on the Olympic bid: with the work of the three levels of government and the community, is there a plan to adopt and implement measures to increase the supply of affordable housing in the host cities as a legacy beyond 2010?

If that's your question, ask it, and then he'll answer it. You've never asked that question.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I would ask both the ministers to check Hansard. I would ask both of the ministers to check Hansard and maybe check around with their staff who are sitting with them to see whether or not they heard that question asked. I did ask that question. Neither minister has cared to pay attention.

The Chair: Order, members. Only one member has the floor at a time. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant currently has the floor.

Perhaps the ministers never heard the questions because they were so busy talking to themselves. Perhaps that's the reason why. Let me ask the question again to the minister. With the Olympic bid work with the other levels of government and the community, is there a plan to adopt and implement measures to increase the supply of affordable housing in the host cities as a legacy for 2010?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If the question had been asked that way before, the member opposite would have had an answer for a long time. Part of the legacy is indeed that the False Creek area in Vancouver — that is, land that is owned by the city of Vancouver — will be donated by the city of Vancouver and will accommodate a comprehensive amount of apartments that will be used for the athletes during the winter games. After the games, they will actually be handed over to the city of Vancouver for an affordable housing type of concept. The apartments will be built originally for the athletes, but they will be built with long-term use in mind — that is, social housing and affordable housing. The housing component itself in part will be paid for through the bid group and the funding that comes through the bid group today, which will be the games implementation group after 2003.

So yes, there will be a considerable legacy in Vancouver with regard to social housing. For Whistler, which will be the other venue, exactly the same will happen. The provincial government will actually make a piece of land available where, again, apartment housing will be constructed. This apartment housing will also be used by the athletes, and after the games they will be turned into affordable housing for people living and working in the Whistler community. Housing certainly is a component of the legacy we intend to leave behind, and it is good to see that indeed all components of the departments in the bid group are part of providing that housing.

I wish the member had asked that question before, because it might have alleviated a lot of tenseness in this room if she had put the question the way she did. Instead, she chose to talk about demolition laws and anti-demolition laws so that nobody understood what

the intent or the connection with the Olympic bid was. I hope this answer gives her some satisfaction that it is part of the agenda to provide housing for social and affordable levels.

J. Kwan: Housing is a continuum of initiatives, not just one component. I'm glad to hear that there is some sort of housing that's going to be developed as a legacy for 2010; I'm pleased to hear that. But what both ministers fail to understand is that it is a series of initiatives that needs to come into place. It's not just one answer that will solve all of the problems. The anti-demolition and anti-conversion component is one piece of it. The Residential Tenancy Act, to prevent wide-scale eviction and rent increases, is another component of it. The development of new affordable housing is a third component of it. There needs to be a series of these kinds of measures to ensure that displacement doesn't take place and that people are not put at risk as a result of what potentially could be a spectacular event hosted by British Columbia.

The minister says that there will be affordable housing both in the city of Vancouver and in Whistler. I'd like to ask the minister this question: how many units are we looking at in terms of that legacy for Vancouver and Whistler? Who does the minister anticipate will be coming to the plate in terms of financial support for these housing initiatives?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In Whistler and Vancouver right now the planning departments are working together with the bid group to see what the need is for the Olympics itself and what the opportunities are depending on the land mass available for social housing. These are the two elements that will dictate how big these projects will be. It is all in the planning stage, obviously.

As far as funding is concerned, the implementation group that will be created after we win the bid — not if we win the bid, but when we win the bid in 2003 — will be responsible for the financial management of these projects. There may be some private partnerships coming into it. Ultimately, the bid group or the implementation group will be responsible for making this work financially. How they find that working solution or working formula to build these housing components will become clear once these implementation groups are actually in place.

J. Kwan: On the question around the affordable housing piece for both Vancouver and Whistler…. I heard the minister say that the sites have been designated already for both cities and that the planning departments of both cities are working on determining how many units are needed.

The minister actually used the words "social housing," and alternatively, the minister also used the words "affordable housing." Can one then assume that the rent that would be required for this housing would remain at the definition of affordable housing, that being 30 percent of the total income of the individual or the family unit?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The member is reconstructing my words from when I talked about the role, today, of the planning department of the city of Vancouver and the planning department of the village of Whistler. In cooperation with the bid group and in our discussions…. I'm not saying that it is at the point of actually doing technical drawings. I explained that will be part of the implementation team's work.

As far as the labels "social" and "affordable," Whistler has no social housing. They call it all affordable housing, but they're all housing with rent controls. It is managed by a corporation that is owned by the Whistler municipality. They set the conditions under which these rents are established.

How the city of Vancouver is going to deal with it. They are focused on social housing and affordable housing. I am sure they will keep in mind the guidelines that are in place today in establishing what is the fair percentage of income that goes towards the rental of housing units. That is the city of Vancouver's responsibility, but so far when I see what they're doing in False Creek and what they're doing in Coal Harbour with rent-controlled units for social purposes, it is first-class. I'm sure that will be the trend they will continue to use in the future when it comes to social housing.

J. Kwan: The formula that is being applied for social housing or for affordable housing, generally speaking, is one that is based on a person's total income. Generally speaking, the formula being applied is 30 percent of the total individual family unit's income. That is what is deemed to be affordable housing. The minister says that these are different applications. Perhaps they're different applications of what is deemed to be affordable housing in Whistler in this site for this legacy in 2010.

I'd like to ask the minister…. He's shaking his head. I don't know what he means, then, by the term "affordable housing" or social housing in the practical sense. You can develop housing and put it on the market and have people pay rent at the market rate and then call it affordable housing, when in fact a lot of people can't afford to pay that kind of rent. That, to me, is not affordable housing, and that, to me, is not a legacy that one could count on in the supply of affordable housing in the whole city as a legacy beyond 2010.

Maybe the minister can define for this House what he means by affordable housing or social housing. It's unclear to me what he means by that. What kind of rents are individuals expected to pay, if it's not the 30 percent threshold?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm a patient person, and I will try to stay patient, but it really gets to me when we get these ridiculous questions about two different applications between Whistler and Vancouver when it comes to housing. Who's talking about application? I'm talk-

ing about a label. What you call social housing in Vancouver is called affordable housing in Whistler. That's it. It has nothing to do with the financial management and how the tenants are selected. It's a totally different issue.

Again, we go back to what has been said before. This member with her socialist ideals is trying to almost force her socialistic ideology into the management of the future Olympic infrastructure. The people that will be involved in creating this style of housing will need to understand what can be afforded by the people that they select for tenancy. I have faith that these people will make sure that indeed these people pay rents that they can afford. For her to come back to a maximum of 30 percent of disposable income is just the hogwash we have always heard in the last ten years. I'm not going to endorse it by saying that is the way it is going to be done in the future.

The organizations today that deal with this type of housing always have in mind: can the person who gets this unit afford to live in this home? I think they've succeeded in accommodating hundreds if not thousands of people in the Whistler corridor, where we have 2,500 home units with that affordable housing label. I don't know how many units there are in Vancouver today, but, again, I know the tenants of these units in Vancouver can afford to live there and live their lives. That is the criterion that I know will apply in the future for how this housing will be occupied.

J. Kwan: The diatribe that's just been espoused by the minister demonstrated clearly to the House and to the public that this minister has zero understanding of the issues surrounding affordable housing.

My question to the minister was relating to the Olympic bid and his work with the three levels of government and the community when they're working to adopt and implement measures to increase the supply of affordable housing in the host cities as a legacy beyond the 2010 Olympic Games. The minister got up and said that there would be affordable housing. Yet, in his definition of affordable housing just now, the minister in his diatribe clearly illustrated that he has zero understanding of what affordable housing means in British Columbia.

The minister says: "Well, people can afford to pay, and they'll pay whatever, so don't worry, and that will be a legacy."

Affordable housing for many residents means that they cannot afford to pay more than 30 percent of their income towards their housing needs. A lot of British Columbians end up paying more than 30 percent of their total income towards housing. Doing that, particularly for low- and middle-income families and individuals and seniors, takes away their support dollars. Money that they would spend on themselves for food, for clothing and for other necessities is taken away, because they have to put those dollars into housing, into their rent. It takes away their quality of life.

By that definition, if you have to pay more than 30 percent of your total income towards your rent, it means that unit is not affordable to you, especially when you're from the low- and middle-income brackets. B.C. Housing defines affordable as such. Residents living in social housing are subsidized by government anywhere beyond the 30 percent that they can pay out of their income. For income assistance recipients, their rent portion is $325 out of their $500 assistance cheque that they get. What they pay is more than 50 percent, by and large.

When I talk about affordable housing, I don't mean some fanciful affordable housing in the minister's mind that, by and large, people on income assistance, as an example, would not be able to afford to rent. To me, that does not make for affordable housing. People on low income, who are going to be making $6 because of this new government's minimum wage, are not going to be able to afford to pay very much for rent. That's what I'm saying in terms of the legacy for affordable housing beyond 2010 — affordable meaning that individuals can afford to pay. Generally speaking, the guideline being used is 30 percent of the total income of the individual or the family unit.

When the minister says there is a plan for a legacy of affordable housing beyond 2010, and then he gets up and clearly demonstrates that he has no understanding whatsoever of what affordable housing means, I am hugely troubled by the notion that somehow there would be this legacy. I'm hugely troubled by that. From the assurances of this government, this minister, I'm not sure of the notion that there would be a legacy, a supply of affordable housing, from this government for 2010 in these two sites that he mentioned for the cities of Vancouver and Whistler.

There's another question that I want to ask the minister. I don't know if he has an answer for this either, because clearly he has no understanding of what affordable housing is. Before I move off to another area, let me ask this question: are there any other plans for this government to put in place a supply of affordable housing as a legacy for 2010 other than the two sites that he has mentioned for Vancouver and Whistler?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I don't know whether the member is trying to grind out time here for particular purposes or not. The minister responsible has said on more than a few occasions now that there will in fact be a legacy from the Olympics for social housing and has, I think, laid that out very clearly. Over many hours, earlier in these debates when we were talking about housing, I articulated the government's vision for dealing with the needs of the homeless, the frail elderly and other vulnerable citizens in our society. Certainly, as we move forward in time and move towards 2010, we will be seeing a lot of that.

For the member to suggest that somehow the 2010 Olympic bid becomes a panacea for issues of homelessness and other compelling issues is absurd. Beyond what the minister has laid out, it would be unreason-

able to suggest that a compelling and ongoing social need like housing would be resolved by the 2010 Olympic bid. It won't be a solution to that, nor will it tell us how to do cold fusion, nor will the Olympic bid tell us who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. None of those things will be resolved by the bid, but the fact of the matter is that it's a spectacular opportunity for British Columbia. The minister responsible has laid out what a spectacular opportunity it is for the province. He has laid out the component of social housing that will be a legacy from the Olympics.

I heard at the outset from the member that she and her colleague are supportive of the bid, yet I haven't heard any comment since then that would be reflective of that. I have heard instead a whole lot of blather about how the 2010 Olympic bid somehow is supposed to address the compelling needs of a city and of a province. It's not geared to that. It's the greatest sporting event on the face of the earth. We may be lucky enough to host it, and we'll have some legacies as a consequence of that. It's very positive.

Why the member has spent two hours on some of these really quite misplaced apprehensions is beyond me, but these estimates are guided in large measure by the opposition, so we can go along with it as long as she wishes.

J. Kwan: I have no doubt that these estimates will carry on, because there are many issues around the Olympic bid and its impacts. As I mentioned at the outset of the estimates, what makes a winning bid is not just British Columbia being able to host the games. Beyond that, it's what you bring to the bid in terms of mitigating the impacts negatively felt by the community and what kind of kind of legacy it would leave so that it would have long-lasting positive effects. That is what I would consider a winning bid put forward by British Columbia.

Yes, I do hope we win that bid, but with the notion in mind of making sure that you mitigate the impacts, and housing is a key component of that.

The minister talks about how the regular housing programs would be considered a legacy of the Olympics for 2010. Those programs that the minister talks about are just the regular housing programs. They're not part of a legacy of the 2010 Olympic bid. The minister said that an affordable housing legacy would be left beyond 2010. I asked him what those were, how many units we are looking at and what kind of rent rates people would be paying. He actually suggested that there wouldn't be a formula applied for affordable housing, when B.C. Housing itself uses the application of 30 percent of the total income towards their rent.

Those are parameters in which one measures what is deemed to be affordable and what's not affordable, especially when you look at the income assistance rate of $325 towards housing. More than 50 percent of their total income goes towards housing. How could one afford to put more than 50 percent of their income towards housing? If it's going to be higher than the 30 percent application, if it's going to the higher than people can actually afford, how could they gain access to this affordable housing? How could that stem homelessness?

Those are the questions that I am canvassing. I'll continue to canvass these kinds of questions, and we'll be here beyond Easter if we need to be. I do not hesitate, nor do I make apologies for asking these questions, because these are pertinent questions that impact all British Columbians. Yes, I'm trying to ensure that this government puts forward a winning bid — a winning bid that takes into account its negative impacts and mitigates them.

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

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

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

J. MacPhail: For the minister's benefit I'm going to be asking some questions on the Energy Policy Task Force and then B.C. Hydro along with that. Then I'll be

moving into the moratorium on offshore oil and gas. I think that'll do it for me. I know that the member from West Vancouver wants to ask some questions as well.

We have an energy review panel going on. I thought that report was supposed to be finalized March 15. Has there been an extension on that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Before I start, maybe I should introduce the people here with me today: the deputy minister, Jack Ebbels; the assistant deputy minister, Doug Callbeck, management services; Mike Costello, the chief operating officer of B.C. Hydro; Gary Sherlock, the VP of business development and comptroller, B.C. Hydro; and Kelly Lail, manager, resource management. We also have Lorne Sivertson here, with Columbia Power Corporation.

In response to that question, the report was finished and handed in to the ministry on March 15. We had extended the time from February 15 to March 15 to give people a little bit more time to give us some information. The task force tabled the interim report about December 15, and with Christmas eating into a lot of the time, we thought we would give another month. The ministry has that report now.

J. MacPhail: I heard somewhere where the government plans to sit on that report for another two months. What is the minister's plan for responding, making the report public, and when can the public have access to it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I don't know whether it will be another two months. It might even be a little bit longer. Until government has an opportunity to address the recommendations in the report and until the cabinet and caucus of this government have an opportunity to look through all aspects of the report, we won't be making it public.

J. MacPhail: What distinguishes the final report from the interim report? The interim report was released and engaged. It was very firm in its recommendations, but it stimulated a lot of public discussion. Why is the government keeping this report secret while it makes decisions?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Exactly for the reasons the member just said. We wanted to stimulate some discussion around energy policy in the province. The interim report did that. It was a report that was put together with suggestions and ideas, and we wanted to get people thinking about energy policy well into the future. That's exactly what it did. That's why we had to extend the time one month: to give the public, industry, organizations and groups — whoever they happen to be — time to respond to the interim report.

J. MacPhail: What exactly did the review panel do? What was its schedule of consultation between the interim report and the final report?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The energy policy committee had at least between 30 and 35 meetings with interested individuals and received upwards of 50 or better submissions from interested individuals and industry.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to get a sense of here is what's changed. Maybe the minister will stand up and say, "Well, no, we never meant to make it public," but I'm sure the public would have a different point of view.

You know, in the throne speech the government said that upon completion of the current public consultation process, a final report would be ready next month. It doesn't say anything, and then: "We'll keep it from the public for two months while we go ahead and make changes."

When did we first find out? Or let me put it this way: the process between the interim task force report and the final one…. Is it the minister's view that the public was aware that that would be it for input? I understand the panel met with people by invitation only. Were there public hearings? At that time, were people made aware that it was the last chance they'd have before the energy policy was changed in this province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it was not by invitation only. The Energy Policy Task Force heard from all kinds of individuals, anyone that wanted to make submissions to them. That's what transpired between the time we put out the interim report and when they filed their final report on March 15.

I should say to the member that I think she's probably fully aware that when you're looking at energy policy some 20 years down the road, it's going to be fairly intricate, it's going to be fairly difficult to understand, and it's going to take a while to work through some of the recommendations. Whether all the recommendations are accepted or not remains to be seen. I'm sure there's going to be some public input after we release that report. When we get around to releasing that report, there'll be all kinds of public input.

I think the public knew full well that our government was undertaking a policy for energy well into the future. It was in hundreds and hundreds of newspapers with a variety of different opinions from a variety of different people. Those people were able to say what they wanted to. They were able to come to the task force and talk about what they wanted to talk about. There were mail-in letters; it was on the website. I think it was an open process.

Now government has to have some time to be able to take that report, work through it and think it through a little bit before we make any decisions about releasing it to the public.

J. MacPhail: This change is going to be literally earth-shaking if indeed it goes in the direction the interim energy task force report did. Frankly, there have been discussions in the public by task force members. I worked, through my years, with Mr. Ebbels, but I have

some questions about Mr. Ebbels's public comments as part of the energy task force panel that have provoked even more discussions.

The minister knows full well that if roles were reversed here, he would be screaming blue murder if the government sat on two reports ? the energy task force report and the northern caucus task force report ? and released those either at the same time or after a full-blown energy policy was introduced, wham-bam, thank you, ma'am, without any chance for the public to have any say in that changed policy.

The minister tries to invoke my experience. Well, my experience isn't going to help him here. I know that governments fail terribly when they impose something on the public without a chance for a little bit of give and take or a little bit of input.

I asked the Premier about the northern caucus task force report, and he said it hadn't been released yet. Is the minister aware of how those caucus committee meetings were held in the north? I know they weren't advertised, or they were largely unadvertised. Is that backbench report going to be made public? If so, when? Is that report guiding the cabinet decision?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As far as questioning the deputy minister on his remarks about the Energy Policy Task Force, I'd suggest you do that someplace other than here. You can talk to him all you want. He's quite available. You can phone his office and talk to him. He'll probably tell you exactly what he said in the press.

Offshore. I find it a little bit difficult to be almost chastised by a member of a previous government for not releasing the MLAs' northern caucus report and the offshore report. Her government, under the leadership of Glen Clark — she was in cabinet — commissioned and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a report on offshore that sat in the Premier's office, that wasn't released, that wasn't even talked about to the public, that you didn't even say anything about. Then they went out on a charade through the northern commissioner's office trying to get input about offshore oil and gas. That's just a little bit too much to take.

We know now, and we knew then, that there was a terrible split within that caucus about what they should do about offshore oil and gas, so they went out and commissioned an actual report — not a bad report, I might add. It had to come to light after that government was no longer in office. It was some $50,000, $60,000, $80,000. I can't remember the amount right off the top of my head. I think the deputy will correct me if I'm wrong. They held it on the shelf, held it back from people.

We said we'd make the offshore report and the northern caucus report public only after this caucus and this government had an opportunity to look through that information to try and decide what would be the best route to take on actual recommendations from an outside source — three well-respected scientists — at arm's length from government. We're taking that seriously.

I think the member knows quite well that we've been talking to the federal government, because it is as much an initiative of the federal government as it is of the provincial government. For us to just run out willy-nilly and table a report and say, "Here it is, and this is what we're going to do," would be ridiculous. We need some time. We want to have some time within caucus and within government to look at these serious issues in a full sense — to give us some time — and release those documents when we've decided as a government what direction we might take in regards to offshore oil and gas.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister is getting so upset. I have every right to ask these questions. They're about an agenda of his government. I'm not sure why he's getting terribly upset all of a sudden. My comments, referring to the deputy minister, were comments the deputy minister made about the energy task force report, and I will be asking the minister about his views on those comments. Those are legitimate questions for here.

In terms of studies done, there's a big difference between governments that do studies and make no change and governments that do studies and do radical change. There are all sorts of government studies commissioned and done and governments choose to make no change. The difference here is that every single indicator is leading toward the government making change. That's the difference.

Secondly, is the minister telling me — I will seek his guidance here, and I'll ask these questions solely under the offshore oil and gas section — that the northern task force of the caucus committee dealt solely with offshore oil and gas and no other aspect of this minister's responsibility? If that's the case, then I'll ask my questions under offshore oil and gas.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The northern caucus was charged with going to a number of different communities in the northwest to talk to community leaders, to meet with people on their home turf, to meet with first nations and get their input on what they thought about offshore oil and gas. That was their report.

J. MacPhail: Then I'll save my questions on that for offshore oil and gas exploration.

The Energy Policy Task Force report and the throne speech. I'm trying to get the order of where this government is going in terms of decision-making. The Energy Policy Task Force report was released sometime in December, late November — late fall, shall we say — and then there was public feedback to that. The throne speech came out and said that a final report would be ready next month, but the throne speech commitment was made after the task force interim report received quite a negative review from the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee.

I think the minister has that letter, but I'll read it for the record. The industry committee said:

Then the throne speech came out. In response to the throne speech the industry made another submission. My order might be wrong on this, but the industry made another submission that said the industry opposed the government's plan to dismantle B.C. Hydro and hike electricity rates. Was that one of the groups with whom the Energy Policy Task Force met? What was the nature of the discussions following February 12? That's two submissions the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee made to the government.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The committee was struck on August 21. It had until December 15, almost four months, to put out an interim report, which I believe it did on December 15. In the throne speech we had anticipated receiving a report by mid-February. It became very evident from individuals and from industry that that was not enough time to reply to this document, so we extended it by one month, to March 15. Of course, that day has transpired, so we now have the report.

I'm not sure how many times the committee met with different individuals, so I don't think I want to get into that, but I do believe they met with the B.C. Business Council on more than one occasion. They have met with heavy industry, the industrial group, on more than one occasion, separately and as a group. They tried to make sure they got everyone's viewpoint as best they could in that time frame before they put together their report.

J. MacPhail: Is it not possible to know what the industry said at that meeting?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, no. If the industry wishes to tell you, that's entirely up to them. They came to the Energy Policy Task Force, and I don't know all the things they talked to them about, but I'm sure they talked about many of the things you just read into the record, member. I'm sure they made those points well known.

J. MacPhail: Where I'm going in this discussion is around the issue of what concerned the industry specifically. That was a projected rate hike for industry, I think, in the neighbourhood of 60 percent or even greater. There's been much discussion about that whole issue since then. I think that as recently as last month — it could even be earlier this month — the Deputy Minister of Energy, who is part of the Energy Policy Task Force, said the greatest problem the task force was having right now was how to handle the fact that B.C. consumers were paying artificially low rates for electricity. That comment was made after the submission of the industry group.

It seems almost an unreal discussion to have to say to people in British Columbia: "You're paying too little for your hydro, for your energy." On what basis would anyone come to that conclusion?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't think anybody's saying we're paying too little. I think what has been put out there consistently is that in British Columbia we have some of the lowest hydro prices in North America, and that poses some problems.

I think the member should know that the David Suzuki Foundation…. I'll give you that for an example. I met with them on my own. I'm not talking about any meeting they had with the policy task force. They cited to me that our energy prices are so low that people abuse it. They came to me with suggestions that we need to use more alternative energy but that to use alternative energy costs a lot more than generating it by water, by hydro, and prices need to reflect that, and that conservation — and I think we talked about this the last time we spoke — and some good forward thinking about building designs and those kind of things will bring forward some conservation in our energy use in the province.

I'm going by what one side says to me and what the other side says. Then the heavy industrials come in and say: "If we have to pay any more, we're going to go broke." There are some really tough decisions that have to be made. I think if we're going to be able to go out there and encourage private sector development of energy facilities to generate electricity, the price — I don't think; I know — has to be higher. How do we do that? Or do we want to continue to have the taxpayer foot the bills forever for generation of electricity?

We're still living on a legacy of W.A.C. Bennett from 40 years ago. As much as I've heard in this room and the other rooms…. People talk about how terrible it was to flood the Columbia and the Peace systems and how terrible a decision that was. It's actually had some pretty good benefits for British Columbians over the years. We're getting to the end of that benefit, where consumption is going to overtake generation in a short period of time. I'm told by the experts, again — not that I profess to be an expert on electricity — that by 2010 we're going to be short of electricity. We won't generate enough within British Columbia for our domestic needs. That puts us at the whim of the market. Whatever they want to charge us, that's what we're going to have to pay.

From 2002 to 2010 is not a long time. Seven years to go out and to try to get permitting done, to try to get through environmental assessment processes, to try to get through all the hoops you have to get through to either build another dam some place or, heaven forbid, try to build a plant on Vancouver Island so that we can keep the lights on, on this island. It's a huge undertak-

That's why the Premier was adamant that we had to have an energy policy. We haven't had a good energy policy for a long time. We haven't looked into the future as a province for a long time, on what we're going to do. I'll just use one other example.

As I understand, this year we are net importers of electricity in British Columbia. That means we've bought more from that marketplace out there than we've generated. That's not something a lot of British Columbians understand. They think we have tons of electricity we can just send all over the place. Well, we don't, and it's a very good reason why B.C. Hydro is not returning to the shareholder the kind of money it has in the past. It's using that endowment, obviously, to buy higher-priced energy.

At some point in time, we have to come to grips with that, and some of those are not going to be easy decisions to make. Some of those decisions and recommendations, whether we as a government accept them or not, are made in the Energy Policy Task Force report of March 15. It's something that's going to be up to this caucus and this government to try and decide: what's best for British Columbians.

We want to maintain British Columbia having an edge and having good, solid hydro in the province, generated the most environmentally sensitive way we can so that our industries can prosper and create the jobs we need in the province. Sticking our heads in the sand until 2010 and then saying, "Whoops! I didn't realize time was going that fast, and now we're really in trouble," doesn't help us one bit. That's why some of the tough decisions have to be made now, if there are tough decisions made.

J. MacPhail: I'm well aware that it makes perfect sense for the future of our children and our grandchildren to conserve energy, but that's a different question than the one we're dealing with here today. The fact that British Columbia is a net importer completely overlooks the complexities of how we trade power in North America and the role Powerex plays in Hydro to maximize profits.

Sometimes it's profitable to import rather than export. It's profitable to import at a time when prices demand it and not export or not use domestically. It's an incredibly complex situation. I also might say that all the benefits of those complexities — whether to import or export, what to use domestically — have always worked to the benefit of the shareholders, who are you and me, the taxpayers of British Columbia.

That's what seems to be threatened right now. All of those benefits of this natural resource may literally flow to someone else's pockets. The reason why hydro energy rates are so low in British Columbia is because we have a public monopoly that works in the interests of the shareholders. Yes, I'm well aware of what the David Suzuki Foundation says. The David Suzuki Foundation wouldn't dare have the nerve to say to consumers they should be paying more for hydro rates.

What they do say is that the government needs to promote conservation and alternative energy uses more, so that our kids and our grandchildren have access to sustainable power. What they're saying is that B.C. Hydro needs to invest in that. Fair enough, but who has to pay the price for it? Is it industry, at a time when this province is reeling under the economic effects that have occurred very recently? They're reeling from those, and they're now going to have to pay increased power. I mean, that would be a nice discussion to have with British Columbians.

Let me give you another quote here. This is a quote from Hansard: "The government has been charging people higher hydro rates than they would have normally been paying and has used the benefits from that to obtain, through dividend, money from B.C. Hydro to put into general revenue. So when you're paying your hydro bill, essentially you're paying an increase in tax." That's from April 18, 2000, and the person is now the Minister of Finance.

I'm not sure where the government or anyone in government suggests we're paying artificially low rates or how that became a new-era thrust. The New Era document does say and makes a commitment to re-regulate electricity rates, but at no time did British Columbians ever assume that the new-era promise would mean raising rates to foreign-market rate. There would no longer be a domestic rate for hydro. Is it on the minister's agenda, then, to change the way price is determined domestically for British Columbia consumers, whether that be residential or industry?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know the David Suzuki Foundation won't go public and tell you we should be paying more, but they'll sure tell you that privately. I've had them do it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Exactly — really. It's interesting. They do talk about conserving energy — that we have to conserve energy — and that's one of their steps in how you conserve energy. I did say we were paying hydro rates that were some of the lowest in North America. The member is aware of that.

But even to build new systems…. Let's flip it around. Let's say B.C. Hydro is going to build a new system. The site sees anywhere from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. That comes at a cost. Somehow you have to get that money back from the project, or I don't know where you get the money from. How you get that money back from the project is through the right structure. I'm not sure how that works out in the rate structure, but that gives you about a thousand megawatts. That's not very much in the whole scope of things when you think about how much electricity is going to be consumed in the future.

There are some costs that have to be repaid through the price of the product you sell, whether the private industry bills it or whether the public purse bills it. I don't understand the total intricacies of the Powerex selling and buying, but I understand enough of it to know basically what it's about.

Part of why we're a net importer this year is because the Columbia system has been low on water. The Columbia system hasn't been able to generate as much hydro as it normally does. The Peace system was low on water too. This year, with the snowpack we have in both those dams, it looks like we're going to be up in the high nineties in water, so that will help us a whole bunch. Interestingly enough, those dams were pulled heavily when the American market was really high. This last year we're trying to fill them back up again.

As to the member's comment about regulation, yeah, we are going to re-regulate B.C. Hydro. We froze the rates further so that the Energy Policy Task Force could actually get their report done. We froze the rates until '03. They were frozen by the previous government in 1993 and haven't changed since then, so it's actually not been regulated since 1993. We committed to re-regulating it, and that's what we'll be doing. We will re-regulate B.C. Hydro. The B.C. Utilities Commission will regulate the prices British Columbians pay for electricity.

J. MacPhail: I just want to be on record that I don't necessarily concur, as a person who's had ten years of government experience, that 2010 is the date at which we run out of water — that we need more capacity built. I remember very clearly, as a rookie cabinet minister, being told in the mid-nineties that by 2000 we were s.o.l. for hydro. I remember being thrown into an absolute state of shock that the province would need to expand and build more dams by the year 2000. My gosh, that was only five years away.

Now it's 2010, and they didn't do anything in the interim. What I'm saying is that these predictions are rolling predictions and are often used for purposes of spurring or delaying action. The prediction of the deadline of 2000 is now 2010. God knows what a well-run public monopoly can do to manage our capacity needs by 2010.

Talk about re-regulation. The Energy Policy Task Force report recommended that Hydro actually be deregulated, broken up into three parts: generation, transmission and distribution. Would that be the minister's definition of re-regulation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I said earlier that we will look towards regulating B.C. Hydro prices. They're still a Crown corporation and will continue to be a Crown corporation. If there are transmission facilities open to private-sector electrical generation, that transmission will also have to be regulated. Yes, we will go back to regulation.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister been persuaded by the reaction to the balloons floated by the task force report about dividing it up into three parts? I'm not sure who, if anyone, came out in support of that. My question specifically was: is that still on the agenda?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That was in the interim report, and I suspect it's probably going to be in the final report in some form. We haven't made a decision.

J. MacPhail: One of the reports I read in preparation for this debate was a study by the Parkland Institute. That's not a B.C. institute; it's an Alberta institute. They're at the University of Alberta. It's entitled The British Columbia Advantage: Lessons from Alberta on the Deregulation of the Electricity Industry. Has the minister read that study?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, I haven't. But if you look at Alberta's experience when they deregulated — and I haven't said we're going to deregulate; I just finished saying we're going to regulate — they did it at a time when they were short of electricity, when they didn't have enough electricity to supply their own domestic needs, when they had to buy it from somewhere else. That's what we want to stay away from. They ended up paying some pretty high prices for their electricity because of that. We want to stay away from that. We would like to stay ahead. That's why we're looking seriously at energy policy in British Columbia: so we can make the right decisions so British Columbians actually enjoy a benefit well into the future.

J. MacPhail: That's why I was trying to explore what the minister meant by re-regulate, or the new-era promise, as opposed to deregulate. As I understand it, what the Energy Policy Task Force report is talking about is breaking up, separating, the generation of power — the dams, etc. — from the transmission lines, and then distribution will be separate as well. Nowhere in the report did it talk about three separate Crown corporations. It was that there would be better opportunities for others to run those three separate parts. In fact, the Premier himself said the Liberal government would protect core assets of B.C. Hydro.

All of this has led to speculation, not about re-regulation but about deregulation. That's exactly what happened in other jurisdictions. Yes, Alberta deregulated and changed the way Albertans have access to their own energy at a time when there was a shortage, but so what. The minister himself has just said that it's not smooth flowing. We know that. It depends on the snowpack; it depends on rainfall, etc.

What I'm saying to the minister is that there are hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who think the Energy Policy Task Force interim report is about deregulation, about separating the continuity of Hydro, the operation of Hydro, into three distinct parts that can be hived off for control by someone other than the taxpayer, the shareholder, thereby leading to deregulation. Some are even cynical enough to say it's about privatization, the actual complete abandoning of

If indeed the Energy Policy Task Force final report recommends, finally, the separation of Hydro into those three entities, the deregulation or the privatization of those or a change in ownership at all that lessens the advantage to the taxpayer, there will be a huge reaction — the minister knows that — just the same way that there's been a reaction to the interim report. In fact, the reaction to the interim report has been negative. It's been muted, because people don't really think it's going to be a reality.

There's lots and lots of discussion going on about this issue right now, curiously enough, amongst business people. Residential consumers just can't believe that the B.C. advantage would be eroded at all under this government. I'm sure the deputy minister has read the Parkland Institute's report. It is a highly technical academic report that compares the Alberta situation to the B.C. situation and comes to the conclusion that the B.C. advantage, the public ownership of Hydro, far outweighs any tax disadvantage that exists here in British Columbia — far outweighs it to the positive. No wonder the business sector is so concerned about the interim task force report. It would take away a huge advantage for doing business in this province.

I'm just going to carry on in terms of comments from the Liberal MLAs themselves. I know there are some Liberal MLAs participating in this discussion, and that's good. But I have to put into the record, firstly, that it's the MLA for Peace River South….

J. MacPhail: Good. This isn't you. It says the MLA for Peace River South is 100 percent opposed to electricity rates being determined by market forces rather than being set by the utility itself. "I'm 100 percent opposed to that," the MLA for Peace River South said, saying that affordable electricity rates are key to developing industry in the province. He also added that he's not prepared to go through another round of what happened with natural gas. I'm sure he's referring to…. It says here: "Since the so-called Halloween agreement was signed October 31, 1985, deregulating the price of natural gas in B.C., the cost of that natural gas has skyrocketed."

That's why I was curious to ask whether the northern task force was dealing with anything other than offshore oil and gas exploration. What caucus committee is dealing with this issue of the Energy Policy Task Force's purported changes?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This government is concerned about affordable rates for British Columbians. That's why we struck the Energy Policy Task Force to look at all aspects of what we have to do in the future to be able to maintain — the member knows; the Premier said it many times — the core assets of British Columbia in public hands, to keep them in public hands to be able to allow the private sector to generate power, have access to transmission and sell power either domestically or to the industrials or export it. That's a huge undertaking. I appreciate it's not easy.

That's why we want to take some time to look at the final report. The committee that's looking at that is cabinet. We'll be reviewing that report in depth soon, and so will caucus. The committee that actually makes the decision at the end of the day is the full caucus.

J. MacPhail: I'm going in order of these various comments I'm raising with the minister. This is what the public and I have to rely on in terms of dialogue around this, because the report isn't being released. The caucus committee isn't dealing with this issue. All I can do is rely on discussion that's occurred in the public domain — the media.

On March 16, 2002, two people from the Energy Policy Task Force told the power industry conference — I think it was in the Okanagan; that would have been March 16 — and it was reported, that there was a pressing need for sweeping reform and a fully deregulated energy market. The article went on to say: "Some of B.C.'s largest resource companies, including Teck Cominco Ltd., Scott Paper Ltd. and Canadian Forest Products, and trade bodies, including the Mining Association of B.C. and the Council of Forest Industries, asked the panel to reconsider its recommendations." That would have been part of the discussion we've already had. Then it said that the deputy minister was recommending that the minister, who's with us here today, sit on the panel's final report for a period of public education. He said that Joe and Mary Public would need a ton of explaining before they would buy into the report. That was a quote at the conference.

Is there a difference between what the deputy minister sitting on the energy task force report is saying about deregulation and the minister's comments of a few moments ago?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member has heard my comments over and over again on this issue. Again, I say that if you want to phone the deputy minister in his office, he's quite available. He will, in fact, have a meeting with you to talk about these issues.

We have a lot of work to do within our caucus and within our cabinet to decide what's going to be best for British Columbians so that we can have an affordable, sure supply of electricity well into the future. We have to do that in a rational way. We haven't had time to do that yet. I just received the report on March 15. I have a report; the committee has a report; the Premier has a report. That's as widespread as that report is right now. Until we have time, as a caucus and as a government, to go through that report and decide what parts we may take out, what we may use and what we may not use, it would be unfair for me to speculate at this time.

J. MacPhail: Unfortunately, because the report is not being made public and there is going to be change…. This is the difference. This government is

keeping from public purview a report that is going to provoke change. I can predict with great certainty that there will be change by this government based on that report, yet there's no public discussion of it.

I don't think it's appropriate that I have a private meeting with the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines, who also happens to sit on this panel, so that he can explain what he meant by these comments. These comments were made at a public forum. I'm not sure the deputy minister thought they would be reported in the way they were, but there's been no denial that these comments were made. If the minister is somehow saying that these aren't legitimate questions for me to ask him, then I think he's shirking his responsibility as the minister who is going to bring about great change to the way consumers, both residential and industrial, get their price determined for hydro use.

I'm disappointed. I must say I am disappointed that the minister can't stand up and either give assurances that what the deputy minister said is not about deregulation and that that's not his intent, because the New Era document said there wouldn't be deregulation — or that the minister can come clean and say: "Yes, that's the direction we're heading in." Then we could probably have a discussion in public about what all of this means.

It will be interesting, given how the government considers itself to be the most open and accountable government, if this report is tabled at the same time as massive changes of what I predict will be deregulation occur in this province.

I'm moving on, because I can't get any answers. I'm moving on to the issue of transmission lines, unless the minister wants to reply. The report says that the transmission lines will be broken up into a separate entity. Will independent power producers sell directly to Hydro or to an independent transmission line operator? Who would operate those lines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I've tried to explain quite a few times that we as a caucus, as a government, as a cabinet, have not had the opportunity to go through the final report. I think I've alluded to and answered some of the questions from the member about a regulator. There will be a B.C. Utilities Commission that will regulate prices. We intend to go back to that process, something that has not been in place since 1993.

Until we have an opportunity to discuss it, to think about it, to take some ideas from it and decide what we think should happen and then very likely go out to the public with that kind of presentation, it's going to take a while. That doesn't happen between March 15 and today. That's why I said earlier that it's going to take a couple or four months.

I don't know whether there will be a separate transmission company at the end of the day. There could easily be. There could be a separate distribution company. There could be a separate generation company. There could be a whole host of things as were in the interim report. We haven't finished.

We haven't even had an opportunity for me to present to caucus or to cabinet the final report and some of the things we should be doing before we decide on any new energy policy. We know we have to work carefully and diligently to make sure British Columbians get the best deal possible for electricity, bar none; that we make sure they have a sure and ample supply well into the future; and that we look at renewables.

We talked about this at length the last day — about renewables and what role they'll play in the whole process of generating electricity; how we get conservation into the system; how we look forward 20 years out, or maybe even further, on Hydro so we have a benefit in the province. Until caucus and cabinet have an opportunity to review those — until I get those people's input — I can't say. The member is as aware as I am of what came out in the interim report.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I went to the transmission lines is because there has been public dialogue on that — again, by the Premier — saying the interim report itself says there should be independently operated lines. Then after that — CKNW 980; a voice clip from the Premier — the Premier said there were no plans to sell the lines. He said some people would see it as privatizing B.C. Hydro, that B.C. Hydro has to meet the needs of its markets and that one of the challenges is how to find cost-effective ways to do so.

It seems to be a little contradictory toward what the interim task force report is saying about independently run lines. The Premier is responding to it, so everybody gets a chance to have at this report in terms of policy-making except for the public. That's why I asked the question about it.

Clearly, I guess the Premier has made a decision that the government is not going to privatize the transmission lines, so I'm asking what it means in the context of that for independent power producers. What change is B.C. Hydro making to accommodate independent power producers? As the minister well knows, access to transmission lines is an issue in IPPs.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there has been lots of discussion out there about the interim report and having Hydro broken up into three parts. You've answered your own question. Just a little while ago, you were saying we were moving toward privatizing and selling it off. You just quoted the Premier as saying: "No, we're not selling that part of it." The Premier has been clear. We're not selling the core assets of B.C. Hydro — end of statement. That's what he's been saying. I concur. We're not selling the core assets of B.C. Hydro, but as was put out in the interim report — and that was to get discussion going — if we're going to use independent power producers, IPPs, to generate some new electricity well into the future, somehow they have to have access to transmission.

There are suggestions — and the member knows it as well as I do — that there would be a separate identity, another Crown corporation or whatever it hap-

pens to be, under public ownership that would operate the transmission lines so that independent power producers could actually access that line and sell their electricity, as I've said earlier, either domestically or south of the border. They might want to sell to large industrial users.

We've had a lot of discussion with the mining association and with the forest industry and large electrical users around how all of these things can happen. They've all got their own viewpoint, and they've all had the opportunity to give that to the committee, and the committee has put out a report. I'm not going to talk about the final report. The interim report is what I'm talking about now. All those suggestions were made amongst a multitude of others.

J. MacPhail: Somehow the minister thinks that my asking questions that are contradictory somehow traps me. Sorry. It traps the government. I'm trying to get from the minister what decisions have been made, and he says: "No decisions have been made." Well, here's the Premier saying one decision has been made that's completely contradictory to what was recommended by the interim energy task force report. The deputy minister, who sits on that, was up in Kelowna just a few short weeks ago saying, "The energy task force report's moving toward deregulation," yet the Premier is out saying: "Oh no, we're not going to do that."

What's the big secret? Why is it that the minister can't release the report? I know he's not going to answer that question, because he's refusing to. Everybody's having a discussion about a document that the public has no access to. All we can know is what the members of the task force are saying and what the Premier's replying. It's like a clubby little discussion occurring amongst the parties, which desperately and deeply affects every aspect of our economy, and we can't get access to the report.

I think the decision has been made. The Premier's there saying a decision has been made. Is it that he only knows what's going to happen about the transmission lines? Are you doing this sort of piecemeal? Does the government, like, wake up one morning and do transmission lines, the next day do dams, and then the next day do distribution lines? No. The report's ready. According to the Premier discussions have occurred and decisions have been made, and we're literally in the dark.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll say it again. The Premier's been clear. The New Era document is clear. It says we will not sell or privatize the core assets of B.C. Hydro. That's what he's saying. There are a whole bunch of things that we have to look at in energy generation in the province to make sure there is good supply well into the future and that it's a good, competitive rate for British Columbians. We have to look at that, and there are going to be some decisions that we will make that will carry us well into the future. That will be made not by me standing here answering questions to the member. That will be made at our caucus and our cabinet table and then with the public input.

J. MacPhail: I'll yield the floor, whenever Liberal MLAs have questions to ask — no problem.

I'm disappointed that this report is ready and is not being made public. I will be watching very carefully for what was said then and what's being said in the future in terms of Hydro. I urge this minister to do everything his government possibly can to allow the public to have a say when this report is released, because I get every sense in the world that the report is going to be provocative. If the government takes a provocative report and then imposes decisions arising out of that provocative report without any input from every single one of us who is affected by these changes, it will be debilitating to the government. It will be debilitating to the economy if at the same time we have a situation.

Let me just outline a scenario for the minister that I wish to do everything to avoid. If we have costs to business skyrocketing because of Hydro price increases at the same time that markets are in disarray, particularly in the area of softwood lumber — today we heard the Minister of Forests saying that he probably wasn't going to go back to negotiations, that we're going to try to figure out some other way of dealing with these hostile foreign governments, meaning the United States — then maybe other natural resources are going to be at risk as well. If at the same time we have the natural resources being affected by land claims disputes and aboriginal first nations court actions against the government, this will not be a good place to invest in Canada. British Columbia will not be seen to be stable and business-friendly.

Those three factors — energy, land claims issues and trade wars over natural resources — all can contribute equally to a destabilized economy. I want to do everything possible to avoid that. Any aspect that sneaks up on British Columbians, business or residential, and makes massive change to the costs of energy here will have what I predict: devastating impacts.

I'm moving on from the Energy Policy Task Force report. I'll be moving to B.C. Hydro, the operations of B.C. Hydro.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour asked a question a few weeks ago. I'll quote it: "Minister, I wonder if you could tell me" — this is the year 2002 — "how many vice-presidents does B.C. Hydro have now?" The minister was going to get that information for me. Could I have a history of growth in VPs at Hydro over the last ten years?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. I'll get the officials to add up how many vice-presidents

In 1998 there were 11 VPs. In 1999 there were eight; in 2000 there were 11; and in 2001 there were 13. As I understand it, Hydro changed the way they report so they have transmission, distribution, field services, engineering and shared services, and that brought in a VP for each one of those.

J. MacPhail: The minister was reported last time to say that there were 15 vice-presidents. Is that 2002 that there are 15?

When did it jump from 11 to 13 to 15? Was it on a restructuring under this government that that occurred?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In the year 2000 there were 11 ? okay? That was under a different administration. In 2001 it went to 13. That was under a different administration. In 2002 there are now 15, so it's increased by two over the last year.

J. MacPhail: No, I want to know when the change occurred in 2001 to increase that by….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Okay. I don't have that, and the officials from Hydro will get that for you.

J. MacPhail: I actually know the answer. It occurred under this government, so my point is that this government has expanded the VPs at Hydro from 11 to 15. What's worthy of four more vice-presidents, and what's the cost annually of the expansion?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What I have here in front of me are the year-end reports. On March 31, '01, there were 13. The other one, March 31, 2000, would have been 11. As I understand now, from the information I've given the member, there are 15. So it went from 13 to 15.

If I have some numbers or dates confused here, the officials of B.C. Hydro will get that information for you and let you know exactly when those changes took place, the date they took place and why they took place.

J. MacPhail: What role is B.C. Hydro playing in relationship to the Energy Policy Task Force?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro gave advice to the Energy Policy Task Force. They also put one person with the electricity group that the task force set up. I guess they set up different groups within the task force to study different things, such as electricity, oil and gas, coalbed methane, renewables — all those kinds of things. In the electricity group one person came over as an adviser.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Madam Chair. I was dealing with a procedural matter. My apologies.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Energy Policy Task Force set up different divisions or working groups, one with electricity, one with oil and gas, one with coal and one with coalbed methane. I assume they did renewables and all those kinds of things. One person came from Hydro to work in the electricity working group and gave them some advice on electricity. Also, Hydro provided to the group, I'm sure, a fair amount of information on electricity — buying and selling and all those kinds of things.

J. MacPhail: Did B.C. Hydro make a written submission to the Energy Policy Task Force report? Was it made public?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Mr. Costello and Larry Bell had two separate meetings with the task force, and there was no written submission.

J. MacPhail: Did the task force receive written submissions from other sources?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, they did. They received, I'm told, quite a number of written submissions from individuals responding to the interim report. Letters were sent to my office, and letters were sent to other MLAs' offices and were forwarded to the Energy Policy Task Force.

J. MacPhail: Well, why didn't B.C. Hydro make a written submission? I'm actually surprised at this, I'll tell you. I stood up here just assuming that B.C. Hydro would have made a written submission. How is the public supposed to know what B.C. Hydro's views are on this? Where do we find that out?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, Hydro did not make a written submission. As I said, Mr. Costello and Mr. Bell made two representations to the Energy Policy Task Force, and that's all. They didn't put it in writing.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm kind of at a loss. If there's nothing in writing, if B.C. Hydro, which is a publicly owned Crown corporation, is giving advice to the Energy Policy Task Force…. Do I have to FOI that information? Maybe the minister can just table with me the written documents that Hydro tabled with the Energy Policy Task Force committee. Or am I going to be forced to go through a FOI request and probably receive it late? In this support mechanism that Hydro

provided, were there written documents provided? If so, could I please have them?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not sure whether there were written documents in the support provided by B.C. Hydro. As I stated earlier, there was one person from B.C. Hydro who was on the electricity group and worked as an advisory person to help that group understand B.C. Hydro's operations and to bring that expertise to the table.

Some people made submissions by telephone. We don't have a record of that. Some people made submissions in writing. As I said, B.C. Hydro made two submissions, with Mr. Bell and Mr. Costello talking to the Energy Policy Task Force. If you want to FOI anything, FOI it.

J. MacPhail: No, I don't want to FOI. I want to know what a publicly owned Crown corporation is doing with the Energy Policy Task Force around matters of breaking Hydro up into three separate entities — re-regulating, deregulating, increasing price.

I have to tell you that I stood up here just assuming that B.C. Hydro would have had a written submission. Who was the person assigned to the electricity working group?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Jeff Barker is the person that worked on the electricity group. He's the manager of strategic planning.

My apologies; there was another person that gave information to the committee on renewables, or green energy, and that person's name is Brenda Goehring.

J. MacPhail: Did Jeff Barker or Brenda Goehring provide maybe a PowerPoint presentation, shall we say, or a briefing note to the committee? Or was it just people sitting around saying: "So what should we do with B.C. Hydro?"

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, these people would have come armed with some information. Obviously, they would be inputting information the same as any individual that would have come to make a presentation to the Energy Policy Task Force. They may have come with PowerPoint. I don't know, member. I know they obviously would have brought information, as did large industrial users, COFI and the Mining Association. All those people gave all kinds of information to the Energy Policy Task Force so that they could do their work.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but COFI isn't a publicly owned Crown corporation. Frankly, I'm sure COFI would make their documents available. What I'm trying to do is get the documents presented by B.C. Hydro.

This Energy Policy Task Force is about major change to B.C. Hydro. It's not about anything else, as far as I can tell. That's what it's about.

This is the only forum, then, that we have available to us to publicly explore the point of view of B.C. Hydro's senior management and board of directors, I guess, on changes that are going to affect the Crown corporation for which they are responsible.

The Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations presented to the Legislature a whole checklist of items that the Legislature should use to hold the B.C. government's Crown corporations accountable. That committee hasn't met. I don't know what we're doing about holding Crown corporations accountable for their various actions.

This is the only form, can't get the report, and apparently there are no written submissions. We've got 15 vice-presidents, a chair, a president, corporate secretary and a chief information officer giving private advice about changes that will affect all of us. I'm asking the minister to turn to the president and ask him to provide this Legislature, through me, every document that was used in any discussion or any exchange it had with the Energy Policy Task Force. Will the minister make that available to me?

Hon. R. Neufeld: When we release the energy policy, when we have a process, when we start going to the public and talking to them about what we think we might want to do or have a plan on what we think we might want to do…. At that time, I would think, probably a lot of that information would be available. Right about now, to just piecemeal part of the information out to you…. I don't know how much information is there. I haven't been there. I'm not part of that policy task force. They were given a mandate to do something. They went out and did it to the best of their ability, getting the information they could.

No, I don't have that information. I don't have those notes, and I don't intend to get them from B.C. Hydro. I think what they did was to ask those people to come to the Energy Policy Task Force and give the best information they could. The chairman, Larry Bell, and Mr. Costello met with the task force twice with no written information and spoke to them about electricity.

I beg to differ with the member. The interim report that I read had a lot more to do with than just electricity. That report had to do with a whole host of other things. It was not just electricity, although electricity is a big part of it because that's one of the crunches we're in right now.

J. MacPhail: I don't accept that we're in a crunch around electricity. The government wants to make change with the publicly owned resource, and so they're perhaps saying that there is a crunch. That's why I wanted to know what B.C. Hydro said.

I've already put on record that there have been changed estimates and predictions over the years in terms of huge amounts of time — one year, five years, ten years of the corporation predicting, in a very ultra-conservative fashion, about impending electricity shortages.

Yes, I accept the minister's rebuke about there being other parts of the report. The report dealt with other aspects of energy. Let me qualify it then. The controversy is all around the future of B.C. Hydro and electricity in this province ? all of it.

I will be immediately submitting an FOI, which is an awful way to do business. When they were in opposition, this government railed against having to go to FOI, even though they used FOI — unbelievably so and at great taxpayer expense.

Now, even though I stand here as the only voice asking for this information, the minister's refusing to give it to me. Well, we will be going to B.C. Hydro and asking for all of this information, because it is mind-boggling. I have to tell you that it is absolutely mind-boggling that with the future of B.C. Hydro on the verge of radical change, according to the interim report there's nothing in writing about what B.C. Hydro itself feels.

Let's do this piece by piece then. What's B.C. Hydro's view about independent power producers having access to transmission lines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro's viewpoint about independent power producers is that they're going to encourage them. In fact, they're doing it right now, with about 18 power projects that are small run-of-the-river projects, the green energy we talk about. They're working hard on that. They are trying to put in independent power producers to encourage them so we can get some generation. They're working on doing some wind studies around the province to see exactly how much wind we do have in the province to generate electricity.

J. MacPhail: What proportion of total electricity generated is captured by those various projects — independent power producer projects, alternate energy projects — and how has B.C. Hydro restructured itself so that those sources of electricity have access to transmission lines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Ten percent of the total of B.C. Hydro's production, I'm told. They actually contract with Hydro to sell our electricity to Hydro, and Hydro resells that wherever it happens to sell it.

J. MacPhail: There's currently ten percent of independent power production going on. Is this a model which B.C. Hydro presented as one that would apply, then, for remodelling transmission lines to be independent of generation and distribution? Could we actually have the details? If that's the case, is the power bought straight across? Does B.C. Hydro make a profit in terms of this, buying it from independent power producers by virtue of saying it's going to resell it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The IPP policy of the early nineties is where a lot of these IPPs were taken into the system. There are major proposals to burn natural gas to generate electricity. That happened through that period of time. This last while, they've just gotten some renewables as I guess we term renewables — that's run-of-the-river, small water projects. That's how that took place. Whether it's a profit or not I guess is determined at the end of the year — whether Hydro gives a dividend back to the shareholder. That has a lot to do with what happens in reservoirs and what happens with purchasing electricity from either Alberta or south of the border. We talked about that earlier, about Powerex and the intricacies they work through.

Hydro's position is to get new generation on line through IPPs. That's what they've been working on. We don't have a lot, but we have ten percent on board since 1993. That's been what they've been working towards.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm told there were three larger ones in the last year and 18 small run-of-the-river projects.

J. MacPhail: What percentage increase is that beyond the 10 percent? The 10 percent has been built up since 1993. I want to know. I don't need to drag this out. How's it going? Can I just have some sort of line about how this is going in terms of expanding the increased independent power production?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, it's about 10 percent of the total. In the system Hydro works in right now, I would say it's probably working fairly well. It's a little bit difficult trying to go out there and actually have Hydro pick who should and who shouldn't generate and who can and who can't. That's part of the difficulty, but I would say that on average, Hydro says it's working not too bad.

J. MacPhail: I'm just wondering why there was a recommendation from the energy task force to have transmission lines as an independent, independent from generation and distribution. Why is there a necessity? If there's no growth in the area of independent power production, then what's the purpose of even talking about putting transmission lines into a separate entity? What are we looking at here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, it's to encourage larger IPPs. To get them on the system, they have to have access to transmission. They have to be able to sell their electricity either to the Crown corporation or across the border or to industrials or to residential people. That's why there has not been a flurry of larger IPPs.

There are pent up hundreds of millions of dollars out there and people who want to actually come to British Columbia — it may come as a surprise, but that fact is true — and build generation projects. Whether it's with natural gas, water, renewable or coal, all kinds

J. MacPhail: That's why I'm asking my questions. What did B.C. Hydro say to the energy task force about transmission lines? What was B.C. Hydro's view on what changes had to occur to transmission in order to do what the minister says needs to be done?

In the last year or so, it doesn't sound like there has been huge growth in independent power production under a new regime, given that the government of the day wants to encourage it. I mean, where's the link here? Where's the link between what the energy task force interim report said about making transmission lines independent and the increased independent power production, and what did B.C. Hydro propose?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think if the member goes back and reads the report again, the report clearly states its recommendation of having a separate transmission group. It talks about it at length — the whys and why you need it to encourage IPP production so that we can encourage private investment into generation of electricity along with the Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro.

There's a whole host of reasons around that. The member is well aware of that. I'm not going to go through all that in estimates. It's out there in a report. It's been out there since December 15.

J. MacPhail: The report says absolutely nothing about B.C. Hydro's view on this — absolutely nothing. The report also doesn't outline a model — a real, on-the-ground model — of how it's going to work, for this reason. Then the report would have to say: "Oh, transmission in this province is going to be done in a radically different way." It isn't just about carving off B.C. Hydro's current transmission lines into a separate entity, because that's basically what happens now. Tell me: how would it be? The report does not deal with this. If B.C. Hydro needs to get production of independent power up and it's not going to continue the model of transmitting it through to B.C. Hydro, who then resells it? How is it going to work? Is it going to be B.C. Hydro that still does the resale, or is it going to be privatized?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to remind the member again that we did not say we were going to privatize B.C. Hydro. Those are the member's words. Those are the words that come from people who want to instil fear in British Columbians. That's talk about people making assumptions. I read nowhere in that interim report where it said: "Privatize B.C. Hydro. Sell it." I don't know; maybe somebody else read a different report. That's not what I read in that interim report.

No, we haven't said that. There are some recommendations from that task force. That's what they were supposed to do. That's what task forces do. They go out there and get that information and bring it back to government. We haven't made our decision on what we're going to do. Our caucus hasn't even had a chance to read the final report. Our cabinet hasn't had a chance to read the final report, and you're wanting it delivered today. It would have been an interesting day in the last ten years I spent when you were in government, member, that you would have handed out a report just like that because a member of the opposition asked for it.

No, we're not going to let the report out now. We'll let it out in good time, when we've had time to work through it and look through it.

J. MacPhail: The minister has no idea what my views are on changing the way we transmit power in this province — no idea. I also know it's not a new topic. What I'm trying to find out is B.C. Hydro's submission on this issue.

We're debating the estimates of B.C. Hydro. Independent power production, according to their own statistics, is flatlined. It's grown for the last nine years to 10 percent of total production, and it's flatlined over the last little while. The minister says that has something to do with the way we transmit power.

The government is suggesting the Premier has his views on what should happen to transmission. The Energy Policy Task Force has its views. At least two members have their views on how electricity should be transmitted and on changes.

What I'm trying to find out is: what changes are actually going to work? What are the consequences of those changes? When the minister stands up and says it's in the report, it isn't in the report. What's in the report is a recommendation to go down that road, and I want to know how it's going to work. That's all. That has to come from B.C. Hydro, unless there's somebody else with the expertise in this province about the transmission of electricity. That expertise didn't come to light at any point prior to this.

That's why I'm asking these questions. It has nothing to do with the final report. It has to do with what B.C. Hydro recommends can be a success, who profits, why the change is necessary and how the change encourages independent power production. That's all.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think, for about the sixth time, I'll say our caucus and our cabinet haven't had the opportunity to review the final report, to think about all the things they're recommending. Whether we'll accept all of them or none, I don't know. At the end of the day it would be presumptuous for me to stand here and say this is how we're going to do it.

There's the interim report that elicited a lot of input. You're right. We got all kinds of input. That's exactly what that interim report was supposed to do. Until we make that decision, no, it won't be public, and I won't be standing here talking about it. It would be presumptuous of me to talk about something that I haven't even talked to my cabinet colleagues about from the final report. There has been discussion from the interim report by all kinds of people, people in this room, tons of them, out on the street, all kinds of them, all kinds of

ideas around it. No, we haven't had a chance to take the final report that came out of the Energy Policy Task Force and work it through yet. That will take some time.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, the minister completely misunderstands. I'm not asking about the energy task force report final recommendations. I'm asking what B.C. Hydro said about changes — what this province is capable of changing around the transmission of power. I'm not even asking, because I've already been told six or seven times that the minister's not going to reveal what the decision is of cabinet. I'm asking what Hydro's input was. There were no written submissions. There were a couple of chats, as far as I can tell, between the president and Larry Bell, the chair — a couple of chats. Then there were two people, and we're not sure whether they put anything down in writing to advise the energy task force about what their view was on change.

This is a Crown corporation. The shareholders of this Crown corporation are the taxpayers, and we can't find out what their view is on something. I mean, I just find it incredible that we've got a multibillion-dollar Crown corporation, at least 15 executives kind of working full-time on the operation of this Crown corporation, and we can't find out as taxpayers what's going on. I don't care what the energy…. I've already had my advice that I'm not going to find out anything about what's in that report, but advice, surely, should be forthcoming.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I didn't say that Mr. Bell and Mr. Costello had a couple of little chats. I said they had two meetings. That's what Mr. Costello has informed me. They had two meetings with the Energy Policy Task Force — not chats, two meetings.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I didn't say that the two other people I gave the names about didn't have any information. I said I don't have that written information. They may have come forward with a PowerPoint, for all I know. They may have come forward with some written information. I would assume they probably did, talking about how things are done in other areas. That's what you're trying to do, to get that information. That's what's taken place from B.C. Hydro to the Energy Policy Task Force.

J. MacPhail: There's no evidence that they were anything other than private chats, because there's nothing in writing. There's no record of it. The fact that the minister doesn't have the reports…. The two senior people are sitting side by side to him. He can say: "Yeah, there are documents available, and I'd be happy to make them public." The minister refuses to do that, so there is nothing that gives the public confidence that B.C. Hydro executive has been defending the interests of the shareholder, and the shareholder is us.

I'll tell you, if any private, publicly held non-Crown corporation operated this way, the shareholders would be up in arms. Hewlett-Packard merging with Compaq: if it were the two CEOs having a private little chat about what good it was for the companies to merge, the shareholders would be up in arms. I guess because the shareholders are taxpayers, they don't have any right to have access to the information about what their executives are actually doing about the future of a publicly held corporation. That's what I'm getting at. For the minister to somehow stand up and say that — even though he's sitting in between the two people that have all of this information — he has no idea whether it's available or not is really to show disdain for the taxpayer, the shareholder-taxpayer in this situation.

I have to move on because of course we're going to go through a whole set of estimates where B.C. Hydro will not give one iota of information about the biggest change this corporation is ever going to go through, ever ? well, short of when W.A.C. Bennett set it up.

Here we are in debates with no information ? none. You know what, Madam Chair? I do believe they were just a couple of little chats. That's exactly what I believe. There's no evidence by the minister to prove me wrong.

I'll put this on the record: I think the policy about what's going to happen to the future of B.C. Hydro was predetermined prior to the Energy Policy Task Force report through a couple of private chats. That's exactly what I think.

I must have a different 2001 report, because there are 12 VPs listed here, not 13 ? 12 VPs. Is this the last annual report that I'm dealing with, published in August 2001?

J. MacPhail: I don't know what the difference is. There are 12 VPs listed on this one. The minister said there were 13.

A couple of things I wonder is if they still exist or how they'll be reported. Oh, when do we anticipate the 2002 report? I know we haven't even finished the fiscal year, but when do we anticipate the 2002 annual report of the corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: My apologies. This young man behind me is going to buy coffee tonight. Actually, he may buy supper. He miscounted by one. It's okay. It is 12, not 13 and July sometime.

J. MacPhail: I'm reading from the report now, under "Aboriginal partnerships." What consultation is occurring as we speak with first nations on Hydro's water use planning program? Or what, if any, consultations are happening with first nations and where?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are two water use plans completed, one for Alouette and one for Stave. First na-

tions were involved. Five more are substantially complete, i.e., consultation is completed and submissions to the comptroller are scheduled for spring 2002. That's Bridge, Coquitlam, Cheakamus, Seven Mile and Jordan River. A further eight water-use plans are in progress: Ash River, Campbell River, Duncan Dam, Mica-Revelstoke-Keenleyside, Peace, Puntledge, Shuswap and Wahleach. The remaining water-use plans will be initiated over the next year.

J. MacPhail: Have the first nations continued to consult over the last three months, let's say?

J. MacPhail: The report talks about triple bottom-line accounting. It says here it's to move toward that. I'm quite familiar with this. What's the progress on triple bottom-line accounting that the corporation's made?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The officials inform me that they have completed three or four triple bottom-line reports. They are companion documents to the annual report, and I'm sure the member's aware of that. They have received a lot of compliments on their processes that they use and on the sustainability part of it.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware of that. What's the progress in the last…? Will the corporation be pursuing as vigorously as in the past a move toward triple bottom-line accounting? Will the annual report that we can expect later this year be in the same mode of addenda, or will it be incorporated into the actual accounting? What's the plan for this year's annual report?

J. MacPhail: My last question for B.C. Hydro is on Power Smart. Oh, I still want the information about the vice-presidents, with the increase of three. What is the status of the Power Smart programs in terms of funding allocation, either increase or decrease, success, where they're operating, and what's the future?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, Power Smart is operating well and continuing. In fact, they're increasing it to a certain degree. For the member's information, they have two pilot projects, Courtenay-Comox and Quesnel, that they're doing in conjunction with the communities. They will take some time to look at and see how well that worked and, as a result of that, move it out to other communities in the province.

J. MacPhail: What's the actual dollar expenditure projected for 2002-03 for Power Smart programs? What was spent in 2001-02?

Hon. R. Neufeld: For 2001-02, approximately $20 million was spent. There are substantially more dollars going to be spent in 2002-03. I don't want to give that number because the board hasn't approved it yet. It's substantially more than the $20 million, if that's sufficient for the member.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I said that was going to be my last question. I have one last, last question. What is the dividend that the government is booking from Hydro for 2001-02, and what's the forecast of the dividend for 2002-03? Sorry, I don't have the blue books here.

Hon. R. Neufeld: To the CRF for 2001-02, it's 85 percent of $200 million. That's approximate. For 2003-04, it's 85 percent of, projected, about $350 million. I don't have my calculator here to give you the 85 percent.

J. MacPhail: So 2001-02 is going to be 85 percent of $200 million, and then it's 85 percent of $350 million.

There was quite a bit of controversy around the dividend that would be transferred. I recall it quite well — the now current Finance minister making a big deal out of the forecast for the dividend being wrong. What actually contributed to the dividend this year? What factors contributed to the level of dividend being at $200 million, and why is the minister specifying "85 percent of"?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The 85 percent, as I'm told, is an order-in-council that has been around for a number of years — in fact, over ten. Why the $200 million is less is simply because we've had to go out in the market and buy electricity because we've had low water specifically in the Columbia system. The water wasn't as low in the Peace. We had fair water in the Peace but not in the Columbia system. We were out buying on the market.

J. MacPhail: Is that the factor that changed, because B.C. Hydro was estimating around $100 million? There were documents that were leaked that said B.C. Hydro was estimating about $100 million for the dividend for 2001-02. That's one question. What changed, then, to raise it to $200 million?

Secondly, what's behind the risks and challenges behind the $350 million for 2002-03 — or the upside or downside risks?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In the first part of 2001 — April, May and June — electricity prices were fairly high, so they were actually projecting more than we were going

to get. At some time in the end of June, somewhere in that period, the prices dropped dramatically because of what was happening in California, and so the prices went down. That's why the difference in the numbers, I'm told.

The $350 million is risk-related, as it always is. It depends on what we hope is lots of water in the Columbia and the Peace system and on what energy prices are. They move fairly regularly, and B.C. Hydro sells into that market south of the border. That changes all kinds of dynamics on a constant basis.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but if one's suggesting $150 million of $200 million, it's about a 75 percent increase. What factors are turning to the advantage of the corporation to predict a 75 percent increase in the dividend from 2001-02 to 2002-03?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, it has to do with water levels in the two main systems, the Columbia and the Peace. They're estimates on the system being full of water and having some electricity. Also, if you want to go to the service plan for B.C. Hydro, page 18, it shows some graphs about water inflows versus gas prices, weather sensitivity versus electricity prices and all kinds of variables in foreign exchange rate sensitivity.

J. MacPhail: Yes, those are standard variables. This is not an item that hasn't been without controversy in the past. I know there are only two of us to examine these matters, but I'm just wondering what variable — those are standard variables — is working to the government's favour to increase the dividend forecast by 75 percent.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to go back to my last comment. The member says it's always there, and in fact, it is. Those are the challenges. I'm sure the member knows quite well what B.C. Hydro has to work with in estimating dividends to governments or to the shareholder. It's predicated on all kinds of things: weather, water levels, the price of electricity, what happens in the U.S., what happens in Alberta. It plays a big part in what happens with us, because we export and import an awful lot of electricity from Alberta. All those variables are there.

J. MacPhail: It's not a casual: "Some things affect others." I'm asking for specifics. What exchange rate differential is there? What water level is this predicted on? Is it 70 percent capacity, 80 percent capacity? Maybe there's a document that the minister can just refer me to with all of these risks and challenges there.

In terms of the exchange rate, the broader budget is not expected to change from 2001-02. I don't know what change there's going to be to water levels. In terms of excess capacity, there is now excess capacity in the United States as opposed to an under capacity. I'm just wondering what good news there is that would say the dividend is going to increase by so much.

Hon. R. Neufeld: This year we're looking at 100 percent of normal in the Columbia and the Peace system and last year in the mid-80 percent.

J. MacPhail: The increased dividend is based on rain and snow. Is that basically it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's right. I think if I go back to that, B.C. Hydro knows how much snow we have out there now. They can use that information to decide how full the dams will be. Last year, the dams were low; we were net importers. We had to buy electricity from other producers because the Columbia system was low. There was very little precipitation in the Columbia system. The Peace system, as I remember, was not as bad as the Columbia system, but we were out there without the full complement of water in our dams.

Hopefully, B.C. Hydro estimates…. They have all kinds of graphs in their plan to look at to figure out how they arrive at these numbers. Hopefully it is good news for British Columbians, because I think it's time they had some good news.

J. MacPhail: What portion of sales is expected to go to California? The last question on California is: what is the status of payment owed from California to here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The amount owed to B.C. Hydro is $290 million (U.S.). FERC is still dealing with that. There has been no decision made. As I understand it, there will be sometime in June or July. B.C. Hydro may be receiving some information from FERC on that claim.

We don't have the specific amount that actually is traded with California. B.C. Hydro tells me it's not significant in the whole scope of things, when you look at the trading that B.C. Hydro does through Powerex, but California does buy some hydro.

FERC. Maybe the minister could explain how that works to British Columbia's advantage.

Hon. R. Neufeld: FERC was the agency that B.C. Hydro dealt through in the U.S. with their lawyers in the bankruptcy that took place in the U.S.

The $290 million. As I said, they will be making some determinations with B.C. Hydro at the table, speaking on behalf of B.C. Hydro and British Columbians, about how much of that $290 million we should get. We think we should get every nickel of it. We fully

believe that. Whether at the end of the day we're going to get every nickel of it remains to be seen.

J. MacPhail: Does B.C. Hydro have ongoing contracts with the companies, or sons and daughters of companies, that owe us money?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The ISO and the Power Exchange are the ones that owe B.C. Hydro the $290 million. B.C. Hydro now deals with an entity called the California Water Department. They are actually on a very short leash. That means there is very little credit out there. I'm not sure exactly how quickly they pay, but they have to pay at almost the same time as they get the electricity.

J. MacPhail: How does B.C. Hydro report the status of this dispute, and when can we expect the next public report on it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That will be in the next annual report. The $290 million and the explanations about it, as I said earlier, we'll receive sometime in June or July.

J. MacPhail: My next questions. This minister is responsible for Columbia Basin Trust. I have questions on that, and then I have questions on oil and gas exploration. I'd like to wrap this up by six. Could the minister please update us on the status of the Columbia Basin Trust in terms of its current activities and future plans?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Columbia Basin Trust is operating as it has in the past. It's developing some projects now. They've just received the go-ahead for the Brilliant project, and they are now seeking power sales for that generation.

J. MacPhail: What's the annual allocation to the Columbia Basin Trust that this government makes?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's the same as it was under the previous government. It's $50 million a year and, I believe, $2 million a year for the operation of the Columbia Basin Trust.

J. MacPhail: The service plan that now exists for the Columbia Basin Trust is a result of the core review. I take it that the government has no plans to change the annual allocation which, of course, is by legislation, is it not?

J. MacPhail: What about the board for the Columbia Basin Trust? Have there been any changes at the board level, and if so, what?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are four vacancies on the board of 16 people. The Columbia Basin Trust has approached government about looking at the composition of the board and may be changing it, but that would be done only at the wishes of the Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation.

J. MacPhail: Is it the intent to keep the board, through appropriate appointments, responsible to the community it serves, which is basically the Columbia Basin, or are there going to be changes that remove the authority away from the Columbia Basin geographic area?

J. MacPhail: As I recall, the Columbia Basin Trust used to have public forums. Do those continue?

J. MacPhail: Just for my benefit, describe the last one: the issues, the attendance, the acceptance by the public and what issues are arising for the Columbia Basin Trust.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have someone with Columbia Basin Trust here — just Columbia Power Corporation. Rather than try to guess at the last one, what we'll do is get that information and get it to the member.

J. MacPhail: Well, then, the Columbia Power Corp. Coming on line, coming on stream is the Brilliant Dam. There's another dam, I think, to come on stream. When is it to come on stream?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Columbia Power Corp commissioned the Keenleyside project last year, actually. It's still in the commissioning stages. Again, we're building an expansion, to start construction a little later this year.

J. MacPhail: What, if any, revenue is flowing to the summary accounts of the government from Keenleyside estimated this year?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That stays pretty constant until they get everything up and running and see how things go.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to be moving to oil and gas exploration now. What is the time line for the northern task force report release on oil and gas exploration? Is

the minister part of that caucus committee? If so, what public hearings has it held?

Hon. R. Neufeld: You're speaking about the offshore report by the northern caucus committee. That will be released simultaneously when we release the offshore report from the scientific panel.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister a member of that committee? What relationship does the minister have with that committee? What public meetings were held? How were submissions received? Will all the submissions be made available at the same time the report is released?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I can get the places where they met for the member. Yes, I am part of the northern caucus. I was not part of that committee. The ministry appointed a committee made up of northern members, obviously, to go around and hear from individuals. I did not take part in that part of it, but I am a member of the committee.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm told that the majority of the submissions made to the northern task force were either to proceed with extreme caution or to not proceed with offshore oil and gas. I'm wondering whether the minister will actually be releasing the submissions made because my understanding, too, is that a great deal of the work was done by invitation only, without public hearing.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The communities were chosen by the committee. I'll just give the member the names. Blair Lekstrom was the chair. The Cariboo North MLA, the Bulkley Valley–Stikine MLA, the North Coast MLA, the North Island MLA and the Vancouver-Burrard MLA were part of that committee. They did travel to a number of communities. They have submitted their report to me. When we release both reports all the information will go with them.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We didn't use Ministry of Energy and Mines staff. We used staff provided to the northern caucus.

J. MacPhail: I didn't speculate who you didn't use. I was asking who you did use. Were caucus staff used? Was the research done by the committee, separate and apart from the Energy Policy Task Force report? If so, who did that research, and will it be made public?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't believe they did any research other than going out and listening to the communities. They would have read the report, the Jacques Whitford report that we spoke about earlier that the previous government had commissioned and kept under wraps. That was made public, and they had that to reference from. To my knowledge, they didn't do any other research. If they did, I'll let the member know.

J. MacPhail: Also, the minister has his own report that's coming forward. What other reports are coming forward to cabinet besides the northern task force report?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's another task force report in the scientific panel report on offshore. The other one was the Energy Policy Task Force, which is completely separate from the offshore.

J. MacPhail: Okay, there are two reports coming forward to deal specifically with offshore oil and gas exploration. The scientific panel on offshore oil and gas has reported to cabinet — yes or no?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It has been submitted to me, to the ministries that would be specifically involved and to the Premier's office. As I said earlier, we haven't had the discussions in cabinet or in caucus about the offshore oil report.

J. MacPhail: When did the minister receive the report from the scientific panel on offshore oil and gas exploration?

J. MacPhail: What is the time line for a decision? I'm not asking what the decision is. What's the time line? We're now two and a half months from this report being received. My understanding is that the northern caucus committee report has been in for weeks. What is the time line for a decision?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As soon as we can, once we do some homework on both reports. I stated earlier that we are having a few discussions with the federal government around it. We're also going to have discussions — and if they've not happened, they're happening soon — with first nations. Some of those discussions are taking place before we make the report public and decide or have an idea of what we want to do.

J. MacPhail: I discussed this matter with the Premier during the Premier's estimates. I asked him whether there was any interest from the private sector in offshore oil and gas. First of all, the Premier made it clear, through questioning, that it would only be private interests that would explore oil and gas offshore. I asked him whether there had been any interest shown by any private sector companies. He was unaware of any. Is this minister aware of anybody in the private sector who can actually mount an exploration that would lead to success?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It would be presumptuous of me to put any name on the record of who could mount this

kind of process if in fact we decided to go ahead with it. There are many companies around North America that are huge and have the capabilities, the knowledge and the ability to do it. There are some out there I'd think would actually want to do it, if we decide at the end of the day we'll go down that path.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I raise this is because the Minister of Environment for the federal government has been very explicit in saying the federal government would respond to any industry proposal that meets the safeguards of protecting the environment and protecting wildlife habitat and that could actually deliver through technology that can work.

The reason why he was very specific about that is because there is no proposal out there. Mr. Anderson, the Environment minister, was the one who did the study to advocate the moratorium on offshore oil and gas. He didn't want to do anything other than remain current with the thinking that needs to go into offshore oil and gas.

The federal government is unaware of any company that has any interest in exploring oil and gas offshore. There have been two companies that have pulled out of offshore oil and gas exploration on the eastern coast of Canada, because it just doesn't make sense now. This is after a couple of billion dollars of investment, as I understand it. Those companies are just saying no, for whatever reason.

What is it that the minister knows about offshore oil and gas exploration that the rest of the country doesn't know? I know the minister himself has speculated on the huge economic potential for this. He has publicly speculated at an open cabinet meeting that the financial situation this province finds itself in could be reversed by offshore oil and gas exploration. I think it's a legitimate question: who's interested?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll go to the east coast first, and I'll respond to that question. Why some of the companies pulled out of there is because of the cost of extracting the heavy crude and processing it to get it to market at the market prices there are today. They found it uneconomical. That's a business decision made by huge corporations. That's why they made the decision. It doesn't mean you would find those same kinds of conditions on the west coast. We don't know that until they have a chance to go look for it.

The industry people I've talked to have been clear about processes. On the east coast, the process used was that the government got involved with some companies and said: "We'll go out there and start doing it, and we'll build the regulations and the rules and all that kind of stuff as we go along." They found it was hugely expensive. It wasn't conducive to good private-sector investment, and it cost industry and government a lot of money.

The companies that have talked to me have been clear that before they would even think about going offshore, if in fact any moratorium were even lifted, they would want a pretty firm set of rules and regulations in place and areas defined: this is what we can do, and this is what we can't do with the technology we have today.

That's fair ball, and I think it's incumbent on government, if we went down that path, to do that and to make sure we have all those issues in place as best we can — knowing we'll not have them all, but as best we can — prior to opening it up or even thinking about lifting the moratorium.

I don't believe I said in any open cabinet that offshore would be the vehicle that would bring the province back to some kind of wealth. I think I've been fairly open in saying we don't know how much wealth there is out there other than what we've been told. It's a huge amount of wealth. It could generate a lot of jobs and wealth for the province.

I don't think that at any time I said in open cabinet it would be offshore oil and gas that would bring riches back to the province, although I would think there would be some revenue to the province.

J. MacPhail: Fair enough, but I assume the reason why the government's moving towards lifting the moratorium is for the revenue potential. The North Coast MLA said February 13 in his local paper, the Prince Rupert Daily News, that the government is prepared to take the next cautious step in lifting the province's moratorium. He says, of course, let's talk to the first nations. He says we also have to talk to the environmentalists. The North Coast MLA said: "I don't know how long that would take to explain what we want to do and how we want to do it in hopes that we can bring them onside. We've now got a government that's prepared to move ahead, and that's stated very clearly in the throne speech."

We spend a lot of time reading the community newspapers because sometimes things are said in the community newspapers that are different from the message we get down here. Clearly, we have a community here that's being told this government is proceeding to explore offshore oil and gas, so I'm just wondering. Again, it's the same as the energy task force report, and this member for North Coast is a member of the northern caucus committee who did these hearings.

Clearly, people have made decisions, and the public is the last to find out about what those decisions are. I assume a decision has been made to go ahead. I can only assume that. Has the minister reconciled the discrepancies around the estimated potential for reserves? I'm going to ask a series of questions on the report. The minister needs to explain to me how a decision hasn't been made, given what the member for North Coast is saying.

What is the estimated potential for reserves? What is the ability to develop them and on what kind of time line? There is controversy around whether the reserves in any way will generate revenues of substantial proportion.

What, if anything, in the report deals with the earthquake hazards in the Queen Charlotte basin? The active seismic zone there has a history of strong earthquakes. One of the strongest ever recorded in Canada occurred there.

There are the concerns of the Haida nation, the legal steps. We explored that earlier, and I'm wondering whether the minister will be responding to that in the report. Lastly — well, I'll get the minister to answer those questions first, if I may.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The geological survey of Canada estimates for natural gas are 25.9 trillion cubic feet, estimated, and for oil, eight to 10 billion barrels. That's in Hecate Strait only, and that is their estimate.

The other issues the member brings forward regarding earthquake zones and all those issues are actually out there publicly in the Jacques Whitford report, the one I mentioned earlier that the previous government commissioned and didn't release but that we released. They talk about earthquake zones and those kind of things and about where else offshore drilling is done.

The report from the scientific panel was asked to deal with those kind of things also, remembering that the Premier has said — and we have committed to it — we're only looking seriously at this if we can do it scientifically, soundly and environmentally safely. That's the only way we would carry on with it. No decision has been made at all on whether we're going to do it or not. The final decision hasn't been made.

I can understand where the member for North Coast comes from. He lives in and represents a community that's been devastated, absolutely devastated, over the last ten years by some forest policy and some issues surrounding a pulp mill on the North Coast. He is looking for anything we can get for some economic development going on in that area of the province so that people can actually continue to live in the Prince Rupert region and the Terrace region, can have good jobs, raise their families and enjoy the area where they live.

He is very optimistic about what could happen in the event that the moratorium were lifted. That's a response to his statements in the newspaper. I can quite well understand where he's coming from and where the people of the North Coast are coming from. After all, they just want to be able to go out and work, live and raise a family the same as the rest of us.

J. MacPhail: I am reading from the Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. report, 2001, where he updated the 1998 report. He lists substantial community concerns. Let me list them: environmental impacts on the in-shore and near-shore areas; social and economic impacts regarding livelihood — e.g., commercial fishery, forestry; impacts on the aquaculture industry — e.g., salmon; environmental impacts of on-shore activities related to oil and gas; impacts on traditional aboriginal livelihood; the use and training of local labour in the oil and gas activity; division of labour, profits, royalty and licence fees associated with oil and gas; access to oil and gas resources once ashore; and impacts on the current local industry structure. Those are from the Jacques Whitford October 2001 report.

It's an interesting conclusion the report comes to. Again, it does point to the fact that previous governments may have had all sorts of reports upon which they chose not to act, because the report indicated there should be no action or that the action was not worth the given reaction. Here's the report's conclusion:

In other words, even if it can be done, it could be way too expensive to mitigate against all those risks.

Does the minister's scientific panel report have any economic analysis attached to it of the costs of mitigation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have a copy of that report, but I remember the statement. Really, that's what it's all about. If a government decides to lift the moratorium and go ahead, the private sector, under certain guidelines, rules and regulations, will have to make the determination whether they want to go out there and drill for hydrocarbons. That will be entirely up to them. They'll have to live up to some stringent rules and regulations.

As far as what is in the scientific panel report, the member can read it when it's released.

J. MacPhail: What I will be looking for is that there's not a gap left here. The scientific panel report deals with the issue of whether it can be done or not. The northern task force report deals with the fact, perhaps, that the member for North Coast is clearly saying it's going to happen. In the interim, the world divides itself among those who are in favour of this happening and those who are against it, and there has been no economic analysis done of whether it's even feasible.

I will be looking very carefully at the two reports to see what the economic potential is for this in terms of reality. The minister is quite right to stand up and say that the company has pulled out of the east coast, because it wasn't economically viable — not at all — and that was after the offshore oil and gas industry was pretty well developed and encouraged offshore.

Here we have a situation where this is controversial. There are many different circumstances, geological and environmental, and there isn't even agreement on the reserves. Very different circumstances exist here on the west coast, and there's a real question about the economic viability of any operation that would truly mitigate design, geohazard or environmental issues.

Those are my closing comments. Given the fact that these reports have been out there for months now and that we still don't have access to them, the minister can take even more time now to make sure that a proper economic analysis is done.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just one comment. There is a lot of activity going on in offshore drilling on the east coast, and the member should not confuse my remarks. The part that was shut down is a small part of the offshore oil and gas reserves on the east coast because of heavy oil. That doesn't assume there is really heavy oil on the west coast. You don't know that until you drill for it and find out.

Ask Newfoundland, or ask Nova Scotia about the amount of money that is actually flowing to those provinces and into employment in those provinces for those kinds of operations. Of course, the price of oil dictates what happens, and the price of natural gas dictates what happens also. I just didn't want that to go misrepresented.

The Chair: I declare a recess until 6:30 p.m., when we will be doing estimates, continuing with the Ministry of Education.

Hon. C. Clark: While I'm up, I will take a moment to introduce my staff. Of course, my deputy, Emery Dosdall, is with us; Keith Miller, who is our director of capital planning; Tom Vincent, who is our assistant deputy minister, management services; and the very indispensable Barry Anderson, who is a special adviser to the deputy. And of course — sorry, I didn't mean to stop before I was finished — in the gallery tonight we also have the unforgettable Stewart Ladyman, who is the superintendent field liaison.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'd like to ask, through you, to the member of the gallery: are there any secrets that I shouldn't address on the record? — because I understand that Stewart Ladyman is retiring soon. I just didn't want it to be a surprise to him that he was retiring. That's all. Oh no, that's birthdays, sorry. Not retirements.

Anyway, I had the pleasure of working with Stewart Ladyman as well. Not only is he the most fun person to work with, he's extremely well-informed and extremely helpful as a longtime public servant. He's a superintendent, so he's done his time in the trenches. I'll be saying this in some other venue, Mr. Ladyman, but extremely well done. Thank you for all the dedication that you've given to British Columbians and to the little kiddies, and I don't mean the Minister of Education on that.

I do want to carry on from where I left off last time, but first of all, I have a series of questions that just came in from the Learning Disabilities Association that I think perhaps we could deal with initially. This is an association out of Vancouver that has written to the opposition to make some concerns known about some changes as a result of core review. Let me just read two paragraphs. There are some questions from this. It doesn't look like it was copied to the minister, so I'll read slowly. It says:

Hon. C. Clark: I'll take this opportunity to answer some of the member's original comments. Of course, she can refer to me as a kid, given her age. I'm not too offended.

Second, and more importantly, she's quite right. Stewart Ladyman has been an indispensable part of this department for a long time. He is a lot of fun. I guess I'm so much fun to work with that he's finally decided to retire, go on to greener pastures and do other things.

It will leave a really huge hole in our department when we lose him, because he's contributed so much in terms of his corporate memory and his understanding of the field. As someone who's worked out there in the trenches, he thoroughly understands what our partner groups mean when they're talking about the problems they may be having in trying to deliver education on the ground, so it will be a big loss to us when he's gone.

We're all very, very sorry he's leaving. In fact, I tried to persuade him to stay, but I had no luck with that. I guess, on my wages, I just can't afford enough beer to keep him happy these days. We will very much

Now, with respect to the letter that she's raised. It's appropriate, I think, that we be talking about the superintendent field liaison, because I think the reference in the letter to the review is to the special ed review. Now, it says core services review, but that's not something I'm aware of — a core services review to commitment.

She may be talking about the special ed review. If she is, the answer to that is that when we were drawing up the accountability contracts, we went out and spoke to every district, asking them to identify where they were with respect to each of the recommendations in the special ed review. We'll certainly be following that up over the coming year as we embark on a new set of accountability contracts.

J. MacPhail: Well, I can only put together what I learned about the core review process from the Premier and what this letter says. Phase 2 of the core review across the board is to be implementation and the consequences of implementation. I think that perhaps is what the association is referring to. This is very specific about core review here.

Let me then just go on and put on the record the questions this association is concerned about. I continue to read from the letter dated March 18 from the Learning Disabilities Association:

As there is no ceiling on those separate classes, children with learning disabilities might find themselves floundering because they are not getting the individual attention they need.

Funds for special ed can now be spent on any program deemed desirable by individual school districts. The reason the target was originally placed on those funds was to ensure all districts allocated appropriately.

Is the reason to remove the guarantee to allow spending to go below those limits? Knowing that funding for special education was already inadequate, why would this promise of a minimum spending amount be taken away?

Hon. C. Clark: First, with respect to the comments about core review. We in core review talked about special ed in as much as we identified it as a core service of the ministry. We consider that as core review and talked about that as core, and it remains core. The discussion about special ed at core review was that we would continue to support it, and we continue to provide as much as we can to support the kids that need it in our schools.

Second, the issue of class size that the letter raises I think refers to the regulation that we are out consulting on now. We've consulted very widely on that with the special ed community and with school districts and administrators. Hopefully, I think I will be seeing the final results of that review tomorrow or this week sometime.

The suggestion that the special ed classes would be exempted from the class size regulation or set outside the calculation for class size regulation because somehow the government doesn't care what size those get to is just wrong. The reason it was in the consultation, suggested that it might be kept separate or done under a separate calculation, is because we assumed those classes would be much, much smaller, that they're atypical classes. However, I would add this: the government remains very firmly committed to the principle of integration for kids who have special needs. We recognize that some classes of special needs children are organized because for some children for some parts of the day it works to do that, but we are not watering down or changing our commitment to integration of special needs kids into typical classrooms. I'll leave it at that for now.

J. MacPhail: I actually have my own questions arising out of what the minister is saying, but I think I'm going to carry on with the questions from the Learning Disabilities Association so that they themselves have a very clear reply to whether their questions have been dealt with or not.

The Minister of Education promised greater flexibility and choice in exchange for greater accountability. That accountability was twofold: more transparencies so parents could track the funding and improve student performance monitored by the use of letter grades, the foundation skills assessment tests and student and parent satisfaction surveys.

Hon. C. Clark: We are at the moment developing very specific ways that we can determine whether school districts are meeting the needs of individual special needs children. The most obvious way to do that immediately is through the IEPs, monitoring the individual education plans that school districts are required to develop for each child based on that individual child.

We are bringing in a system of monitoring those IEPs that has never existed before, which will mean a whole new kind of oversight to ensure that those kids are getting the services they need that have never existed before. In addition to that we are working with the special needs community to develop other ways that we can ensure that special needs kids are getting the services they need and that they are, indeed, improving on their results year after year.

J. MacPhail: Again, I continue with the letter. This is a letter to the opposition caucus, but it's in the form of a plea. "To help avoid such ill-conceived policies in the future, I would ask that you urge the Minister of Education to add special education stakeholders to an education advisory committee, which currently has no representation in this crucial area."

Hon. C. Clark: The special education advisory committee representative for special needs parents is Reggi Balabanov, and the structure of the committee hasn't changed from the time when this member was in government previously. In addition to that, though, my deputy has been consulting very regularly with the special needs community. I have met with them to talk about their goals and the goals we share in common for kids who have special needs, and we are ensuring that dialogue happens. Of course, over the next year we are working very hard with school districts to ensure that the goals for special needs children and that their educational success is improved year after year are part of our accountability contracts.

J. MacPhail: Well, those are the questions from the Learning Disabilities Association, and they give rise to questions I have. How is it that individual education plans are going to be monitored to meet the concerns of the Learning Disabilities Association that says the current indicators, such as letter grades, have no relevance to children with special needs who aren't given letter grades? How is a school board to cope with that?

Hon. C. Clark: With respect to the IEPs, we are planning to go in and randomly…. It's impossible to monitor every IEP from Victoria, and that's something, in fact, we want to get away from. We want to allow school districts to have autonomy in their own area as much as we can, but we do want to ensure they're meeting the goals. We will randomly go out and monitor IEPs, make sure that school districts are meeting the goals that they've set for the kids in those IEPs, and, as I said, we are working to find other ways that we can individually track kids with special needs and their progress.

One of the advantages that British Columbia has is a personal education number for every child in the system. We can, in theory, pull out any child by number and say: "Look. See how well that child is doing year after year." The challenge we have is to ensure we don't violate anyone's right to privacy in doing that, so we're having a discussion with the special education community about how we might be able to do that to ensure that kids with special needs are actually progressing year after year.

J. MacPhail: When the minister suggests that these discussions are ongoing, is the Learning Disabilities Association of Vancouver included in those discussions and if so, why is it that they're still asking these questions?

Hon. C. Clark: The deputy is going to be meeting with them on Wednesday, and I'm sure that's something they'll be talking about at the meeting. He's met with them as a group, with the Learning Disabilities Association and representatives of other special needs children a number of times, I think. I've certainly met with them as well. Again, this is a dialogue that's ongoing.

Accountability contracts and this kind of monitoring isn't something that the ministry ever had the ability to do in the past. We're really charting a new course in British Columbia and tilling some new ground. The discussion is ongoing. It's not fully developed yet, but I think, over the coming months, we will be able to put together some plans for ensuring special needs children are getting what they need out of our education system that will satisfy to a large extent the concerns expressed in that letter.

J. MacPhail: So I expect then that the deputy minister will be well informed to answer some of these concerns of the Learning Disabilities Association when he meets with them on Wednesday.

The minister's response to a change in the representation at the education stakeholders committee, her education advisory committee…. It doesn't suffice to say that the representation has been the same as in previous years. The changes that are made to special education are what provoke parents of kids with learning disabilities to ask for a change on that education advisory committee.

There were other ways of making sure that targeted funding went to children with special needs. All of those have gone and what this group is asking for ? the parents ? now, given the new changes, is a new

Hon. C. Clark: I understand the special education community did make the same request of the previous government, and the previous government turned it down. I don't know what the thinking of the previous government was with respect to that, but as I said, we are working very hard to build a relationship with the special needs community, meeting with them regularly to talk about their concerns.

Reggi Balabanov is the parent representative on the committee. I know she speaks and deals with the special education concerns on a regular basis. She does an excellent job of representing all of the parents out there on that committee.

J. MacPhail: I spent my week talking to parents, and some sort of justification that that was the way things were done in the past just simply isn't washing out there. It isn't reflecting on any past governments; it's reflecting on this current government. That's how I spent my spring break. I just give that as a note of friendly advice to the Minister of Education.

I'm sure that after the deputy minister meets with the Learning Disabilities Association that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be in touch to see whether the concerns they've raised in this correspondence to us have been addressed and whether indeed there's any further action that they would recommend to the government.

I'm going to move on to where we left off the last time we were here on estimates and that's on debt servicing. I have had a chance to talk with some school boards about this issue and they of course have read Hansard and were terribly confused by the discussion, so I hope we can straighten out this discussion.

Two things that the minister said that created confusion. One is that there is a subvote for debt servicing, and that's true.

Then there was this confusion of the minister suggesting that the new approach to capital planning that's listed in the budget and fiscal plan really wasn't as the trustees outlined. I'll quote from this document. It's called the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2002/03-2004/05. Starting this is "New Approach to Capital Planning": "First, starting this year, agencies are required to accommodate debt service and amortization costs associated with capital expenditures within their operating spending targets. In the past these costs were built into ministry budgets."

That's what we used to call the in-out. That's where the government of the day would charge capital debt servicing and then provide the funding over and above the rest of the budget costs to the school boards. I think it's $50 million — is it? — that's charged for debt servicing across all school boards across the province now.

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, debt service isn't carried by school boards. It's carried by the ministry, as I said last time. The debt service costs are considerably more than $50 million. This year they are $363.5 million, and amortization is $200.6 million.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I meant debt-servicing costs for capital for this year. You know, we don't need to play games around this, because school boards have already figured all of this out. As I understand it, the budget was frozen at $4.8 billion. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I've answered that question maybe 30 times, maybe 60, maybe 100 so far in the estimates. The answer is that the ministry budget is protected.

J. MacPhail: Whatever. The money that was available for school boards, the Education budget, is…. I'll use the figure $4.8 billion, if the minister doesn't want to state a figure. In the past, that $4.8 billion would not have included debt-servicing costs, and now it does, so what happens is…. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, because every school board I talk to said this is their interpretation of what's happening. The funding that is "protected," in the words the minister likes to use, now includes debt-servicing costs and amortization costs that previously weren't included. Am I correct? Are the school boards correct, or are they wrong?

Hon. C. Clark: The member can get upset, and she can be frustrated. I understand why. She's had a week, and she still doesn't understand this. The answer has not changed. The answer is still that this budget item is being managed the same way this year that it was last year and the year before. That subvote for debt service and amortization is in the ministry budget. It was last year. It was the year before that. That's not something that's charged against school board budgets.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that there has been no change in the practice around a new approach to capital? What does the phrase "new approach to capital planning" mean, where it says: "First, starting this year, agencies are required to accommodate debt service and amortization costs associated with capital expenditures within their operating spending targets"? What does that mean?

Hon. C. Clark: I am advised that the Ministry of Finance document, the budget document she is referring to, does not refer to agencies like school boards. It may be referring to Crown corporations. It may be referring to other agencies of the Crown such as that, but it is not referring to school boards. The management of debt and amortization, while it is in the Ministry of Education budget this year, as it has been in previous years, is not charged to school boards.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister familiar with the phrase "in-out" on debt servicing and amortization?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm reflecting the questions that I accumulated from school boards. The deputy minister is absolutely well aware of this. For the minister to sit here, surrounded by people who can answer these questions, and somehow say they're not legitimate questions is showing disrespect to the school boards — absolute disrespect. Is the minister familiar with the concept of accounting of in-out charges on debt servicing and amortization? Yes or no. And has that changed this year?

Hon. C. Clark: My answer is the same as it has been today and last week, which is: the way we manage debt in this ministry has not changed. Part of the debt has always been apportioned, or in the last few years has been apportioned to the Ministry of Education budget. That has not changed. We are not charging that against school boards. That has not changed. School districts will get their money based on their portion of the ministry's budget, but we do not charge our debt against them as individual school boards.

J. MacPhail: Will the money for debt servicing be, across the system, over and above the money that the minister says is protected for education? That's why I asked the specific question.

J. MacPhail: Okay, $4.861 billion. As I understand, the minister says that in the past she's put extra money in for…. I think it's MSP or something. Does that money that's been protected, which is the same budget for '01-02, include debt-servicing costs or not? And in 2001-02 were the debt-servicing costs included under $4.861 billion as well?

J. MacPhail: Well, then, this government has a huge job to do to explain to school boards — a huge job. The deputy minister is well aware of this.

I met with my school board during spring break, and they don't agree with that. They don't agree with that, and that reflection is across the system. Here's what they think happened: the in-out concept, which the minister thinks is just trivial, is what used to happen under governments. There was always a subvote; there's no question about this, but the funding would be established, the debt-servicing costs would be established. Then there would be a transfer in for debt-servicing costs and then a transfer out. It was in-out. At no time did school boards ever have to pay for debt servicing out of their annual allocation.

Here's what schools boards think: that the minister…. It's probably because it's a subvote of the $4.861 billion. Out of the $4.861 billion, they now only get charged for the debt servicing without any increased funding allocated to pay specifically for that debt servicing. What they say is, and this is across the province…. Here's what the school boards think it is.

There was $4.861 billion in funding for schools. Now there are extra charges, and that was what the funding protection is. It's still not enough to fund the pressures. That was the budget that was being protected, but in the protection of that funding, there are increased costs allocated to the school that could have gone to school funding, per-pupil funding, and now have to go to debt servicing.

Hon. C. Clark: I could say that the member is wrong. I think I'd be better just to say she still doesn't get it. It has been a week, and they're the same questions. They're the same answers. The $4.8 billion last year included the debt service costs. The $4.8 billion this year includes debt service costs. Our budget is protected this year, despite the fact that we've got declining enrolment. When we built our new funding formula, we made sure we did everything we could to protect school districts against any changes in their funding for this year, except for, as much as possible, the fact they've got declining enrolment.

For the member to suggest that somehow this is a dramatic change from previous years in the way we manage this debt within the ministry, is just clearly wrong. If she's suggesting to me that we sit down with her school district and talk to them about this because there's a misunderstanding there, I'm happy to do that. I'm delighted to do that — in fact, grateful for the advice — but she's barking up the wrong tree here.

J. MacPhail: Somehow, the minister in talking to her staff said this document, "New Approach to Capital Planning," doesn't apply to schools. I think that's what I heard her say. In the opening paragraph: "Investment in hospitals, schools, highways and other infrastructure is essential to the delivery of needed public services." This whole section applies to hospitals, schools and highways, so somehow, it ain't my communication problem that is existing here.

School boards read this and said this applies to them. In fact, it then goes on to say: "…to help ministries, health authorities, school districts and other public agencies find efficient and innovative ways to meet British Columbia's infrastructure needs." This docu-

Forgive me, but the schools boards I talked to think it applies to them. I'll tell you something, Mr. Chair. If the minister somehow thinks I don't get it, that's absolutely irrelevant. Who doesn't get it, then, are the school boards, and this is after a meeting with the deputy minister. This is after a meeting.

Here's what school boards think. It's that yes, there's no question there's a subvote for school debt servicing, but that subvote is now for the very first time being charged against the funding that would normally go to school boards for classroom programs, for teachers, for special needs, all of that. There is now a bill that has to be paid by school boards that didn't have to be paid out of the money.

J. MacPhail: The minister there is saying: "Absolutely not." The staff have said this document is wrong and doesn't apply to schools. Here's what I urge: that the deputy minister or the minister meet with the School Trustees Association and say: "There's been no change, and the fact of the matter is that this document has to be changed. The new approach doesn't apply to schools." Will the minister undertake that, to rewrite this document?

I don't know why the minister won't. She turned to staff and said: "This document, this section, doesn't apply to school boards." The opening paragraph is about schools. I don't understand why the minister doesn't want to clarify this for school boards because there are school boards now making cuts based on this document, planning for cuts based on this new approach this minister is taking.

I'm happy the minister is saying I'm wrong. I'm completely happy the minister is saying this document is wrong, that it doesn't apply to schools. It would save a lot of time if the school boards know they're not going to be responsible, starting this year, for agencies to accommodate debt service and amortization costs in their budget.

Then let me ask you this. This is a three-year document. Maybe the minister will deign it appropriate to stand up and answer questions. This is a three-year document. Is the document here wrong for the full three years?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said a number of times, school districts are not carrying the debt service and amortization against their budgets. The member talks about how she met with her school board, and they're worried they're going to have to budget for this. Well, when I saw the budget that her colleague passed across to me from the Vancouver school board, there wasn't anything in that budget suggesting they were putting aside money to pay for their debt service and amortization costs, so I don't know where the member is coming up with this assumption. I know she has misunderstood this. I hope she understands it now. Perhaps we can get on to a subject where she's on firmer ground.

J. MacPhail: It's always difficult not to react to the arrogance of this minister. I didn't say anything other than the funding allocated to school boards is now requiring cuts. They're planning cuts now. They were told that funding for education would be protected. It's the minister's word: "protected." It's $4.861 billion that is to be protected. That should mean, to the school boards I talked to, they would have had the money available from $4.861 billion, and they would have to cover the same expenditures they had to before. What they're saying now is they have to make cuts because they're having to cover additional expenditures out of the $4.861 billion that they didn't have to cover before.

You subtract the debt-servicing costs from the $4.861 billion and divide it up, then divide the remaining money up on allocations to school boards. That means school boards are getting less than they would have the last time. That's what school boards are saying. If the government had truly protected education funding, there would have been more money available in the grants to the school boards. That's what they're saying.

I see the minister saying: "No, no, that's not the case." School boards think there's a difference. If funding had been truly protected, they think they would have had the money that now gets taken from the subvote for debt servicing, that that would have been an in-out charge to them and that they would have had that money available for the grant to school boards. It's not a matter of them having to make cuts based on saying that here's the debt-servicing charges that we have to take care of. What they're saying is that there's a whole bunch of money that has been allocated…. The pot is less that's been allocated to them, and therefore they do not have the funding to cover off their costs that they have right now.

The minister and her staff keep saying: "No, there's been no change — none." Just explain it to the school boards. That's all. It isn't me that doesn't understand it, because I actually think I do understand it, but I have to sit here and say that the minister's telling the truth. I've had that, so explain to school boards that there was no reduction in the per-pupil grant as a result of the changes to debt servicing. That's all the minister has to stand up and say.

Hon. C. Clark: I'll try and be clear about what I've already said, and that is that the ministry has not changed the way that it manages that subvote. We're doing it this year the way we've done it, as I understand, in previous years. That vote amount will change in given years, and certainly, that will have an impact on the total budget that we have. Now, the Education ministry budget is protected at $4.8 billion. The Ministry of Education budget is being managed the same way with respect to the debt service and amortization this year as it was in previous years. School districts are

getting as much money as we can shovel out the door to them, because we are trying to provide them with the support they need to be able to provide programs.

Now, if the member is telling me that school boards don't understand that, I'm happy to go and talk to school boards. Her suggestion of talking to the BCSTA is something that we're also happy to do. To the extent that I can, I hope that clarifies her questions.

J. MacPhail: Well, the staff turned to the minister and said this document doesn't apply, that this new approach to capital planning is in error. Fair enough. Correct it. Going to the school boards and saying the phrase, "Starting this year agencies are required to accommodate debt servicing and amortization costs associated with capital expenditures within their operating spending targets," means nothing, didn't have one single effect on the per-pupil funding. Just go to the school boards and say that. That's what they can do — and that this document is wrong.

Second, it says that recognizing the budget pressures faced by agencies — and an agency here is a school, by the way, opening paragraph, a school — and their ongoing need for capital, agencies are being asked to explore new ways of funding and managing infrastructure projects in order to ensure the most effective and efficient delivery of public services.

Now, when we explored that in hospitals, that meant that we're not giving you any extra money, and the debt servicing and the amortization have to be paid out of your operating budget, so if you want to build anything new, it comes out of your budget. Is that different than what this document means for schools then, because in the past, schools didn't have to worry about whether they personally — school boards — could afford debt servicing or amortization. They didn't have to in the past.

J. MacPhail: Well, what does this mean then? That's what I'm asking. What does this phrase mean then as it relates to schools — this document?

Hon. C. Clark: We are looking at, as the document suggests…. In fact, we are revising the capital management framework, building in new kinds of incentives for school districts so that they'll have more control and autonomy over the way they manage projects. I think that when we get to making that announcement, it will be something that school districts will be delighted about.

J. MacPhail: Well, again, if the minister's being advised that the second paragraph here has no bearing on school boards, then she needs to correct that with the school boards as well. The debate is already happening in hospitals, and hospitals and schools are being treated in exactly the same way, that no longer will the province pick up debt servicing and amortization costs — no longer. That'll be charged again, so hospitals will have to choose between heart surgery or debt servicing. What school boards think this means is that they'll have to incorporate debt servicing and amortization into their budgets. There will be no in-out cost anymore. They could save a lot of anxiety by school boards.

It isn't a matter of the school boards being stupid. They've actually asked these questions of the ministry, and they still have this view. The minister can easily say: "The three-year fiscal plan is wrong for schools. The new approach to capital planning doesn't apply. Don't worry, absolutely nothing has changed." That's what the minister has just said. All she has to do is explain that to the school boards. That's all I was asking the minister to do.

I would also suggest the minister could do that by saying that for the next three years it's wrong as well ? this year and the next two years, that it's completely wrong — because this is a three-year fiscal plan. So the school boards don't have to worry that the $4.861 billion doesn't have any new charges laid against it that had no impact on the per-pupil funding or the grants to the school boards.

Here are some questions that the school trustees have. They actually made these statements after the last set of estimates with the Ministry of Education. They met with the Ministry of Education, and they asked for a transparent statement on the costs, and of course it was to do with this issue of debt servicing as one of those. The ministry had agreed to pursue this clarification. Has the ministry met this commitment with the BCSTA?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not sure I heard the member's question correctly. We are talking to the BCSTA now, or we will be, about the buffer grant and how we are going to manage that over the coming years. With respect to the other issue she raised, the ministry hasn't yet had any discussion with the BCSTA to my knowledge.

J. MacPhail: The BCSTA asked for a transparent statement on the costs that they must absorb. They did that over a week ago. As I said, I'm merely reflecting the frustration in terms of transparent accounting of costs that the BCSTA has as well.

The BCSTA hasn't asked me to speak for them. I've talked to individual school boards, including I had a very good session with my own school board and they asked for this transparent statement on costs, not costs around debt servicing alone, but all the costs on what the school board has to absorb. The minister may remember last time we were in estimates, somehow the minister thought I didn't understand the costing around the teachers' agreement. Subsequent to that, the school boards met with ministry officials, and the costs I raised were exactly accurate. The School Trustees Association is asking for a transparent statement on

Hon. C. Clark: Every district has different costs, and school districts manage those costs themselves. I think I've been pretty clear about the fact that the teachers' salary increases for years 2 and 3 will be costs that are managed by school districts. Certainly, every district will have different pressures to manage, depending on their circumstances.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister suggesting that the ministry hasn't received a request from the BCSTA to have a transparent statement on costs?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I haven't seen the letter the member is referring to. I'm sure the BCSTA will make sure I do sometime soon.

J. MacPhail: Here's another quote. It was a press release with an accompanying letter, as far as I understand. This is from the BCSTA president:

Hon. C. Clark: Some of the things the member has referred to are familiar to me. They're part of the discussions we've had with the BCSTA. Certainly not all of that is news — no.

J. MacPhail: Then, again, may I ask for a time line when the ministry or the minister is going to meet with the School Trustees Association to give a transparent accounting of costs? Here's why: this isn't just pie-in-the-sky questioning here. It's because the meetings in my district about what cuts have to take place are going to start very soon. Why school trustees are asking for this is so they can have a transparent accounting of the costs before they go into their discussions about what cuts to make.

Hon. C. Clark: Each of the school districts, as I said, has different cost pressures. They know what their cost pressures are. Certainly, it varies from district to district.

J. MacPhail: Let me give one example, then. The ministry said there won't be any more money to cover government-imposed increases in MSP payments for employees. The minister, in estimates, said the ministry would be covering MSP premiums. It has come to attention that since the minister said that, some school boards have received the information that MSP premium increases wouldn't be covered, so the school boards are confused. That's just one example.

There is also, as I understand it, disagreement — or confusion, shall I say — around what funding is provided for the teachers' salary increases imposed by this government on school boards. These aren't principles that vary from school board to school board. These are general principles around transparency and statements about what is covered and what isn't covered. That's the request from the School Trustees Association for a meeting. When is that meeting on the general principles of what is covered taking place?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to be able to tell the member that this minister and this government are very committed to meeting and speaking with the BCSTA on a regular basis. I will certainly be touching base personally with the president of the BCSTA this week, whether or not we discuss this item. I don't know whether or not that'll be on his agenda to discuss. Certainly, I intend to see him this week and have a chat.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask one more question about debt servicing. Previously, what was the relationship between reporting debt servicing for schools, between the subvote of the Ministry of Education and any vote in the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. C. Clark: Not having been here last year and given that we're not examining last year's estimates, not all of my officials have brought information about last year. I am advised that we can get the information for the member at the next sitting of estimates, if she'd like.

J. MacPhail: The ministry officials are here who can answer this question. Was there any reporting of debt servicing or the booking of debt servicing costs for schools? Was it booked anywhere else, in any of the estimates, any of the votes, anywhere else in government?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is mistaken. There aren't the officials here who can answer the question with a high degree of certainty about last year, but we can get the information for her.

J. MacPhail: Well, sorry. I think the ministry staff aren't doing their job, then, because I know the ministry has the information. I know it. It's surprising that somehow it isn't available here. The ministry can say: "No, it isn't reported anywhere else." They've already said there's been no change, so why don't they just stand up and say: "No, no other vote in previous years dealt with debt servicing for schools"? Why don't they just say that?

Perhaps as we do this for about another 45 minutes or so, the ministry staff could go get that information. Just call the Ministry of Finance and say: "How was debt servicing reported in last year's budget around debt servicing for schools? Was there any other aspect of last year's budget that dealt with debt servicing of schools?" Will the minister agree to take that up? It's one phone call.

Hon. C. Clark: It's 20 minutes to eight. What I'm delighted to do is make sure we have the information and can provide her with a certain answer the next time we meet.

J. MacPhail: Well, I don't plan on carrying along these estimates beyond tonight. This is important information, because it goes to the heart of the issue that the minister has been obfuscating on around debt servicing: that somehow there's been no change, that what happened before happens now.

Maybe my memory is faulty. All I need is an answer for that. There are Finance officials who could answer this question right now. Make a phone call to say: "Hey, you know what? There's some crazy person there that suggests that somehow debt servicing has changed for schools. She thinks it used to be an in-out charge for school boards for the Ministry of Education. Somehow she thinks that the debt servicing charges were never taken out of the overall budget for the Ministry of Education. Just tell her she's wrong and that Finance never used to have this charged as an expenditure against it."

Why can't you just make a phone call like that? You know what? I'll pass it on to the school boards. Why isn't that possible?

Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps I can provide the member with some information that might set her mind at ease. I think the essence of her question is that the Ministry of Education is giving less to school districts this year than it was last year, even though the Ministry of Education budget is protected. I think that's where she's going with this, so let me tell her this.

The Ministry of Education budget, yes, is protected this year — $4.861 billion this year. The school districts in the '01-02 budget last year got $3,764,994,318. This year we have allocated $3,787,276,477 for dispersion to school districts, and that doesn't include some of the other costs like PLNet. PLNet is not in there, I think, and learning resources and other things that are really a dispersion to school districts, but we end up taking them back anyway.

J. MacPhail: I am going to ask the minister — either her officials or the minister — to get that information for me. That wasn't an answer to my question. What the minister just gave was not an answer to my question. The school boards — the school trustees and superintendents who have to manage budgets — are saying that if this government hadn't made a change to the way debt servicing is now allocated, the money that's now charged for debt servicing would be available to school boards in their grants. That's a very different question.

Of course there's an increase in the money allocated for the school boards, because the ministry has agreed to fund the first year of the teachers' agreement. Of course there's an increase. That doesn't answer my question about whether, if this government hadn't changed the way debt servicing is allocated, there would have been more money available to school boards, and the cuts would not have had to be as deep. Of course. The numbers the minister just gave me are irrelevant to answering my question.

Hon. C. Clark: I've said it before, hon. Chair, and I'll say it again: there is no change in the way we've allocated debt this year over last year.

J. MacPhail: I'll await the information on whether there has been a change in the way the Ministry of Finance deals with debt servicing and costs associated with debt servicing. The Ministry of Finance used to absorb the costs of debt servicing, and whatever the increased costs were, they were charged in and then charged out of the Ministry of Education. Never was it a cost that had to compete with other school board pressures, ever, so that has changed. If the minister says it hasn't changed, then correct the fiscal plan. Correct the document that says exactly what I'm alleging, because it's her own government document that gave rise to my view about the changes.

Anyway, these estimates will conclude, and the school boards will come and say: "Gee, isn't it great that we were wrong? There has been no change. That cost isn't impacting on the grants to school boards. The money wouldn't have been available for funding children. There wouldn't have been any change to funding, because it was done the same way the year before and the year before." I expect the minister won't be able to prove that to school boards or school trustees.

Again, for the last time, after I get that information from the minister — I'm surprised it can't be done right now; in fact, I know it can be done right now, but the minister refuses to — then I will ask the minister this. If I'm proven wrong — fair enough; that's great — change this document. Just change the budget and fiscal plan document to say the new approach to capital planning doesn't apply to schools. You could just magic-marker-out where it says "schools" throughout it. Is the minister clear on the information I want about the Ministry of Finance?

J. MacPhail: If the minister stands up and says that school boards' funding is protected, then let's start with school district 23, which is the Central Okanagan. There have been cuts. They have experienced cost pressures that are going to put them into a situation where they're saying there will be cuts as a result of…. These

are some of the cuts they are anticipating: closure of Winfield Elementary, reduction of 3.4 elementary staff, elimination of crossing guards, elimination of traffic safety officers. Is the ministry working with school district 23 in terms of the cuts they'll have to make?

Maybe I should ask a general question, because the last time I talked, the minister said she'd had no requests from school boards in terms of pressures that their budgets were facing — requests to assist in management. We were talking about the special committee that goes in and assists. Have any requests come in to date from school boards for assistance?

Hon. C. Clark: The last time we spoke, the member was asking about the efficiency teams and whether we were sending in efficiency teams or had any requests for them. The answer to that is still no.

J. MacPhail: I asked a different question just now. Perhaps the minister could answer that.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we've met with a number of school districts to talk about their budgets.

Hon. C. Clark: Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Kootenay-Columbia. I think that exhausts the list.

J. MacPhail: School district 35, Langley. All of this is public information; it's not leaked. The school board in Langley estimates that they will have a $6.2 million shortfall and that the decrease in the grant is $2.4 million to the Langley school district. The Langley school district will have to absorb $1.8 million for salary increases next year. The freeze on provincial funding for education means Langley school district will have to find an additional $2 million to cover costs such as inflation. That's from the chief financial officer of the school district of Langley.

Let me ask a general question, then, because I'm going to read all of this into the record anyway. Has the minister or ministry heard general concerns from school boards about their inability to meet their budget in terms of balancing their budget as a result of the freezing of education funding?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, certainly we have. School districts have expressed some concern about the pressures they're facing. I've said many, many times that I know this is going to be tough for school districts to make some of the decisions they will have to make. I'm quite confident that with the tools they have they will be able to manage the pressures.

J. MacPhail: For instance, the notes from the Langley school board said that the chief financial officer said the district is seeking clarification of the allocations for unique geographic factors and the buffer grant. Many other districts receive much more in both categories, but it's not clear why. For instance, West Vancouver received $1.1 million for unique geographic factors, Chilliwack, $853,600 and New Westminster, $946,200, compared to Langley's $124,100. How does the ministry explain those differences to the school board, the Langley school district?

Hon. C. Clark: No, we haven't heard any specific concerns from Langley that any of the people in this room are aware of. I certainly haven't heard anything directly from them.

We went through with every secretary-treasurer — we met with them about a week after we met with the superintendents and the chairs of every board — the reasons they were allotted the money they were allotted. Langley should be quite clear on that.

J. MacPhail: I imagine these are the questions the School Trustees Association is raising in terms of the general principles. Is it the minister or the ministry staff that's meeting with the School Trustees Association on Thursday? Sorry, I didn't understand.

J. MacPhail: Maybe I can help the minister. These are some of the questions that have been raised. The minister can be prepared.

School district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school board, March 12. It's a news release:

It is clear to the board that despite the changes in the funding formula, our public education system continues to be obviously underfunded.

One of the questions school boards have asked across the province is clarification around costs that specifically affect employee benefits: MSP premiums. Well, the Minister of Finance is here now. He can probably answer my question. Perhaps you should take a break and the minister can answer the question.

J. MacPhail: I was asking whether changing the debt servicing costs…. The budget and fiscal plan '02-'03, '04-'05 says: "New approach to capital planning. Investment in hospitals, schools, highways and other infrastructure is essential to the delivery of needed public services and the province's economic growth." It goes on to say: "First, starting this year, agencies are required to accommodate debt service and amortiza-

tion costs associated with capital expenditures within their operating spending targets. In the past these costs were built into ministry budgets."

I interpreted that as an in-out charge. That's the way it was done in the past. The question I had to the Minister of Education, who insists that there's no change here and that this document is wrong…. I was asking her….

J. MacPhail: Well, actually the minister did say this document was wrong, so the record will stand. I'm trying to figure out whether at any point in the past there was a charge for debt servicing anywhere else in any other vote across government.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, the changes to the way capital was managed and accounted for in the Ministry of Education were implemented under the previous administration, so there has been no change there in at least the last three, maybe four, years. The former minister, the current member sitting opposite, would probably be aware of that. I think she was the minister around that time — maybe during or perhaps shortly before; I'm not sure. Certainly, other agencies and other parts of government — transportation and other parts of ministries — were trying to standardize a process that the previous government had actually put in place in education and, I believe, in health care as well.

I'm certainly willing to explore that in more detail with the member when we get to the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. I do know that in the Ministry of Education there has been no change from what was done under the previous administration for a number of years.

J. MacPhail: I do believe that there has been a change because now the in-out charge is that there isn't any booking of this. The cost has to be entirely absorbed under the frozen funding of the Ministry of Education. In the past, yes, it was charged against the Ministry of Education, and then the Ministry of Education was provided with extra funding to cover that debt servicing.

What this government has done to freeze the funding at $4.861 billion, and debt servicing is charged against that $4.861 billion. The change has been that the ministry has to absorb that with no increased funding for any level whatsoever. What school boards are saying is that with absolutely frozen funding they have to absorb all of the costs imposed upon them and if they didn't have to absorb this cost, there would have been extra funding available to go to school boards. If indeed that isn't the case, then this document needs to be changed to say that there is no change for school boards.

The Chair: Minister of Finance, I think we should be trying to get back to vote 22. We've had the discussion between the Minister of Education and the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it was stated earlier that the discussion on the changes would be better taking place when we do the estimates of the Finance minister.

Hon. G. Collins: I appreciate the advice from the Chair. Any minister of the Crown can answer a question in estimates for any minister. The question was asked, and I was just offering it. I think the minister was fine with that. Believe me, I don't want to spend any more time in estimates than I have to.

When one freezes a budget, which is what's happened at this time in the Ministry of Education, that means there is no extra money for a whole bunch of things that people might like there to be. As I said, there has been no change to the way capital has been managed in the Ministry of Education for, I think, three or four years.

As I said to the member, I'm perfectly happy to have that discussion with her at length in the Ministry of Finance's estimates, if she chooses. If she can prove me inaccurate, then I'll have that discussion with her, but to my knowledge there's been no change at all in the way that works for the Ministry of Education. This year there has in other ministries, and if what the member is asserting is that we should make that charge and then provide more money on top of it to deal with it…. If that's what the member is asserting….

Hon. G. Collins: That's probably because the budget wasn't frozen in the past, and that's what happens when one has….

Hon. G. Collins: That's what happens when one has a frozen budget. What the member opposite can perhaps understand is that if the budget is frozen, it means that no money has been taken out of the budget. The exact same dollars are going into education as were going in before, and that's a fact. There's been no change done to the way capital in some big structure…. If she thinks there's been some new, big structural change to the way capital has been dealt with, that's simply not the case.

As I said, if the member wants to discuss it more fully, I'm glad to do that in the Ministry of Finance estimates.

J. MacPhail: In fact, the Minister of Finance is saying exactly what I have been saying. Because the budget is frozen, there are now expenditures against the $4.861 billion that weren't charged against that money before. We will have that discussion. We can have that.

J. MacPhail: There was additional funding provided for the debt servicing. That's what an in-out charge is. We will have that discussion during the Minister of Finance's estimates, because the Minister of Education doesn't understand it.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance is now trying to say that what he just said doesn't have any consequences. You know what? It's this kind of confusion that the school boards are operating under and that are going to lead to cuts in education under the guise that funding has been frozen. "Protected" is the word the minister likes to use. Funding has been "protected."

Let's go on to see what "funding has been protected" means. This, I'm sure, will come as information to the minister, because these are not school boards that the government has listed that they've heard from. Or has the government heard from school district 47, Powell River?

Hon. C. Clark: I think we need to be clear here, so we don't have any confusion about what this means. The Ministry of Education budget is protected. It's the same this year as it was last year. The amount of money in the blue book for school districts this year is more than the amount of money that was available in the blue book last year. Now, we've protected the budget. There are pressures that are going to school districts; there's no question about it. I've been very clear and up front about that. The principal one among those is the fact that school districts are going to be paying for year 2 and year 3 of the salary increase. I don't try and varnish that. It's certainly going to be a challenge. It's going to be a pressure. That's why we've given the school districts the tools they will need to be able to manage those pressures.

The way we allocate the debt service and amortization in this budget is not different from the way we did it in previous years. As I understand from our finance people, it was done the same way last year as it's being done this year.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll be exploring this during the ministry…. This is a document from the Ministry of Finance. It doesn't say: "Like we've been doing in education for the last few years, we're now going to do in hospitals and highways and other infrastructure." It says "starting this year." Then it goes on specifically to refer to schools and how schools should be investigating public-private partnership opportunities. That's what it says, and it says that the government's giving new flexibility because of the change in how capital planning is done and where it gets charged — where the debt service and amortization costs associated with capital expenditures are going to get charged. We will explore this further in the Ministry of Finance, because the Minister of Education doesn't understand it. If she does, then the document is wrong, so they'll have to change this.

For the Minister of Finance's benefit, I am reflecting the concerns of the School Trustees Association, who as recently as Friday didn't get it. I don't know whether the Minister of Finance met with his school board as did I during our week break here. The Minister of Finance would understand the school board's concerns if he actually did meet with his own school board. Fair enough. Let's have this discussion under Finance estimates, and I will rely on the Ministry of Finance staff to show how nothing has changed across government.

The next item here is the South Island school districts, which include greater Victoria, district number 61; Sooke, district number 62; and Saanich, district number 63. Together they have a $15 million shortfall. Are those school boards ones that have requested assistance from the ministry?

Hon. C. Clark: Just to go back so that the member's clear, the Minister of Finance and I are saying the same thing. If there's any confusion remaining, it's certainly, I think, on her side of the House. She may want to take the Minister of Finance up on his offer of a briefing before she gets the Ministry of Finance estimates, because it would be a shame if she went through the same period barking up the wrong tree with him that she has in these estimates here.

In answer to her question, yes, we have met with the Victoria school district — not with all of the others she named, but we've certainly sat down with the folks from Victoria.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually reflecting questions of school boards. The Minister of Finance was invited to a discussion with the school board that's raising these questions. That meeting took place on Friday. He probably wasn't there. I'm just reflecting the questions that were going to be asked of the Minister of Finance from his own school board, and he wasn't there. It's not me that needs the briefing at all. It's the school boards themselves.

The fact of the matter is that my school board is going to be instituting a series of consultations about impending cuts. Here's when they start. They're going to be starting March 28. The senior management team will develop preliminary proposed budget options. Then, March 29, the senior management team will put it in writing, and a summary of the input will be provided to the trustees. Then, April 3, the preliminary budget options that include the cuts that have to be made will be mailed out to the DPACs, the PACs, employee group executives and advisory committee chairs.

This is a very urgent concern, and my point here that the school boards and the school trustees are making is that this change, combined with frozen funding, means there's less going to school boards — that's it, the combination of those two — than what happened

in the past. That's it. No one has dissuaded me on this. Neither the Minister of Education nor the Minister of Finance has dissuaded me one iota on this.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we talked to the Victoria school district and made sure we were working from the same set of numbers and the same set of assumptions. One of the things we talked about was the option to explore entrepreneurial activity, which is something the Vancouver school district, the member's school district, is also pursuing. They talked about shared services and how they might be able to pursue some savings there. They had a whole range of options and items they put on the table for discussion.

J. MacPhail: Was there any change to the underfunding that would arise, and therefore, are any of these districts changing the program cuts they'll have to make?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said last time we met, we didn't go into any of these meetings with the assumption that we would change their numbers and do their budgets for them. That's their responsibility. They know their numbers, and they know what's going on in their districts. They know what their pressures are. We simply talked to them about what options might be available to them in trying to manage the pressures. I pointed out some of the things we talked about.

J. MacPhail: Did the ministry and the school district agree on the numbers? I'll ask that question for this district, the Victoria district, and also for the Vancouver district.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we didn't sit down with the process of challenging their numbers. They brought their numbers to us, and we talked about what some of the options might be.

J. MacPhail: Did the ministry staff agree with the numbers put forward by Victoria and Vancouver?

Hon. C. Clark: We didn't sit down with a view to agree or disagree about the numbers, going through it with a fine-tooth comb and essentially doing their budgets for them. That's not our job; it's theirs.

J. MacPhail: I'm not talking about the budget. I'm talking about the shortfalls, agreement on the shortfalls. In the past there have been disputes about numbers, about the accuracy of the numbers of the school board, the accuracy of the numbers of the Ministry of Education. The reason this is important is that if the school boards have it wrong, that's the reason the School Trustees Association is asking for a transparent accounting of the costs. If school boards have the implications of the budget wrong, that has a huge implication for program cuts that are about to happen.

I'm wondering why the ministry didn't say: "Yes, your numbers are right" or "No, your numbers are wrong." Is that interfering with the autonomy of school boards or something?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, school boards all have different pressures. Depending on what's going on in the various districts, they will, each of them, have different pressures they need to deal with. They know those pressures better than we do. That's why they're in charge of doing budgets. That's why they do their own budgets. We aren't in the business of doing their budgets for them. That's their job.

J. MacPhail: Well, then, I'll take my own district. I'll be participating in these meetings, because my child's in school in Vancouver. I'll be participating as a parent. Does the school board in Vancouver have their numbers wrong? Is it possible that the school board has got their numbers wrong and will be making cuts that are unnecessary?

Hon. C. Clark: I have every confidence in the staff and the board at the Vancouver school district. I'm sure they will work through the numbers and they will come up with something to present to their constituents that represents the reality.

J. MacPhail: Well, that was gobbledegook. This is having a real effect. I'm taking this personally, actually, because it affects my son's education. I'll tell you something: when I met with the school board…. I took time to meet with the school board, and they'd already had their meeting with the Ministry of Education. I'm wondering why the minister is somehow dancing around the head of a pin on this question, because the same questions…. Why can't the minister just say: "Yes, the numbers are right," or "No, the numbers are wrong"? Then we'd have something factual to work with.

Why is the minister avoiding this question? These are serious issues that are facing this. To the Minister of Finance: you bet I take this seriously. I take this seriously personally and politically, on behalf of every single one of the kids who go to school in Vancouver as well as my son.

Hon. C. Clark: Hon. Chair, if the member thinks I'm dancing around the question, it's only because I'm trying to find inventive new ways of answering the same question again and again. Maybe I'll go back to the simple answer, which is: we have confidence in the school district staff to be able to do this. We don't do their budgets for them. That's why they have those staff. They are excellent people. I know they will do a budget in a way that reflects what's going on in their district, because they know what's happening in their district better than we do in Victoria.

J. MacPhail: Well, the numbers from the Vancouver school district are correct. They're the same people —

one of the groups of people, as well as the school trustees generally — who are raising concerns about the debt servicing. I don't know why, once again, the minister somehow suggests that flexibility and hands-off means that this ministry has no responsibility for working to admit what the real costs are of this budget under any circumstances.

Either everyone else has got it wrong and this minister has it right, or else she refuses to admit that when they do get it right, it reflects real, dramatic cuts. That's the only reason I was asking if the Vancouver school board or the Victoria school board or the Saanich school board numbers were correct: what they reflect are deep cuts. Perhaps if the minister would actually admit to that — and she hasn't said that — then, I guess, the myth about protecting education is gone completely. Education isn't protected.

Here's what the Saanich school district has said: the pressures, along with the three-year funding freeze, will result in a need to change the way we deliver in the district, and the funding will mean the equivalent of cuts that have occurred cumulatively over the last several years. Has the ministry met with Saanich? Was that one of the districts the ministry met with?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer is no. Just to remind the member of where we were last time we met, the blue book total for the Vancouver school district last year, in '01-02, was $363,429,131. The blue book total for '02-03 is $367,169,146, which is an increase.

J. MacPhail: That's why I was asking the questions about whether the ministry staff agreed with the numbers of the Vancouver school board. Here the minister stands up to try to say — to intimate, just so that I am aware — that there's been an increase in funding and that somehow that can't result in cuts. I'm not sure whether there was any reason for the minister to stand up and say that otherwise. That says that somehow she doesn't agree with the numbers posted as recently as today by the Vancouver school board that show there's a $13.2 million shortfall for '02-03. The minister stands up and says: "Oh, their budget's gone up." Somehow that's an answer to the fact that there will be cuts in education. That's directly what I was talking about: the fact that the school board numbers are real, and they mean cuts in education. The Vancouver school board — $13.2 million.

The increased funding barely covers the imposed costs of the teachers' settlement for the first year, which is on the verge of expiring — on the verge of expiring the first year. They'll be starting into the second year of costs in June of this fiscal year.

It's so misleading for the minister to say: "There can't be cuts because the school board budget has gone up." That's exactly what she's intimating. At the same time that this government added a couple of million dollars more, they have imposed cost pressures of $13 million on that same school board. That adds up to cuts in education. That adds up to cuts of over $13 million.

Hon. C. Clark: I said this a number of times, and I don't know how the member could have missed it. I've said that I recognize that there will be some tough decisions for school districts. That's the unvarnished truth, and there's certainly no way I want the member to miss that. I've said that a number of times, but if she hasn't heard that, I'll say it again.

I will add to that, however, that school districts now have a whole lot of new flexibility. I think they will be able to manage those pressures that they will be facing over the next couple of years. The pressures, as I've said, will principally be as a result of the teachers' raise that came in Bill 27. I'm quite confident, though, that they will be able to manage those pressures.

J. MacPhail: Under school district 72, Campbell River, there's a budget shortfall this year of $2.2 million. In school district 73 the trustees may have to make more than $5 million in cuts after hearing that the deficit is worse than expected.

This isn't managing. They're talking about cuts. Let's just take Kamloops, who are saying they'll actually have to cut services, cut education programs. Is it the minister's view that school district 73, given their greater flexibility, can manage and not have to make any cuts to school programs or services to children?

Hon. C. Clark: I think school districts will certainly have to do some things differently. We've talked about that quite a bit. When we talked to Victoria, for example, we were talking about entrepreneurial activities. We were talking about shared services. Do I think school districts should do business exactly the same way that they've always done it? No, I don't. I think those will be some of the decisions they need to make.

Hon. C. Clark: School districts will decide how they want to manage these pressures. Those decisions will be made school district by school district.

J. MacPhail: There will be cuts. There will be cuts in programs. If there is a district that doesn't have to make cuts in programs, they will be the lucky district. There will be cuts, and they will be cuts that affect education for children. That is an absolute given. The minister refuses…. She dodges that question. She somehow thinks people will not see through her bravura, her misleading — to somehow say we've given them flexibility and, therefore, education for children will be unaffected.

There will be real cuts to programs in every single district I've mentioned and more. School district 91, Nechako Lakes, is one of the rural communities that members of the Legislature raised today and said we

need to be very concerned about. That Nechako district has a $3.5 million shortfall forecast, and it means they're going to have to make cuts of about $750,000 in each of the three years. That's huge on a budget of about $41 million. This is the same type of rural community about which a member of the Legislature rose today and said: "Oh, thank God those ten years are past, and rural communities will now get some protection."

Those are just some of the examples. Burnaby is facing a huge shortfall. Surrey is facing a huge shortfall to their budget, and it isn't because school boards are saying: "Thank God we're facing this shortfall, but we've got all this increased flexibility." The reason why school boards are raising these concerns is because they are on the verge of making cuts to children's education services.

I have found the lack of information particularly troubling during these estimates. The ministry obfuscates in terms of what the real effect has been on their budgeting changes, their freezing of the budget, the budgeting changes they've made this year in terms of costs that get charged against education at the expense of children's education. The minister herself misleads by saying that school boards have the flexibility to absorb these costs, to deal with the cuts. And somehow, in the way she answers questions, she suggests there will be no ill effect on children's education.

I know in my own district that the minister is dead wrong. The minister is dead wrong in her analysis, and she's dead wrong in her predictions about what it's going to do to education. For this government to somehow say that this new era of Liberal promises was what the public expected is to be completely out of touch with each and every one of their constituents. At no time ever did any parent in this province — I can guarantee this — mark a ballot and put it in a ballot box expecting that the new-era promise would mean these deep cuts to their children's education.

That's the consequence of this budget. It's the consequence of this year. It's a deeper consequence for next year, and it's an incredible, almost unbearableconsequence in the third year of this three-year fiscal plan. It's detrimental to education like we've never seen in this province before, and it can only mean that British Columbia in the year 2002 is a worse place for children in grades K-to-12 — a worse place.

Hon. C. Clark: Before we close for the evening, I'd like to sort of finish up with these thoughts. As I've said, I certainly know that school districts will be facing challenges, and they will have tough decisions over the coming months. I am confident that they will be quite capable of making those decisions.

We have some really outstanding people elected to school districts across this province. We have excellent staff in school districts, as well, and superintendents, secretary-treasurer level and their staff below them. We have just really committed parents. We have utterly professional administrators and principals and vice-principals. We have dedicated teachers, who work harder than they get paid to, often, in many classrooms. In addition to that, I think we have a very dedicated, hard-working, knowledgable ministry staff who are prepared to work most weekends to try and make sure we bring in the changes to our education system that are going to make it better year after year. I think that with the level of commitment we have in our system, we will certainly see education getting to the goal we set for it over the coming years. That's improved student achievement year after year.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.