Hansard -- Monday, April 29, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 13 (HTML)

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

Tabling Documents		2979
	Ombudsman, public report No. 43, Righting the Wrong: A Progress Report Chief Electoral Officer, annual report, 2001

Introductions by Members		2979

Private Members' Statements		2979
	Waterfowl habitat K. Stewart Hon. J. Murray Sustainable development K. Manhas B. Locke Land claims and treaties W. Cobb J. Les Salvage logging T. Christensen P. Bell

Second Reading of Bills		2988
	Pets in Rental Housing Act (Bill M202) J. Kwan R. Stewart

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the following documents: (1) the ombudsman's public report No. 43, Righting the Wrong: A Progress Report, and (2) the annual report of the chief electoral officer for January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001.

W. Cobb: Sorry, I didn't get up fast enough, but I have a guest in the House today.

I would like to introduce Jesse Eyer. He just completed an honours bachelor of science degree in physics from the University of Victoria and has had many exciting co-op terms, such as working with the National Research Council in Ottawa, the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii and the Canadian Space Agency in Montreal. In two weeks he will be off to Europe to travel for the summer and going on to Atlanta, Georgia, in August on a full scholarship to begin work on his master's degree in aerospace engineering. I would like to welcome him.

K. Stewart: It's my honour today to talk about wetlands and the importance of wetlands to us as a society. Not far back in our history we viewed wetlands as unproductive, undesirable tracts of land of little value. As a result, over half the original wetlands in the U.S.A. have been lost. In Canada we still continue to lose many acres of prime wetlands to human encroachment. Fortunately, we have now started to understand the important roles these wetlands play in our environmental health.

By conserving and repatriating our wetlands, we are improving our quality of life. Some of the benefits of wetland conservation would include improved water quality, wildlife habitat, soil conservation, erosion control, recreation, increased flood storage, groundwater recharge, biodiversity and fish habitat.

Improved water quality. Wetlands are nature's natural water filter. The silt and foliage of wetlands, through natural processes, clean the water as it slowly works its way through the biofiltering of the plants and soils. Certain types of water lilies are known for their ability to take heavy metals out of water and are used in certain reclamation pools to do that. Many types of agricultural runoffs, including those implicated in the Walkerton tragedy, can be marginalized and dramatically reduced to safe levels by passing through the natural processes that are active in balanced wetlands.

Wildlife habitat. Wetlands, with the mosaic of land and water features, supply homes to many different birds, mammals, fish and reptilian species. Any birdwatcher will naturally go to the nearest wetlands if they wish to see the greatest diversity of birds in a specific area. The water barriers also provide a natural sanctuary for waterfowl and are often the only protection they have from predators.

Soil conservation and erosion control. The speed of water flow as it enters a wetlands zone dramatically decreases, reducing erosion and also increasing the amount of soil that's left behind. The amount of foliage is also increased, not only within the wetland area but in the perimeter and adjoining fields, by supplying a continuous supply of water in many cases through the drier months of the summer.

Recreation. Recreation activities in wetlands have dramatically increased over recent years. Historically, wetlands were the domain of the duck hunter and the fisher. In more recent times birdwatchers, canoeists and kayakers have become the dominant visitors to wetlands and waterfowl areas. Today birdwatching is the premier activity in North America. More people birdwatch than any other recreational activity in North America.

Another thing that we can contribute to wetlands is increased flood storage. In the springs when we have our runoffs, many of the waters will come down and go into wetland areas and be held there instead of continuing at a rapid pace down where they can flood out areas. In periods of high rainfall for these runoffs, the prevention of local flooding is often protected by these wetland areas, and it's not uncommon for a wetland area to accommodate water-flow spikes of five to ten times their normal capacities.

Groundwater recharge. As the wetlands hold back floodwaters, the hydrostatic pressure allows for a recharge of the local groundwater. These reserves are improved by the quality of water being filtered through these important wetlands. Not only have the volumes of waters increased to these protected areas of groundwater, but the quality is enhanced to that naturally cleansing and filtering process of the bog.

Fish habitat. Wetlands provide a number of essentials for fish habitat. The food base in the wetlands area for fish is a major asset. The bug production in the warm backwaters of a bog provide an unending food source for fish. The reeds and lilies provide excellent cover for young fish from other predators, both water- and airborne. The fish also provide a major source of food for many bird species including ospreys, eagles and herons, and they're always feeding on this constant abundance of fish in a productive wetland. Merganser ducks also get into the fresh fish, and many other ducks rely on the deceased spawners for their winter supplement.

These are just a few of the benefits we receive from healthy wetlands. I would now like to touch on a few of the organizations that are involved in protection of our wetlands.

The habitat conservation trust fund. Through the habitat conservation trust fund the anglers, hunters, trappers and guide-outfitters of British Columbia have provided millions of dollars for conservation projects in British Columbia.

The Nature Trust of British Columbia. The Nature Trust of B.C. conserves key areas of ecological significance and encourages the private and public sectors to set aside these areas for conservation. The trust and its partners have invested $32 million to acquire critical wildlife habitat.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada. This group is dedicated to preserving ecologically significant natural areas and places of special beauty and educational interest. The conservancy uses a number of techniques to protect natural areas including buying land, accepting land donations, jointly purchasing land with other conservation groups and negotiating conservation agreements which allow owners to retain title and to use the land, while ensuring its protection for development.

The Land Conservancy of British Columbia. The Land Conservancy of British Columbia protects plants, animals, natural communities and landscape features by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The organization also protects areas of scientific, historic, cultural, scenic or compatible recreational values.

B.C. Conservation Foundation. The B.C. Conservation Foundation is dedicated to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of fisheries, wildlife and forestry resources. The organization provides project management service to other organizations to administer, implement and deliver conservation projects and since 1986 has completed more than 2,000 projects. The B.C. Conservation Foundation supports training programs for first nations and displaced fisheries and forestry workers on conservation projects and creating employment opportunities for students.

The Federation of B.C. Naturalists. The Federation of B.C. Naturalists is a family of naturalist organizations with the goals of education and conservation. The organization is dedicated to fostering an appreciation and understanding of our natural environment so that it may be widely used and maintained for future generations.

I'd now like to ask the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to respond, please.

Hon. J. Murray: Before I begin my response, I'd like to take a moment to thank the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for his dedication to and concern for waterfowl habitat protection.

Biodiversity protection is one of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's top priorities. That's why we created a separate branch within my ministry that is dedicated exclusively to the protection of biodiversity.

The protection of waterfowl and waterfowl habitat is an important component of biodiversity. To ensure the long-term viability of British Columbia's waterfowl populations, we must protect the habitats that sustain them.

This is why government made a campaign commitment to acquire and protect Burns Bog. Burns Bog is sometimes described as the lungs of the lower mainland. It's one of the few remaining undeveloped greenspaces in this part of the province. This unique habitat is home to a wide variety of wildlife, including many types of waterfowl. We're currently involved in negotiations to purchase Burns Bog, and we remain committed to our promise to acquire and protect this piece of property.

Unfortunately, government does not have the resources to seek out, acquire and protect all of the important habitats in the province on its own. That is why we support the efforts of private conservation organizations, which are doing impressive things to promote the protection of biologically diverse areas.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows mentioned some of these groups, and I know he is a strong supporter of one of them, Ducks Unlimited. Ducks Unlimited uses private funds, acquired through donations and fundraising efforts, to purchase and protect important waterfowl habitat. As a government we commend these groups for their initiative and commitment to biodiversity. We are eager to form partnerships with groups that are dedicated to the protection of biologically diverse areas.

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture is a good example of government and community groups collaborating towards a common goal. Under this initiative the province, the federal government and several conservation organizations are working to identify and protect important waterfowl habitat. The Pacific Coast Joint Venture proves that the province does not have to be the sole steward of the environment.

My ministry is responsible for setting goals and providing direction on conservation initiatives, but by working strategically with outside organizations, we can develop strategies that allow us to reach our conservation goals faster, more effectively and with fewer government resources.

To further facilitate the protection of important habitats, this government is establishing a trust for public lands. Through this trust, private individuals and groups will be able to make donations of land and cash to ensure for the long-term protection of areas with high conservation values.

It's important to acknowledge that the participation of communities is one of the keys to successful conservation efforts. If habitat preservation efforts are ever going to get off the ground, they must have the support of the broader community and the local community. Community consultation and engagement are absolutely critical to success.

The efforts to preserve Codd Island are a good example of cooperation between private groups and the greater community. These wetlands are owned by a private individual. They have high conservation value. This is an important project. In recent months several groups have come together and are developing a plan to purchase the Codd Island wetlands. As the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection I strongly support these efforts, and I wish the proponents all the best.

Thank you to the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for his past catalytic role in protecting wetlands and for raising this very important issue in the House today.

K. Stewart: I'd like to first thank the minister for her kind words and her support for wetlands and waterfowl projects within British Columbia.

I'd like to now just briefly touch on a couple of our local projects. First, projects that have been around for a while would include the Pitt Polder waterfowl areas, which is a large tract of land just south of Pitt Lake in a bog area. It's been protected for a number of years with the cooperation of the province and other organizations.

One organization I must touch on, which was mentioned earlier by the minister, is Ducks Unlimited. Ducks Unlimited has taken a major role in the preservation of wetlands and waterfowl production within the areas. I've been fortunate on our farm to have been involved in a number of projects through my father-in-law, Richard Trethewey, who has been a big player in Ducks Unlimited, putting forward their big book on waterfowl in North America, which generated over a million dollars for conservation.

One of the other projects which we've done on the farm is a wood duck project, which continues on today and again involves partners. The local Scouts and high school are involved with maintaining these wood duck boxes for the wood duck population, which had become very rare in the area and has now come back to higher than traditional numbers.

Another project that was mentioned is the Codd Island project. The Codd Island project is an ongoing project through a number of partners: the district of Pitt Meadows, the GVRD, Ducks Unlimited, the Pitt Polder Preservation Society. Many other public groups are starting to get involved. We're hoping to be able to have this last piece of the wetlands down there protected.

We know that within the lower mainland area the value of wetlands, as far as the price of the property, has been staggering, especially due to the recent…. In the last 20 years the cranberry industry, which does very well within those areas…. They're becoming more expensive to purchase, as they have a commercial value. At one time they were just considered worthless swampland. You could pick it up relatively cheaply. Now it's more important that they get the organizations together with a proper plan of management to allow these projects to continue.

Another project that was recently concluded in 1999 is the Blaney Bog, which was an adjoining piece of property to this wetland. As we know, you can't just take one piece of land and isolate it from the rest. There's a diversity that continues on through not only the wetlands but up into the lower reaches of the forest and hills, and they're all integrated.

These are the types of projects we support in our community. Again, I would just like to thank the minister for her support and guidance in some of these projects, knowing that for every little bit of wetlands that we can protect and waterfowl that we can help produce, we'll be better for it.

K. Manhas: I rise today to speak about a sector of our province which, for me, is a source of great interest and excitement. I want to talk about the high-tech sector that is developing in our province. The high-technology sector offers a prospect of strong economic growth in the years to come for B.C. It is an industry that is based on development and discovery. It encourages research and an understanding of the world around us.

I believe that globally, the high-tech industry is forging the future of humanity as a whole. We are already in the midst of a revolution every bit as significant as the industrial revolution was in affecting the course of human history.

Stop for a moment and think of the ways our world has been revolutionized in the past few decades. Think of your household channels, your microwave, your television, your VCR, video games, CDs, DVDs, cell phone, personal computer, e-mail and the Internet. Rapid improvements in microchip technology have led to a growing number of business products and services and the consumer goods that depend on them. All of these inventions have had a tremendous impact on the way we lead our daily lives.

My interest in the high-tech sector isn't purely about the bottom line. It's about the potential the high-tech sector has to improve the quality of life for those in our province and the world. The high-tech sector pushes at the borders of current capabilities and knowledge. The possibilities of this sector are so great that we cannot even imagine how they can shape our world. What will our world look like in ten, 20 or 100 years? I don't know, but we can just about guarantee that whatever shape it will take will be strongly influenced by the developments in technology.

We need to foster the development of technology in British Columbia. At present the high-tech sector remains comparatively small, accounting for roughly 4 percent of provincial GDP and employment. Although small, its contributions to the B.C. economy are growing.

A report on the high-tech sector by the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise and B.C. Stats showed that the high-technology sector in B.C. grew, in 1999 and 2000, by rates higher than the economy as a

whole. It showed a jump in employment opportunities in the high-tech sector of 16 percent, compared to an overall industry average of 4 percent. Exports of high-tech commodities from B.C. in 2000 increased 15 percent from the previous year.

High-tech is the way of the future. It is a growing sector and one that we cannot afford to miss out on. In order to further the high-tech sector in B.C., we need to open up access to the technology and training necessary to understand and be successful in this field.

The more people are able to see and learn about an area, the more that area becomes accessible and possibilities come to light. I like to compare it to building a road into difficult-to-reach territory. The road provides access to land that was previously inaccessible. Once people can understand the lay of the land, they can start dreaming of the possibilities that lie within it and from it.

Similarly, in technology, advanced educational opportunities in the high-tech sector will pave a road allowing more British Columbians the ability to see and access further and further reaches in the field. The more opportunities that are available for research and development in high-tech, the faster and more thorough our exploration will be. The road we need to build to capitalize on education, on opportunities in the high-tech sector, will be paved through opportunities in advanced education.

Research opportunities, skills training and advanced education are key to the future of made-in-B.C. innovations and the development of a prosperous technology sector in our province. In order to further develop our high-technology sector, we need to build a strong educational foundation from which British Columbians can gain the experience necessary to work in this highly specialized and competitive field. Higher education opportunities are crucial.

On April 18 our Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education announced the development of a $45 million leading-edge endowment fund. This fund will establish 20 permanent B.C. leadership chairs across the province in medical, social, environmental and technological research. In developing the province's high-tech sector, we want the best and brightest minds leading the way.

The 20 full-time leadership chairs supported by the endowment fund will head up research initiatives in various fields. The leadership chair positions will attract world-class faculty to strengthen our province's capacity for innovative research. Public post-secondary institutions throughout the province will be able to apply for B.C. leadership chairs.

The first B.C. leadership chair has already been announced. It was granted to the University of British Columbia and the Rick Hansen Institute for a joint chair in spinal cord research. The provincial government has committed $2.25 million for the first chair, which will be matched by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. The chair, Dr. John Steeves, will be leading the way in spinal cord research in British Columbia.

These leadership chairs will help develop more key centres of excellence in our province, reflecting one of the key recommendations brought forward to this House by the Select Standing Committee on Education, of which I had the honour of being a part. Developing centres of excellence will develop on the excellent ones that have been developed around the province, stemming from the expertise in the area's college or university institution.

A growing and thriving biotechnology industry in Vancouver can thank the expertise developed at the University of British Columbia, the forestry technology industry in Prince George to UNBC, aerospace science in Dawson Creek to Northern Lights College. Around SFU's expertise in high technology in computer science, we find eight of the ten largest technology businesses in British Columbia located in the North Fraser area, from Burnaby to Maple Ridge — one of them in my home town of Port Coquitlam.

This is one of the ways this government has helped to bolster the technology sector in the province. The leading-edge endowment fund is initiating research and development within our province. It is encouraging skills training and mentorship from some of the world's best by basing leadership chairs on a cost-sharing relationship with the private sector. Expenses are defrayed from the taxpayer, and innovation results within our province.

This government recognizes the potential of tremendous growth in the high-tech sector and is willing to take the initiative to ensure that our province becomes a leader in the field. Our province is on the verge of having a booming high-tech sector. With a little help from government initiatives and help like that from the leading-edge endowment fund, we're going to make it happen.

With more British Columbians learning, exploring and thinking about the possibilities in technology, with our tremendous resource of abundant clean, cheap and sustainable energy and with our government policies that support and encourage business growth, I believe we're going to make it happen. Technology companies are already seeing this as a place to invest. With continued interest, we are well on our way to creating a silicon mountain of creative energy in B.C.

B. Locke: Thank you to the hon. member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for allowing me to respond to his statement.

I, too, believe that the high-tech sector is crucial to moving our province's economy ahead. Investment in the high-tech industries continues to grow, and I believe our government has a responsibility to develop high-tech, be it through initiatives like the leading-edge endowment fund or other public-private partnerships which support high-tech industries and move our province ahead in research and development.

I also see advanced education as being crucial to the development of the high-tech sector in our province and agree that our province can only support high-tech if we have the individuals with the qualifications and the calibre to advance the field. Within our province we have many excellent post-secondary institutions, and within my own constituency I am so pleased that Simon Fraser University is in the process of establishing a satellite campus for all the students in Surrey.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of research and development takes place in British Columbia's post-secondary institutions. With the announcement of the new leading-edge endowment fund, the incentive for conducting cutting-edge research grows. The leading-edge fund opens up the field for post-secondary institutions to compete for leadership chairs, who will head research in fields of medicine, environment and technology. Our government recognizes that we need to create opportunities in advanced education in order to fuel the high-tech sector.

In August of last year the Premier announced the formation of the Premier's Technology Council. The council, which comprises members of B.C.'s technology community and academia, advises the Premier on technology-related issues facing B.C. and its citizens. In the first quarterly report issued by the Premier's Technology Council, a skilled technology workforce was identified as a major factor in the development of the high-tech sector. The Premier's Technology Council believes that with strong cooperation between the provincial government and private enterprise, British Columbia will become one of the world's top ten technology centres by 2006.

In November the council recommended that the government establish research chairs at B.C. colleges and universities, because research grants are a primary factor in attracting senior researchers and educators to B.C. The council reasoned that these chairs would be instrumental in attracting the necessary faculty for increased academic spaces and would increase research and development and investment in B.C. With the announcement of the leading-edge endowment fund, we see the Premier and our government taking action on the recommendations of his council.

B.C.'s high-technology sector holds a wealth of potential that our province is just beginning to tap into. British Columbia's greatest resource is its people. By educating our greatest resource and by providing them with the skills and incentive to enter the high-tech sector as our government intends to do, there is no doubt in my mind that B.C.'s future in high-tech will be a promising one.

K. Manhas: I thank the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for her comments and her support of the technology industry in British Columbia.

I believe that if we're going to build a solid future for our families in British Columbia, we need to start now. As I've said before, I want to see the millennium of technology be synonymous with the achievements of British Columbia.

It is important to note, as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers has, this government's commitment to the advancement of the technology industry and to technology education. Creating the leading-edge endowment fund supporting 20 full-time leadership chairs is just one part of that commitment. As the member for Surrey–Green Timbers mentioned, the establishment of the Premier's Technology Council, which provides advice to the Premier on all technology-related issues facing British Columbia and its citizens, is another. The Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education recently announced the addition of 825 new high-tech student spaces as the first phase of its commitment to double the number of graduates in computer science and in electrical and computer engineering over five years.

I know the member for Surrey–Green Timbers is a strong supporter of technology and played a key role in creating a solution for the Technical University of British Columbia, which was facing significant financial challenges and whose costs were not sustainable. By saving the programs of the Technical University of British Columbia and giving SFU responsibility over Tech B.C., its students, assets and programs, the Minister of Advanced Education, Shirley Bond, has focused on the strengths in our system. Simon Fraser, already a leader in computer science and technology studies, is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in Canada. SFU is a strong and established name with major strengths in technology and is now strengthened as a North American centre of excellence in technology.

This government has many initiatives to bolster technology in what is already the most connected province in the country, with more than six out of ten of its citizens having access to the Internet. Initiatives to make computer literacy a key educational priority, to put more computers in schools and homes, to increase technology training for teachers, to double the number of graduates in computer science and electrical and computer engineering, to eliminate the regional and socioeconomic barriers to high-speed Internet access and to stimulate rapid growth in communication infrastructure and broad-band capabilities — that will help.

These measures will provide much-needed leadership to ensure that today's youth and citizens in British Columbia will have the resources they need to succeed in a knowledge-based economy. That means encouraging creative thinking and investing in education, research and infrastructure.

Working with the technology industry, we can capitalize on the tremendous potential for growth and job creation in new sectors like biotechnology, forestry technology, software development, multimedia electronics and telecommunications. By taking a leadership role, we can attract more investment, high-paying jobs and new, clean businesses right to my home town of Port Coquitlam, to the Tri-Cities, to the lower mainland and all around British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three individuals who are visiting here today from Vancouver. The first is Mr. Darryl Burnham, who is the executive director of the Coast Foundation Society, which provides services to those people in my community that live with mental illness. He is joined by Cathy Johnson, who is their employment programs coordinator, and Mr. Robert Fisher, who is the executive director of the Vancouver Yaffa Housing Society.

Together, these three individuals make a huge impact on the lives of people in my community who live with mental illness, and they're not done yet, because they're here today to meet with the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of State for Mental Health to talk about employment possibilities and programs that they might create for their constituents. Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

W. Cobb: Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the referendum on the guiding principles of treaties will soon come to a close, and so far more than 600,000 British Columbians have taken part in this historic opportunity to have a direct say in treaty-making. The referendum is only the first step in renewing the treaty process, and it is a step that should have been taken years ago. Instead, we have had a treaty process that is mired in muck. All the parties have been spinning their wheels to the tune of $500 million over the past ten years, and not one treaty was signed.

The referendum has sparked debate throughout British Columbia, and I encourage that discussion. It's important to have all of our citizens involved in the process. However, as a resident of the Cariboo, this is not a new topic. It's not something that has just come out on the radar for the people in my riding. The settling of land claims has been an issue in Cariboo South for many years, and there is a desire to end the talking and come up with a solution that benefits all.

The people of Cariboo South are all too aware of the pain the first nations have suffered, and no one is opposed to creating a British Columbia that provides opportunity for everyone, regardless of their background. The danger is in dwelling on the past. This referendum is about the future. It's about finding a new way to bring economic certainty and opportunity to all British Columbians.

The critics of the referendum have said that this is a vote on minority rights. That is wrong. This referendum is about getting a mandate from the people of this province. The courts have already confirmed the rights the first nations possess. They are enshrined in the Canadian constitution. The B.C. Supreme Court made it clear this referendum was not about minority rights — a decision that came down before the critics started attacking the referendum. That has been one of the most disappointing aspects of this referendum process — the critics saying that they know best and that the people of B.C. don't have the knowledge, education or right to make an informed comment. That is a position I am fundamentally opposed to. I have more faith in the people of British Columbia. I would note that the member for Vancouver-Hastings was a supporter of the referendum on the Charlottetown accord — a referendum that was a vote on minority rights for first nations and special rights for Quebec. The B.C. people said no — a decision that went against the wisdom of the political elite and the media.

Let me quote from a constituent once again. "The point of the referendum is to create a framework for action. Money, I might add, has provided very little benefit to the average native. In the past 30 years or so, billions upon billions of dollars have been thrown at the problem, to no effect."

Our government has made clear its commitment to treaties that promise hope and economic opportunity. We can do more to improve the quality of life, education and health care for aboriginal families, but we must do it together.

This referendum is about receiving a clear mandate from the people of B.C. The provincial government is one of the three parties at the negotiating table, and it makes sense to have a strong and clear mandate. We will negotiate, but we want a better understanding of what B.C. expects from these talks.

Many have said the public doesn't have the insight to properly participate. Consider these words from a constituent, who says:

I ask that the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, the Chair of the select standing committee, respond.

J. Les: It's a pleasure for me this morning to respond to the member for Cariboo South and the important issues he has raised. I would start by reminding people that there are just over two weeks remaining in the opportunity to return ballots in the treaty referendum process — which has been, by the way, a very positive experience to date. I don't believe I have ever seen as much debate and discussion amongst people throughout British Columbia. There almost isn't a day that goes by that there isn't an article in a newspaper or an op-ed piece that discusses treaty-making and discusses the treaty negotiation process as it has evolved to date in British Columbia.

I think that is something we all need to be very proud of, because it's not going to happen without public participation, public involvement and public debate. We often see the assumption that this isn't something the public should necessarily be involved in, and the public tends to feel shut out of the process. I believe that is one of the reasons why, in the decade behind us, there has been very lukewarm support amongst the public for treaty-making — simply because the level of understanding was not in place that would support public policy.

The Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs travelled around the province last fall and listened to a lot of people. I think it's certainly fair to say that there is support amongst British Columbians everywhere to engage in the treaty-making process and to settle this very important public policy issue once and for all. However, there's also serious frustration, in that to date it has been an extremely expensive process, and it has led to no results. But it's also heartening to see that when the public gets involved, they have some very useful and constructive things to say.

There's also frustration, of course, that in our public education system in British Columbia we have not particularly been well served in terms of developing that knowledge base amongst our students. I can remember that when I went to school, for example, I learned all about the Huron, the Algonquin, the Iroquois and other eastern Canadian first nations situations but learned virtually nothing about the Coast Salish, for example, in British Columbia. Hopefully, that will change in the future as well.

Last week I spoke to a class that was studying first nations at the Yale Secondary School in Abbotsford. We had a very, very good discussion. It was very rewarding to see how students today in the school system are paying attention to, and their teachers are giving them the opportunity to learn about, first nations issues. It's absolutely imperative that we learn about these issues — what happened in the past and why that happened — because it's only then that we'll be able to properly inform ourselves as to how we proceed in the future.

We need to learn about the Indian Act — why it was created, the negative impact, in many cases, that it's had on first nations people and the negative impact that it continues to have on the first nations people today. We need to work towards a goal where aboriginal people are not wards of the state but independent individuals who can collectively, at their option, advance their culture.

Treaty-making is only one objective. The Attorney General last week, in the open cabinet session, announced a new initiative, an economic measures initiative that will involve first nations people — $41 million in a partnership with the federal government that will encourage first nations people to become involved in resource industries and in other areas of our economy. I think these initiatives are extremely important. We tend to focus on treaty-making, and sometimes it's too easy to forget that the overall objective needs to, first of all, be education and encouraging aboriginal people to get involved in the economic mainstream of our society and of our province.

There are many opportunities out there, and let's be careful, as well, not to assume that aboriginal people will only want to be involved in the resource industries. I believe aboriginal people want to involve themselves in every facet of our modern economy, so it's important through these economic measures that the Attorney General is promoting that we build capacity in first nations communities through education and training and allowing them to take their place in the industries that are all around our province today and that are emerging even as we speak.

We also need to encourage accountability amongst first nations people. As the member for Cariboo South points out, if throwing money at these issues were the answer, then we would have had our solution a long time ago.

These collections of comments by others are why we are having a referendum, and they are why we need principles. One more thing I believe we must consider is the process itself. Not only must we have a process, we must consider redefining that process. Ten-plus years and $500 million with little or no resolve is simply not good enough.

T. Christensen: For me, one of the great benefits of being a representative for my constituency of Okanagan-Vernon is the opportunity to learn about issues of importance to my constituents and to the communities within my constituency.

Prior to being elected to this Legislature, each of us had one occupation or another. Some of us had a string of different occupations, but we all had various experiences. Upon being elected, by necessity we find that we need to become much better informed about many issues.

Today I am going to talk about something I knew very little about until this last year, and that issue is salvage logging. Salvage logging is an issue of great importance in my constituency, and by the time I'm finished speaking this morning, I expect those listening will realize that it's an issue of great importance to the province as a whole, as it has a positive effect on many communities and is integral to the health of our forests.

In short, salvage logging is the salvage of dead or dying timber that would otherwise not be harvested in the ordinary course of the planned logging of various cut blocks around the province. Salvage loggers remove dead, diseased and dying timber that would otherwise stay in the forest and, in doing so, generate economic value to the local community through employment and reliance on local services. They generate direct economic benefit to the province through stumpage paid, and they benefit and diversify the marketplace by bringing additional fibre to the market.

The Ministry of Forests has managed salvage logging primarily through the small-scale salvage program, which in the Vernon forest district has evolved over the past 25 years. I'm told that the Vernon salvage program is the largest in the province.

Initially, salvage logging focused on recovering cedar left over from conventional harvesting practices, but over time, as fibre from various tree species has become marketable, those species have also been salvaged. Over the past decade in particular, the small-scale salvage program has become increasingly focused on the removal of small pockets of bug-infested timber before the bugs spread and create an epidemic. It is the timely identification and removal of bug wood that has become such an important benefit of salvage logging to forest health and management around the province.

Within the Vernon forest district there has been an average of 120 salvage sales issued by the ministry each year in recent years, resulting in approximately 60,000 cubic metres of timber salvaged each year and an estimated stumpage revenue of up to $1 million per year. Notwithstanding this volume, it's generally agreed that on an annual basis there's been a huge amount of salvageable timber that's not been removed due to a backlog in the Ministry of Forests' ability to assess applications and grant permits for the removal of the timber.

This year the chief forester increased the annual allowable cut for the Okanagan timber supply area by 80,000 cubic metres, primarily in response to a widespread request for an additional allocation of annual allowable cut for salvage of damaged timber, timber that would normally be left to waste in the bush rather than being removed.

Salvage logging has two basic areas of benefit. One general benefit is the economic value to the people doing the work and to the extended community that relies on the economic activity generated from salvage logging. There are approximately 80 active salvage operators that undertake work in the Vernon forest district, and I'm told that these operations employ around 150 people. In comparison to regular logging of bigger cutblocks, salvage logging is much more labour-intensive, as the loggers are only removing selected dead or diseased trees and are often having to skid those trees out longer distances to minimize forest impacts. It's estimated that salvage logging provides three times as much employment per cubic metre of timber removed as regular logging does.

In the Vernon forest district it's estimated that the small-scale salvage program generates approximately 75 person-years of employment in the local economy, which is of particular importance in the eastern part of my constituency in the communities of Lumby and Cherryville. Typically, salvage logging doesn't provide full-time employment to too many people, but it does provide enough employment and income to many of my constituents in communities that have been hit hard by the closure of mills and a generally troubled forest economy over the past few years.

I've heard from numerous businesses in my constituency who have told me about the benefit these small salvage logging operations bring to their businesses, whether that be for equipment purchase and repair, purchase of supplies or otherwise. I've also heard from small mills and specialty mills that tell me it's the salvage loggers who are often able to provide those mills with the fibre they need to produce their products. There's simply no denying the important economic impact of salvage logging.

The second general benefit of salvage logging is its very significant impact on forest health. The importance of the forest health benefit of salvage logging has become increasingly relevant as we have seen the explosive spread of the pine beetle infestation in central British Columbia.

In the Vernon forest district we, too, have an active and voracious beetle population. We have a number of

different species of beetle that we must look out for and take care of when discovered. Salvage loggers play a critically important role in the Vernon forest district in keeping the spread of beetle infestations under control. As one forester put it to me: "In the Vernon forest district the beetle infestation is endemic, but thanks in part to an effective salvage program, it is not epidemic." Consistent and timely identification and removal of beetle-infested timber is key to ensuring that we maintain a level of control over the spread of various beetles in the Vernon forest district.

Salvage loggers are essentially the prospectors of our forests. Rather than searching the province for mineral deposits, they search our forests for salvageable timber. In the Vernon forest district we have about 80 salvage operators who are out in the bush looking for potential salvage wood. These folks know the forest, know what to look for and, if we let them, know how to remove damaged timber and get value out of it.

There's no question that the activities of our salvage loggers make our community stronger and our forests healthier. The only question that remains is how best to manage logging in the Vernon forest district and elsewhere in the province. Individual salvagers have suggested to me a number of improvements or changes that would better enable the important work that they do. The most fundamental change is a change in mindset, from thinking of salvage logging simply as timber harvesting to thinking of it more as fibre recovery and preventative medicine for ensuring future forest health.

Salvage logging is about bringing timber to market that would otherwise rot in the forest or removing beetle trees to prevent the spread of various beetle infestations. If we think of it in that mindset, that forms a foundation for policy change that will see salvage logging thrive in the province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the member for Prince George North has agreed to respond.

I noticed that as he led into his statement today, he commented that when he entered the world of politics he was unfamiliar with the small-scale salvage program in the province. How quickly he has learned! He spoke extremely well of the salvage program and, I think, really highlighted many of my comments or thoughts or philosophies.

I'd like to start out by saying that almost every rural member of this House, when you speak to them, will comment on how successful small-scale salvage can be in their area, how it can be a huge driver of employment in their specific area and how their area is unique to other rural areas. The interesting thing about that is that in fact throughout our forested lands in B.C., there is a huge opportunity for what we currently call non-recovered losses.

The estimate in the Prince George district — this is not actually including the mountain pine beetle epidemic that, as you know, we are in the midst of right now — is that in a typical year we leave behind about 354,000 cubic metres of unsalvaged logs. Typically that will be blowdown, some beetle wood and various other types of salvage wood. That represents 4 percent of the total annual allowable cut in the Prince George district of approximately 9.4 million cubic metres. When you translate that provincewide, that's a huge volume. Provincially, we could potentially add three to four million cubic metres to our annual allowable cut every year. Currently that is fibre that is simply not being used. It has huge potential for us.

I mentioned earlier, as I led into my comments, that this is not including the mountain pine beetle epidemic that we're certainly faced with throughout the interior. On the weekend I drove back from Cranbrook through the Robson Valley and was absolutely shocked to see the devastation. The mountain pine beetle has just wreaked havoc through the Robson Valley. This is really unique. Just two or three years ago the Robson Valley was untouched, and yet there are entire hillsides that are completely red and dead now. The devastation continues to grow. The Robson Valley is 500 or 600 miles or more away from the original epicentre of the mountain pine beetle, where it originated in Tweedsmuir Provincial Park.

The opportunity for salvage will continue to grow as time moves forward. We need to be aggressive. Small communities like Mackenzie, McBride, Valemount, Blue River, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James can all benefit in a big way from small-scale salvage. The employment opportunities in this are very large. As the member for Okanagan-Vernon stated earlier, there's roughly three times the amount of employment in the removal of salvage wood than there is in the removal of regular clearcut blocks. There is a big opportunity.

Why are we not doing this right now? I think that's a question that needs to be asked. Really, what it comes down to is two key components. Number one is that the amount of paperwork that we have to do and the amount of bureaucracy that surrounds small-scale salvage currently really make it unaffordable from the government's perspective. We need to find better, more efficient ways of putting those cutting permits through in a timely fashion in order to make it cost-efficient.

The second one is that licensees have concerns about liability with regards to small-scale salvage blocks. We need to find ways for the small-scale operators to accept the liability of working within licensee cutblocks.

Those are kind of the key reasons why we're not performing small-scale salvage projects effectively right now. Certainly, I would encourage the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the Minister of Forests to work on developing successful solutions to those problems.

In short, small-scale salvage offers a huge opportunity in this province, and I see us as really moving forward on this in the future.

T. Christensen: I do wish to thank the member for Prince George North for his comments. I know that he

has spent a lot of time thinking about the salvage logging programs within the province. He himself has some experience in this area, so he starts out certainly from a position better informed than I was. I do thank him for his comments.

I had the good fortune to visit a salvage operation at the summit of the Monashee Pass back in February, accompanied by knowledgable public servants from the Vernon forest district office as well as one of our local salvage loggers. I must say I was thoroughly impressed with the work these people are doing in our forests.

Salvage loggers are masters of low-impact harvesting. Minimal impact selection logging is what small-scale salvage logging is all about. They take out the dead, dying or otherwise damaged timber, and they leave the standing, thriving timber to grow.

We also visited previously salvaged stands where it was virtually impossible to tell that harvesting had occurred. What impressed me most in touring the various sites was the commitment these people had to minimizing the impact of the salvage operations on healthy trees so that the remaining healthy trees would continue to grow and add value to our provincial forest resource. They were also keenly aware and rightly proud of the enhancement of wildlife habitat that occurred in some stands as the result of the salvage operations. In all respects, I found the people involved in salvage logging to be keen stewards of our forest resource.

On that same site visit I was able to visit a small log-sort yard operated by another salvager who was essentially dealing with small loads of timber that were somehow unusual and typically unwanted by major mills. Essentially, this fellow was connecting logs to markets. He was finding small markets for unusual logs that in the past would often have been burned in the bush or otherwise discarded as having no value. In pursuing smaller specialized markets, this salvager was ensuring that the best economic value was realized for our precious forest resource.

As anybody who has looked into forest policy in this province will soon find out, it's really a complex web of history, timber harvesting rights and obligations, market uncertainties, competing demands for fibre, competing demands for the use of forested land and ever-changing priorities. Against that backdrop it's often difficult to remember there are thousands of British Columbians who rely on our forest resources to earn a living and who are dedicated to ensuring that our forests are healthy and continue to be a resource that all British Columbians can rely on for generations to come.

Salvage loggers are but one small part of the many people reliant on our forest resource. I hope my comments this morning have fairly reflected the important work that salvage loggers are doing in our forests.

I certainly look forward to working with the member for Prince George North as well as other caucus colleagues and the Minister of Forests to ensure that government continues to recognize the importance of salvage logging to the health of our forests and communities around this province and that we better accommodate and promote the valuable work that salvage loggers are doing in our forests.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That concludes private members' statements. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin seeks the floor.

A. Hamilton: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House today visitors from the Victoria Newcomers Club. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Carol Romanow. Carol is a member of the Action Committee of People with Disabilities and also a friend of the Kimberly Rogers Womyn's Brigade. Would the House please make her welcome.

Mr. Speaker: This brings us to public bills in the hands of private members. We are at second reading of Bill M202, intituled Pets in Rental Housing Act.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill M202, Pets in Rental Housing Act. This bill really came about from a very active group called POWER. They are people who have been advocating for the recognition of pets and the benefits of pets for individuals in rental housing. Currently the Residential Tenancy Act is the legislation that governs all the landlords and tenants in the province of British Columbia. Within this act, it does not allow for the provision or specifically outline the provision to enable renters to have pets in their homes. Consequently, a lot of the renters in British Columbia have difficulty in getting access to rental housing where they could keep their pet.

It has been well documented that a significant segment of our society shares their lives with a companion — a companion that is not necessarily of a human nature, but rather what some would perhaps call a four-legged friend. Others would be two-legged — birds in that instance — and others with perhaps no legs at all. It is well documented that pets in people's lives do make a difference. A lot of families and children gain

immense comfort from having a pet with them, particularly for seniors. For many seniors, their sole source of companionship would be through the ownership of pets. For seniors, these pets make a great deal of difference. It has been acknowledged that having a pet can be a very positive change, emotionally and physically, for individuals who lack other human contact.

Pets offer affection. They offer companionship to people of all ages. I think they ease social interaction. They promote a sense of community to inner-city dwellers. I'm a pet owner myself, and when I first had my dog, it truly was a place where you became interactive with other community members you perhaps wouldn't otherwise be acquainted with. When I bring my dog for a walk, I often learn about other dogs' names. It's through that connection that I begin to learn about the owners, and the exchange then takes place.

The vast majority of pet owners are indeed responsible pet owners. However, in British Columbia only 5 percent of the 548,000 rental premises currently own dogs, and 9 percent currently own cats. Over 20 pets per day are turned in to shelters by people who have given up trying to find a place to live that will accept pets. Of course this is not only traumatic to the pet owner themselves but often to the children in families who are unable to secure housing that would allow for pets. It's very traumatic for them to have to make that decision. They're unable to secure a home for themselves and their pet. The SPCA also reports that the pets themselves suffer greatly from separation anxiety, and their health rapidly deteriorates while they're at the shelter.

The health reasons to have pets have been studied and well documented by experts in the field. A renowned expert in the field of human-animal relations is author Dr. Alan Beck, the director of the Center for the Human-Animal Bond in the school of veterinary medicine, Purdue University. The centre was established to develop a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between people and their companion animals. In a letter that Dr. Beck wrote to Pets of B.C. Residents, POWER: "It is well documented that people denied good human contact and interaction do not thrive well. One way people can be protected from the ravages of loneliness is animal companionship."

There have been many exhaustive studies done on the effects that pets can have on our well-being. As an example, seniors who own dogs go to the doctor less often than those who do not. In a study of 100 medicare patients, even the most highly stressed dog owners in the study had 21 percent less physician contact than non–dog owners. Another study: activities-of-daily-living level of seniors who do not currently own pets deteriorates more than the average of people who currently own pets. Seniors who own pets coped better with stress that occurred in their daily life events — without entering into the health care system.

Pet owners have lower blood pressure. Pet owners also have a lower cholesterol level than non–pet owners. People with diabetes have improved health because of pet ownership.

I actually can give a personal example of that. My mom and dad, in the family home, own a dog — a big dog, for that matter. My dad is a diabetic. He had to take his medication to keep his blood sugar level stable. Since the family pet was brought into the home, my father has had a daily exercise routine with the dog. Six months afterwards he no longer needed to take his medication. He still needs to monitor his blood sugar level, but he no longer needs to take his medication. The doctor attributes that primarily to the regular exercise routine that he's engaged in with his dog. With that, he is improving his health.

My mom was so happy with this new family member in our home that she named our dog the lucky dog, given that the dog brought improved health for my father. Now my parents are retired, and they both walk the dog. Not only that, they phone up their neighbours to go for little walks with them around the neighbourhood. It also enhances their ability to interact with other neighbourhood members in our community. That's very positive for individuals.

Companionship of pets also helps children in families adjust to serious illness and the death of a parent. That study has also been conducted to show the positive effects of pets.

Pet owners feel less afraid of being a victim of crime when walking with a dog or sharing a residence with the dog. Pet owners have fewer minor health problems. They have better psychological well-being. They enable children to develop better nurturing behaviour than those who don't have pets. Pet owners have a higher one-on-one survival rate in terms of heart diseases, when that issue is looked into.

Medication costs, as mentioned earlier, have also dropped. On average, it is a drop of $3.80 per patient to a drop of $1.18 per patient. This was done in nursing home facilities in New York, Missouri and Texas. Pets in nursing homes increase social and verbal interactions.

They also help, again, people who perhaps have heart diseases and decrease the possibility of heart attacks and the mortality rate by 3 percent. This may not seem like a lot, but in actual numbers this translates into 30,000 lives saved annually.

Pets, of course, decrease the feeling of loneliness, the feeling of isolation. They enhance children's self-esteem, and they also enhance children's cognitive development. Children owning pets are more likely to be involved in activities such as sports, hobbies and clubs. Today, more and more, as we hear in the news, as new studies are indicating that children are getting overweight in the home because of lack of activities, perhaps owning a pet will enable the children to get out with more physical activities — walking the dogs and therefore bringing better health to them.

People who have AIDS who have pets have shown they experience less depression and reduced stress. It also allows them to better cope with their day-to-day

living activities. These studies have been done over the course of time, and they have demonstrated that pets are indeed beneficial to individuals, adults and children alike, and it's cross-cultural.

In situations where families are unable to have a pet in their home, in rental housing, they then run into a problem. It's particularly traumatic for people when they have to give up their pet as they relocate from one home to another. As mentioned, this is traumatic for both the individual and the pet owners themselves.

There have been many organizations and individuals who have come out to call for a change in the Residential Tenancy Act to allow for pets in the act. This, of course, enables individuals and families to have the right to own a pet in their home. That is not to say there won't be problems, because there are some irresponsible pet owners who create problems. However, we have to recognize that the majority of pet owners are responsible. Therefore, those responsible pet owners should not have their rights taken away from them or have their rights jeopardized because of the potential of irresponsible pet owners.

The groups that have come forward to support a change in the Residential Tenancy Act to allow for pets in rental housing include Doris Day Animal League, B.C. Persons with AIDS Society, BCGEU, Canadian Council on Animal Care, the Humane Society of the United States, Canadian Labour Congress, New York City Community Training and Resource Centre, B.C. Federation of Labour, B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, city of Vancouver animal control, David Suzuki Foundation, district of Hudson's Hope, Victoria Status of Women Action Group, Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, Hospital Employees Union, Family Network of Deaf Children, city of Toronto's Federation of Metro Tenants Associations, city of New York, Vancouver Status of Women, CUPE B.C., Ontario Legislative Assembly — and I will bring some information to the House around the changes that Ontario brought about in this regard — Coalition of Progressive Electors, B.C. Young New Democrats, B.C. Retired Teachers Association, MS Society of Canada, B.C. division, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, the B.C. Association for Community Living, the Developmental Disabilities Association, the Society to Support Family Bonding and Healing, Vancouver Friends for Life, the Nisha Family and Children's Services Society, the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, the Royal Canadian Legion, the Vancouver Second Mile Society, the West End Seniors Network Society, the British Columbia Epilepsy Society, the Physiotherapy Association of British Columbia, the North Shore Disability Resource Centre, the Opportunities for the Disabled Foundation, YouthCo AIDS Society, Advancement of Minority Equality, Little Mountain Senior Live Wires. The list goes on. These are only some of the groups that have come forward to support a change in our legislation to enable pets to be in rental housing.

Earlier I mentioned that Ontario has brought forward legislation to allow for pets in rental accommodation. The Pets of B.C. Residents — that's POWER — has had the opportunity to meet with many of the stakeholders to gain consensus on a change to the legislation. They have, as I mentioned, solicited a wide array of individuals and groups to come forward to support and call for this change.

In Ontario they have researched and found that in the last ten years since Ontario brought about such change, there have been no substantive complaints regarding this change in the residential tenancy regulations. Ontario had made amendments to their related acts to disallow the no-pet policies, and the legislation they brought in is known as the Fluffy law. It was introduced by the then governing Liberal Party of Ontario.

In a recent letter of support to POWER, the Ontario Liberals, now the official opposition, still refer to it as an important matter. The Ontario NDP housing critic has also confirmed the success of the Fluffy law. I quote Rosario Marchese, who is the MPP who wrote to POWER, stating: "Over the past ten years, Ontario tenants have been able to enjoy the family pet within the apartment unit exactly the same way as homeowners do. The act is working well in Ontario, and as the housing critic for the Ontario NDP, I have not heard of any complaints from petless residents. I'm sure that the residents of British Columbia would benefit greatly if such an act were passed in B.C."

In the city of Toronto, St. Paul's councillor Michael Walker calls the Fluffy law a successful policy, adding that pets have an enormous positive impact on the lives of their owners. In New York a similar law was also passed back in 1983. The influential Community Training and Resource Center in New York wrote to support POWER's effort, stating that the New York pets law was introduced by city council to provide protection from widespread abuses by building owners.

The other jurisdictions that brought about this change have shown that their experiences have been positive. They've also shown that the problems people worry about in terms of complaints from non–pet owners, perhaps complaints from landlords, have actually not materialized.

It brings, I think, a great opportunity to British Columbia to learn from this experience, to learn from the experts in the field and particularly those who have medical health experience, those who have studied this issue, to understand the positive impacts of pets for individuals, for seniors, for children — especially now, at a time when we have more challenges in the health care system, and we're looking for ways to reduce health care costs.

It has been shown that pets can be positive in reducing health care costs for the taxpayers and for government as well. I would urge the members to support this bill. It is a bill that I would suggest ought to be debated in a manner that is non-partisan in nature. It is really meant to be a bill introduced that would enhance the health and quality of life of British Columbians,

enhance development for children and of course enhance the quality of life of the pets themselves so that they don't risk losing their family when the family unit is unable to gain a rental housing unit because they are unable to keep a pet in that rental housing unit.

I have a number of letters that individuals have written to me in support of the call for a change in such legislation. Some of them are individuals; some of them are associations. In particular, I'll read this one into the record. It is from the West End Seniors Network Society. This letter was written to Julian Benedict, who is leading the charge on POWER. I'll read parts of it into the record.

This is one example of a community group advocating for seniors which has noticed the positive changes and also noticed the negative changes of a senior having to give up his or her pet and the detrimental impacts of that.

I would suggest that we need to make sure this bill is debated in a manner that is non-partisan. I would urge the government members in this House to rise to speak in support of this bill.

Before I take my seat, I'd like to also put one more letter on record for the members of the House. This is a letter from the Vancouver Friends for Life Society, the Diamond Centre for Living. They've written in support of a change in the legislation. The letter reads:

POWER, as I mentioned, is a group that has been advocating for a long time for a change in the legislation. Their work has been relentless with all levels of government, across jurisdictions, collecting the information and material to illustrate and to verify the benefits of pets in a person's life and the detrimental effects of a family or an individual having to lose a pet when they're unable to seek rental accommodation that would allow for pets.

The bill I have introduced, Bill M202, Pets in Rental Housing Act, calls for a change to allow pets in rental housing. It does provide for a provision that deals with issues around vicious or dangerous dogs or irresponsible pet owners. I say, Mr. Speaker, that people who are by and large responsible pet owners should not be penalized because of the fear of a few irresponsible pet owners.

The documents and studies that show the benefits of pets cannot be refuted. They are studies that have been verified. Legislation that has been brought in place in other jurisdictions shows that such legislation does not result in a lot of the widespread fears materializing into reality.

I would urge all members of this House to support this bill in a non-partisan manner, to support the people in British Columbia to have their right to have pets in rental housing.

R. Stewart: I rise today in support of the title of this bill. I believe both sides of the House would recognize the value and importance of providing a range of housing options for British Columbians. I think the members of this House would support, as well, the benefits that have been well documented: the benefits of pet ownership, the benefits that accrue to owners of pets, the benefits the member has spoken of.

I really appreciate the fact that she is raising them in the House now — I guess about five years after she was first elected, a period of time, actually, when she was the minister responsible. There was a period of time in that five years when she was the minister responsible for housing. I'm sure she raised many of these issues when she was minister in the previous government, but I notice that the previous government didn't do this. I find myself wondering why.

As I say, I support, in a very non-partisan way, the idea that we should encourage, as much as possible, rental housing to permit pets. However, this bill before us today doesn't do that. It doesn't encourage landlords to permit pets. It takes away the rights of property owners. In fact, I suspect it would result in some unintended consequences, and that's unfortunate. I think

we have to encourage rental housing, and we have to remove the barriers and disincentives for the provision of rental housing. We have to do that because rental housing provides an important resource for people across this province.

I was deeply involved in the housing industry and the housing sector. In fact, I was the founding president of the Society for Housing Affordability. One of the things we addressed many years ago was the importance of encouraging a range of housing options, and that range of housing options ought to include housing that permits pets. We have to then, I believe, encourage landlords to permit pets wherever possible. We have to discover what the barriers are that stop landlords in a free market from permitting pets, and we have to address those barriers. That way, I believe we'll actually be able to achieve what the bill's title suggests.

I, in fact, have received some e-mail in support of the bill's title, and I think the public out there will support the title of the bill: Pets in Rental Housing Act. However, I'm deeply concerned about aspects of the bill as it's presented to us today, and I want to raise some of them right now.

I note, for example, that at section 3 the bill would amend section 10 of the Residential Tenancy Act by not requiring the landlord to do maintenance when a dog or cat is present if the tenant isn't present at the same time. Now, the maintenance that is envisioned in the act is actually maintenance to ensure that the premises comply with health, safety and housing standards required by law, so this amendment will say that the landlord need not undertake maintenance that is required by law if there is a pet present. I don't think that was intended. I think it was…. Unfortunately, it's just the way the bill is written.

R. Stewart: I recognize that the member suggests that if her bill is wrong, we should amend it. I'm afraid there are a few other examples, though. Actually, there's one that ought to be in the current Residential Tenancy Act. The Residential Tenancy Act doesn't specifically make a tenant liable for damage done to residential premises by a pet. It requires that a tenant be liable for damage done to residential premises by the tenant or by the tenant's guests, but not by the tenant's pet. Perhaps the amendment as proposed under section 4 of the bill is one that we ought to consider because it would perhaps remove a disincentive. I'm not certain that that disincentive has been realized in the courts, but perhaps it would remove a disincentive that exists for landlords in deciding whether or not to permit pets.

At section 5 it's suggested that we could amend…. Rather, a new section is proposed for the Residential Tenancy Act — that is, the new section 24. It suggests under subsection (5)(g) that all pets over a year old must be spayed or neutered. It doesn't limit which pets we're talking about — whether they're pets that are actually kept in cages or fish tanks, for that matter. It does suggest that you must spay or neuter all pets in rental accommodation. I'm not certain that was intended — that as we get into rural British Columbia we would now have a provincial law that a pet in rental accommodation would be required to be spayed or neutered. I don't think that's a good idea. I'm not certain it would work very well across the province. It might work fine in urban areas where there's already a requirement for spaying or neutering, for example, but in rural areas I can't imagine us as a Legislature passing a law that says a pet must be spayed or neutered if the pet lives in rental accommodation. That seems like a penalty for owners who live in rental accommodation, and it seems like a penalty for the pet.

The same section would add 24(7). That would prohibit food source animals…. It doesn't define food source animals, but I assume it doesn't include rabbits because rabbits are mentioned elsewhere as being permitted, specifically. I'm concerned about that.

I'm concerned about the addition of subsection (6) where it says that pets other than dogs, cats, birds, fish, rabbits and rodents may be kept on the premises if written approval has been given by the landlord. It's certainly not a clause that would be required, because if written permission was given by the landlord, I'm not certain that we need an act to say that the landlord is allowed to permit a pet on his own premises, but we are now going to say that.

However, there are some municipalities that don't permit some types of pets. We would then have provincial legislation that takes away — I suspect, that overrides — a municipal restriction and says that if it's rental accommodation, you're allowed to keep certain types of pets that otherwise a municipality wouldn't permit. It says that if written approval has been given by the landlord, you may keep any other type of pet that the landlord deems to be suitable. I'm certain that it wasn't intended. I hope that wasn't intended, but it's what's written.

I'm also concerned, though not specifically with the way in which the bill has been drafted. I'm concerned about the way in which the bill would take away the rights of a large number of individuals, both landlords and tenants.

For example, one of the issues that was raised in a letter I received by e-mail is the issue of allergies. One particular person said she can't live in a piece of accommodation, a piece of housing, that has been lived in by some types of pets, particularly the furry ones. That allergy is a significant health risk for this individual, as I understand it, and therefore she seeks out those landlords who prohibit pets on premises.

R. Stewart: I am not going to make light of this person's medical condition like the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is intending to. This person has a serious medical condition and intends to have it ad-

dressed in this House. I'm not doing this on a partisan basis. I'm trying to raise a concern that apparently the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has no concern over.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, please address your remarks through the Chair. Thank you.

R. Stewart: Although some here in the House might make light of the issue of allergies, this is a life-threatening issue for a great many people, and I am not going to make light of it today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rises on a point of order.

J. Kwan: I take offence at the member's insinuation that I do not care for people with allergies in rental housing who have pet issues. That is a complete misrepresentation of my feelings. I'm very offended by the member's insinuations, and I would ask the member to withdraw his statement.

R. Stewart: I think that as we move forward, we have to take into very serious consideration the effect that this bill, which I think is ill-advised, would have on people with allergies. I won't dismiss the issue. I don't think it's an issue that we should dismiss. Let's make sure we address it. This bill will necessarily make it so that there is no safe rental housing for someone who's allergic to pets.

R. Stewart: Apparently, some members of the House consider that to be nonsense — that we should look after the interests, or the special interests, in this case, of people who have allergies.

J. Kwan: Once again the member is distorting comments in the House. The issue that the member is raising, to suggest that members of this House don't care about people's allergies, is completely false. He has continuously tried to insinuate that, hon. Speaker, and I would ask the member to please withdraw his comments.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order, and the member is not required to withdraw his comments.

R. Stewart: I'm going to reiterate that this is an important issue. To me, one of the main issues related to housing is that it be safe and secure for people, that people in British Columbia have the right, as the bill suggests in the preamble, to the quiet enjoyment of their premises free from intrusive behaviour. I take that to be free from intrusions that would affect their health.

Another example came up. Let's use the example of a homeowner who has a basement suite. Now, some communities don't value the basement suite as much as I do. I think the basement suite is a very important form of housing. It is used by tens of thousands of British Columbia families, both landlords and tenants. The basement suite, while sometimes non-conforming, nonetheless provides housing for a good percentage of our population in urban British Columbia and a large percentage in other areas of British Columbia as well.

The owner of a single-family home who owns a basement suite was speaking to me. He says one of his children is severely allergic to pets. Again, I raise the issue of allergies because this is one thing this bill doesn't address. One of his children is severely allergic to pets. They would shut down their basement suite immediately. They would have to. They could not consider at any time that, having rented out their basement suite according to this bill, a tenant could show up and say: "Seven days ago we brought a cat or a dog in. The cat or dog has been living in our premises for the past seven days. Here's a picture. You're required to permit it."

In this circumstance there would be some severe health effects once again. One of the unintended consequences would be that we would lose that unit of housing. I'm not certain this is an isolated case. My brother was deathly allergic to pets, to fur in particular, when he was young. If my parents had a basement suite in their home, they would have to shut it down upon the passage of a shortsighted bill like this. They would simply have to shut down the basement suite.

Now we have this situation where a person with allergies is trying to find housing and perhaps cannot or where a tenant essentially has to shut down a valuable form of housing in British Columbia. The housing could end up being a home to pets that this family has taken some efforts to make sure they shield their child from.

I don't raise either of those examples in a political or partisan way, and I know that someone is going to try to suggest that. I raise those examples because when we take away people's rights, we have to consider the consequences. In this case, I believe we would create an unintended consequence that would harm some British Columbians.

At the same time, I believe it's possible to address the title of this bill, to address the stated intent of this bill, which, I guess, is to allow tenants who want housing that permits pets to find such housing. I think that's

what we ought to focus ourselves on in this House: the idea that we can as a province encourage the provision of rental housing that permits pets. I think the way to achieve that is always to find out what the barriers are right now, to find out what is stopping landlords or homeowners from permitting pets or allowing pets in rental accommodation and removing some of those barriers so that those landlords, those homeowners, can see that in a free market we will be able to achieve a larger percentage of rental housing that permits pets.

I agree there are some changes that perhaps we ought to make to the Residential Tenancy Act to permit landlords and tenants greater recourse and perhaps put in place greater responsibility for pet owners. I believe, as the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has stated herself, that the vast majority of pet owners are very responsible individuals. I agree fully that the vast majority, the enormous majority, of pet owners are responsible, caring people who would do no harm, and their pets would do no intended harm.

I think what we have to do then is look at these two positions. We've got a landlord or a homeowner who has specific rights to property, rights to the security of that property and in some cases rights to health, and we've got a tenant that we want to permit to have pets. Now, do we take away the one set of rights to allow the pets in rental accommodation, or do we find a better way to do that? I think the latter is the proper course. Find a better way to do that because pets in rental accommodation — pets period — are valuable and present very many benefits for pet owners. We should not stand in the way of that.

At the same time, rental accommodation is incredibly valuable. It's an important part of our housing stock in British Columbia, and we should put in place no barrier to the increased supply of rental accommodation. In fact, we have to step forward proactively, find the barriers that are preventing the construction and delivery of more rental housing, and remove those barriers. That's the challenge before us.

I would never support a bill that intended to take away the rights of one group in order to give them to another group when the unintended consequences are so severe, and I believe they are in this case. I recognize that we should work very hard to make sure that tenants have the right to live in accommodation and, as much as possible, in accommodation that suits their individual needs, including the allowance for pets in rental accommodation. But I don't believe and am unconvinced that this concept — let alone this bill — of taking away other rights and at the same time perhaps creating a further disincentive to the creation and delivery of market rental housing in British Columbia is right. That, I believe, would cause greater harm in British Columbia.

One of the things we will find as we move forward is that high vacancy rates are better than low vacancy rates from the perspective of a tenant. That, of course, is a motherhood statement, a statement that goes without saying, but I say it now because one of the challenges we've got in rental accommodation is a very low vacancy rate. When that happens, the market should react, move forward and try to put in place more rental accommodation in order to take up the slack of a very low vacancy rate. However, it doesn't happen very often in British Columbia, and one of the reasons it doesn't is because governments in this province have always talked about and put in place disincentives to creating rental housing, disincentives to going forward and converting housing that is owned now into rental housing. Those disincentives are real. They aren't artificial; they are very real.

I think that government has to find those disincentives and remove them, if we accept the premise that rental housing is valuable and an important part of our housing stock, rather than accept the premise that we can do whatever we want to the rights of landlords — and the rights of tenants, for that matter — and not affect the supply of or the demand for rental housing. That would be a mistake. I think ignoring the marketplace, demanding something of someone when we don't really have the right to do that, always has unintended consequences. In this case we're hoping to install some rights upon tenants, and I believe in them. We're hoping, though, to put in place these rights by imposing a duty on someone else to supply housing that meets these needs. The duty is so artificial, so fragile, that I believe we'll end up losing some of the stock of rental housing that British Columbians count on.

Let's find a way to encourage landlords to allow pets in rental housing. Let's find the barriers that exist to the permission of pets in rental housing, and let's remove those barriers. Let's not try to tackle the imposition of a right with a big stick when we can permit the market to allow for something with carrots, in this case. That wasn't meant for the bunnies; that was meant for the landlords. I think that a carrot is a much more useful tool than a stick. I believe what we have to do is permit landlords to understand the issue and permit them the tools — and permit tenants the tools as well, for that matter — to allow for the provision of more housing that permits pets.

Let's recognize the benefits of pet ownership. Let's remove the barriers that affect pet ownership. Let's ultimately increase the range of affordable housing options for the people of B.C. That last statement, I think, should be the underlying philosophy of anything that we do in housing. We should be working very hard as a government to enable the creation, the enlargement of a range of affordable housing options for British Columbia. That's options for people with disabilities, for people with pets, and for seniors and young families. That's a range of housing options for every British Columbian.

That requires, though, that we be more flexible and that government step out of the way in many cases. All too often we find in the housing sector that government has stepped in and required some things, and those individual requirements, those individual impositions of red tape upon a market, always have unin-

tended consequences. All too often in the housing market we don't seem to recognize the incredible value that good, strong housing presents to families. When we don't recognize those values, we end up imposing some particular requirement that has a consequence no one anticipated or perhaps that was anticipated but was ignored, and the consequence is actually negative for people with families. The consequence is actually negative for renters, in this case, or for landlords or for the provision of the range of housing options that we as a province ought to embrace.

I encourage the members of this House to embrace that philosophy, that strategy of trying to encourage greater options for tenants. In so doing, though, that necessarily means encouraging the provision of housing. Tenants don't provide housing; they're consumers.

We need to find the people who are providing housing and, as much as possible, encourage them to do what we as a society want them to do, and that is to create more housing, more affordable options and a wider range of affordable options for people in British Columbia.