Hansard -- Thursday, April 3, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 13 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tributes		5953
	Don Hamilton Hon. L. Reid

Introductions by Members		5953

Tabling Documents		5953
	Criminal Injury Compensation Program Report 2002

Committee of the Whole House		5953
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 30) B. Kerr Hon. B. Barisoff

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5954
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 30)

Committee of the Whole House		5954
	Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5954
	Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12)

Committee of Supply		5954
	Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources Hon. M. Coell V. Anderson

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		5966
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Abbott T. Christensen

Hon. L. Reid: I would add to the record of this Legislature the passing of Don Hamilton. He served this province with distinction and was near and dear to the life and livelihood of east Richmond for many decades. He demonstrated great humour and rare human warmth. He will be missed. I would ask this House to extend our support to his wife of 30 years, Dorothy, as a way to celebrate a life well lived but far too short.

S. Brice: I am very pleased this morning to introduce to this House students from St. Andrew's Regional High School, which is in my riding of Saanich South. There are 30 grade 11 students accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Grandia. St. Andrew's is an independent school in the riding, and the students arrived here this morning looking very smart in their uniforms.

Given the private member's statement by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I took the opportunity to have a mini-debate with them on the merits, and certainly they gave good feedback. I would say that after all was said and done, the students made a very intelligent decision that choice was probably the best thing we could offer. With that, I'd ask the House to make these students and their teacher very welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I present the Criminal Injury Compensation Program Report 2002.

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate around the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — and in this chamber, Committee B, committee stage debate on Bill 30.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

B. Kerr: This is an addition to section 116. I'm not sure I understand it. I just want some clarification on it. In section 116.1(1) it indicates, I guess, that the onus is totally on the taxpayer to prove that the assessment is incorrect as opposed to the minister proving that the assessment is right. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If they disagree with the assessment, they can appeal back to the minister himself.

B. Kerr: I guess my concern is that we're sort of turning things around here, in a sense. The way the assessment is done for the Social Service Tax Act is that they'll go out to a retail establishment — let's use a retail establishment as an example — and they'll look at three days' worth of till tapes. If they find a 2- or 3-cent error, they'll multiply that times 365, times six years, and say: "This is how much you owe." Then it's up to the individual to prove he doesn't owe that much — that the assessment officer has, in fact, erred. That's difficult to appeal.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Only the taxpayer has that information. If they have that information and they provide it back to us, then we'll readjust the assessment. They ultimately have all the documents of what we're assessing, so if they bring forward information that dictates that this didn't happen, then of course we'll readjust the assessment.

B. Kerr: In subsection (2) it says — and again, this is just for my edification: "Subject to being amended, changed or varied on appeal…an assessment, estimate or penalty made or imposed under this Act is valid and binding despite any error, defect or omission in the assessment, estimate or penalty…." I just don't understand. If there's a mistake made, it's still binding?

Hon. B. Barisoff: What that ultimately indicates is that if, by chance, we go to court and there's a typographical error, then that typographical error won't impede the actual assessment. You can go back to what's actually right. If there is an error that's been typed in there that's wrong, that doesn't bear the brunt of making the actual assessment all wrong.

B. Kerr: This wouldn't have anything to do with the error regarding the calculation of the estimate. This is just sort of a technical error, like spelling or something to that effect.

Hon. B. Barisoff: That's exactly right. It's just if it's a typographical error.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 30, Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 12, Police Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to begin by introducing my staff that are with me today: the deputy minister, Robin Ciceri, and the assistant deputy minister of policy and research, Andrew Wharton. I'd like to thank these members of executive for their help in preparing the Ministry of Human Resources budget. I'd like to thank the many others at ministry headquarters and in my office who have given their time, advice and expertise. I'd also like to acknowledge the hundreds of other ministry employees who serve our clients throughout British Columbia and who ensure that British Columbians in need get the assistance they require.

The mission of the Ministry of Human Resources is to provide services that move people towards stable employment and to assist individuals and families in need throughout British Columbia. It is a vital and important mission. It links directly to government's strategic plan for a vibrant economy and a supportive social fabric, and to our new-era commitments towards responsible government. It guides us as we work towards our five-year outcomes of sustained, long-term employment, assistance for those who are most in need in British Columbia, reduced long-term dependence on income assistance, less red tape and regulations, and the best use of taxpayers' dollars.

Before we begin the debate on estimates, I'd like to present a brief overview of the ministry and describe some of the major changes that have taken place since this time last year. The ministry has six core business areas. Employment programs enable people to get training and to get employment as they need. Temporary assistance is income assistance for those who are expected to seek work and who are temporarily excused from work because of….

An example is a single parent with a child under age three or for temporary medical conditions. It's also for people with persistent multiple barriers to employment and for persons with disabilities who are seeking employment. Continuous assistance is income assistance for people with severe disabilities who are not expected to become financially independent through employment. There is supplementary assistance, such as emergency shelters and health services for people with disabilities. We also have appeals, and we have executive and support services for the ministry.

The ministry is the fifth-largest in government, with a budget of $1.4 billion. It is highly regionalized with 136 service delivery offices in 63 communities throughout British Columbia. We have 2,310 FTEs.

A year ago the ministry was operating under the old B.C. Benefits legislation developed under the previous government. In the early to mid-nineties, at a time when the unemployment rate was actually going down, the previous government had increased welfare benefits and loosened eligibility criteria. It led to a caseload at an all-time high in 1995, with one in ten British Columbians on welfare, six in ten single parents on welfare and one in seven children on welfare. The annual cost to taxpayers reached $2 billion. As I've said in the past, I believe that government policies had encouraged a culture of entitlement. There was widespread expectation that government would always be there with a handout, that welfare was for life and that long-term assistance could be a lifestyle for employable people.

A year ago I reported to this committee that just over 6 percent of British Columbians were on welfare, and I said: "That statistic troubles me. It represents people whose potential is being wasted as they wait for their next income assistance cheque and who risk being trapped by welfare dependency. People have gone too long without financial security, a sense of accomplishment and the dignity that a job can bring — people who may have started to give up on themselves altogether."

Mr. Chairman, this government does not give up on people. Instead, we are committed to helping people break a cycle of poverty by giving people the direction and the training they need to find a job. A year later, I am proud to report back to you that our changes are working. We have supported thousands of people towards independence through employment. We are fulfilling our government's commitment towards putting people first, revitalizing the economy, and sound financial management.

We are putting people first by increasing our support for people with disabilities. By support, I mean more dollars towards helping people with disabilities overcome barriers to the workplace, more support through new legislation that recognizes the distinct needs of clients with disabilities, more support for thousands of new clients who have come onto the disabilities caseload since June 2001 and more support through partnership with the private sector to help more people with disabilities take their rightful place in the workforce.

Underpinning this increased financial support is the new Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, which was passed in the spring and which came into force in September. Our government understands that people with disabilities face unique challenges. That's why we introduced the separate legislation to address their needs.

The legislation includes a new definition and designation for persons with disabilities. The new criteria are based on a person's ability to carry out normal daily living activities, not costs or inability to work. This new focus on functional limitations is consistent with human rights case law, and the criteria now specifically include, for the first time, people with mental illness.

We recognize that disability does not mean you do not want to work, and we recognize that disability may be cyclical and reoccurring. That's why the legislation is designed for people who may have different levels of support at different times. It encourages people with disabilities to become involved in employment and volunteer programs and to be involved in their communities. Those who are able to become independent through employment receive support services including job training, job placement, technical equipment, physical accommodations and follow-up support.

The goal of the new legislation is greater independence, including security of income, enhanced well-being and participation in all aspects of our community. However, we recognize that many clients with disabilities are unable to work and may require ongoing assistance. This assistance is the highest available from this ministry and the third highest in Canada.

All of our clients who were receiving the DB-2 assistance under the old legislation were automatically transferred to the new legislation and continue to receive the higher rate while the ministry completes eligibility reviews. These reviews are a legal requirement under the new legislation.

The ministry reviewed about 62,000 files. Very early in the process, the ministry found that about 70 percent, or 43,000 clients, had enough information on their files that they would be immediately confirmed as eligible under the new criteria. The remaining 19,000 clients were contacted in September and were asked to provide further information so the ministry could confirm their status. The ministry lacked this information because under the previous legislation, there was no requirement to review or update a client's medical information.

In November a further 5,000 clients were exempted from the review based on the primary diagnosis of mental illness. The remainder, about 14,000, were asked to submit further information using a form developed in consultation with physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. Many clients were assisted through the ministry's outreach efforts, including home visits, toll-free lines, partner agencies and travelling local clinics. I am pleased that we received almost 8,000 new applications since September.

During last year's estimates debate I said we want to make sure that if someone is in need, they get the services they need. Today we are supporting more people with disabilities than ever before. Our disabilities caseload has increased by 8 percent since our government came to office. That's almost 3,500 more cases. I am pleased that we are able to support them and many more who will need our help in the future. We will continue to be there for them. We want to do more for them. As we put our financial house in order, we will look at increasing disability assistance rates. Our government knows the extra challenges faced by peo-

Just as importantly, we will look for new ways to help people with disabilities help themselves to greater independence. A year ago I said: "People with disabilities have told us they need better access to employment and training programs that recognize their special and distinct needs." Since then, we have developed the employment strategy for people with disabilities. This strategy supports people with disabilities who wish to work, with employment programs that recognize the cyclical nature of some disabilities. It provides job training and placement, technical support, physical accommodation and follow-up workplace support. This year the government has increased its commitment to this strategy by more than 80 percent, to nearly $24 million.

A year ago I said: "Our partnership with the private sector will be a key to the success of these programs. The disability community has told us that support from employers is vital. Our strategy will involve leaders from business, non-profits and labour in the development of appropriate and effective employment services and supports." We followed through by establishing the Minister's Council on Employment for Persons with Disabilities, which brings together business leaders, community partners and government to explore ways of overcoming barriers. Its members are ready to roll up their sleeves and come up with innovative ways to increase opportunities in the workplace. I am delighted with their enthusiasm, and I look forward to working with them and hearing their ideas in the months ahead.

In the past year we have improved opportunities for persons with disabilities with two increases to the earnings exemption. Last year we increased it from $200 to $300. This year in his state-of-the-province address the Premier announced that it would again be increased, to $400 per month. That higher earnings exemption took place on April 1. That means people with disabilities can participate in the workforce part-time as their condition allows, and they can keep more of the money they earn before it affects their income assistance. Many people with disabilities have told me that they're able to work and they want to work. I am pleased the ministry has been able to make this more practical for many people who count on our support.

Mr. Chairman, my ministry is also putting people first with a new category introduced with the Employment and Assistance Act. This category is for persons with persistent multiple barriers to employment. It is for people who have great difficulty finding a job because of their education, work history, time on income assistance, lack of English or other barriers. We are exempting people with persistent, multiple barriers from employment-related obligations but are encouraging them to seek work or to volunteer in their community to the best of their ability. We are also providing them with a higher income assistance rate and enhanced medical coverage and a $300-a-month earnings exemption to encourage part-time employment.

I've spoken about how this ministry is putting people first. I'd like to turn for a second to our government's three key commitments. Revitalizing the economy. A year ago our province recorded the smallest economic growth in ten years. Exports were down. The trade deficit had grown. Forest jobs were disappearing. Mining was stagnant. Tourism was also threatened by the after-effects of September 11. A year ago I said to this committee: "We know that the economy is going to turn around and that it's vital for all British Columbians to get ready for it." A year ago I agreed with those who said it would be a tough job to overhaul the income assistance system in an uncertain economy, but I knew it was important to start those changes immediately. That's why we introduced the B.C. employment and assistance program last April.

This program includes a three-week, self-directed work search at the time of application, unless there are emergency needs, and employment plans for most clients except clients with disabilities and others who are not expected to seek work. These plans allow us to direct ministry resources to assisting people to find sustainable employment and to get the skills they need to succeed in today's workplace.

The program also included a two-year financial independence test to support our focus on employment and encourage young people to seek work before turning to taxpayers' money. We introduced a two-out-of-five-year time limit on income assistance to support our position that for employable clients, income assistance is temporary. At the same time, our policies recognize circumstances where this test cannot and should not apply — women who are pregnant, mothers of dependent children, and youth under the age of 19.

Our message is: we are serious about employment. We have backed it up with a three-year, $330 million commitment to employment programs that help clients back into the workplace. Last year alone our job training and placement programs helped more than 11,000 clients find jobs — good jobs, jobs that pay on average more than triple a single person's income on welfare, jobs in the cities, jobs in the heartlands of our province and jobs that may have been among the 78,000 new jobs that were created in this province last year.

In addition to the success that our job placement clients are having, we also know that many other clients are finding jobs. We are conducting quarterly surveys, exit surveys of former clients. We have completed three surveys so far, and they are consistently showing that more than two-thirds of former clients surveyed left income assistance for paid employment.

We have also been seeing a continuing decline in the ministry's overall caseload. Since June of 2001 there has been a 22 percent reduction in the caseload. That means 69,000 fewer individuals dependent on income assistance. As I mentioned earlier, one year ago just over 6 percent of the B.C. population was on welfare. That has dropped to just over 4.4 percent. This is a clear sign that our approach is working and that our confidence a year ago in our direction, our policies and our clients was justified.

Last year I said that the ministry would fulfil its mandate and responsibility towards sound fiscal management. I quote:

A year ago I said we would streamline our operations. We have overhauled the ministry's appeal system to produce faster decisions and increased accountability. We have already reached 90 percent of our deregulation goal by eliminating more than 600 regulations. We have reduced the number of ministry offices by 36, resulting in savings of approximately $12 million. We are still providing service in those communities, and there are still 136 employment and assistance centres serving British Columbians throughout this province.

We have improved our business practices and our use of technology to enable staff to spend more time assisting clients. We are continuing to look at alternative models of service delivery that will benefit clients and our staff. We estimate that these changes will lead to a savings of $26 million over the next three years.

A year ago I said we were on the eve of a period of great change for this ministry. Thanks to the support of my colleagues here, and the dedication and hard work of ministry staff, much of that change is now complete. We made tough decisions. We protected those most in need. We helped find thousands upon thousands of people jobs. We spent less. We managed better. We believed in our goals, and, most of all, we believed in our clients. We have turned the income assistance system around. Now we are on the eve of a period of continued success. Thank you, and I welcome questions from the members on this speech.

V. Anderson: I want to thank the minister for his presentation and opening remarks as we enter into discussion of what is a very critical and important part of our community — the opportunity of those who struggle with some difficulties, unbeknown to their own selves, in our community and try to find their way with our support and encouragement.

In looking at the ministry plan for the coming year, I've looked particularly at the goals. I'd like to highlight those briefly for a moment and then come back to two of them particularly. As the minister has indicated, one of the goals was employment and assistance for those persons who are willing and ready and able to work but for some reason have not been able to make the connection with the work that is available in our community. There is a plan in place to give them that kind of assistance across the province. It's a new development, and I'm encouraged by its results.

The employment and assistance services to support self-reliance of persons within the community are also important because unless you have the basic support system in your life, which is not always available in our modern urban climate, then you're not able to take advantages of the opportunities that are available there. I am encouraged by this temporary assistance program.

The third of the employment programs or the assistance programs is the continuous assistance for those persons in need. I'll come back to this one as well as to the fourth one, supplementary services for those who have particular opportunities in their lifestyle. I think it's important that we understand the foundation and the vision behind these programs, so that as they proceed we may interact with them as a community, strengthen the parts which are working well and correct the parts which, though well meant, may not have served the initial purpose.

I would like to come back to the vision and mission of the program in Human Resources. As many in the community will know, I've worked at and been part of this all my life, at least my working life — which is not that short, in truth. I've also had the opportunity to be critic in these areas for over ten years in this Legislature. The critic is one who questions what is being done by those who are doing planning and who seeks to understand them and work with them and help them to move in modern directions.

I'd like to ask the minister, first of all, if he could say some more about the specific vision and mission that is the underlying ground and base from which all else is developed. Our society has become, particularly in the business world and in the religious world from which I come, very concerned about a mission statement, a statement that says: "This is where we want to go." Against this statement, then, each and every action can be tested and criticized and evaluated. In order that we might have a base that's common for all of us to understand what is the purpose and intent of the new vision of this ministry, I would ask the minister if he might elaborate for us in terms that the community appreciates — the simplified terms of everyday life — what is the vision and mission of the ministry at this point.

Hon. M. Coell: I thank the member for his question. I touched on the vision in my speech, but I'll just…. When we did the core review and developed our three-year plan, we wanted to have a succinct mission statement and a vision for the ministry. The vision, in simple terms, is that we want to have a province where British Columbians in need are assisted to achieve their greatest social and economic potential. With a vision, you move forward and have the mission of the mission statement. We had said that it is to provide the services that move people towards sustainable employment and to assist individuals and families in need.

Simply, what we want to be able to do is enable people to be active in their communities, to be a part of their community. Income assistance, as the member

would know, can lead to a life of isolation for people. We want to encourage and support people to volunteer if they're able, to work if they're able and to do the best they can. I guess, for me, it's to direct their own lives. You want to make sure that people have the tools that will enable them to move forward on their own and to make those decisions for themselves, and we want to support them to do that.

We've had lots of input into the vision and the mission of this ministry. I look at some of the programs we've tried to develop over the year, such as the program for employment for people with disabilities, which isn't mandatory but allows people to enter the programs. I look at the number of people who have become part of our training and employment programs and have moved on and move on with a positive direction in their lives that maybe wasn't there. I can probably give some case examples to the member, if he would like. I think that is, sort of in a nutshell, where the vision and the mission statement for the ministry are moving. We would hope to continue with that vision and that mission into the years ahead.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister. I think it would be helpful, if you don't mind, to give some examples, as you suggested, because it helps to give some concrete understanding.

I know the concern of many people I visited prior to getting into politics — and many people that still come to our office and that I see in the community — is that once they run up against an obstacle, they're at their wit's end. There's no place to turn. There's no place to begin to get your feet on the ground, particularly if you're in a situation where you have no family locally, where your friends, because of your own difficulties, have kind of shied away from you — no place where you can go.

In that regard, I would ask the minister if there's some relationship between what the ministry is doing and what the community at large is doing. I think particularly of the instance when I first went as a minister to Regina, Saskatchewan. One of the first meetings I attended was called by the social workers in the community. They said to us, as ministers in the community at large from all faith backgrounds: "We can provide financial assistance, but we can't provide the social contact, the interaction and support system which the community needs to survive."

I wonder if the minister can say how the vision here is wanting to relate the large volume of community resources that are available with the resources the ministry has which, in past, have not connected too well with the community itself. Is the vision inclusive of this participation between ministry support and community support, and how does the vision tie those two together?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess I would answer the question in a couple of ways. The vision and mission of the ministry has been one of partnership, and I would give the previous government some credit. They started to develop partnerships with the business community, which was new to them, in the job training and placement programs.

There's another side to the ministry that goes back many, many years and, I think, is becoming more and more coordinated over time, and that's the partnership with community groups. We have $9 million in community assistance programs this year that the ministry partners with. As I earlier mentioned, we have $330 million in job training and placement programs, and there is a lot of support there. But there is a continuum of support that clients need, and that would be right from the encouragement to move forward, the encouragement to do the best you can with your life.

Many of those community assistance programs have been in place for many years. They are not new to this ministry or to this province. Some of them are of national scope as well as provincial scope. They support people on the ground. I've been very impressed — as I say, I've been minister for a little over a year — with the quality of our staff and how they interrelate with the community groups and with the new job training and placement and those programs. There is a real network out there that I think is very beneficial to clients.

The other group we support, which I think is very beneficial, is the advocates: the groups of people who have formed societies — whether it be for the blind, for people who are hearing impaired or for people with mental illness — who connect with us, our employees and the training program.

There's a continuum through. You see a vision where we're moving people to a sort of social, economic potential and assisting those who are most in need. It's multi-faceted. I look through the length of contractors that we have in the hundreds throughout the province in every city, whether they're delivering shelters or hostels or living accommodations or just a hot meal in some cases. That continuum is very strong in British Columbia and, I would say, has been very strong for decades. It's something we need to build on and continue to foster the relationships between the community organizations, government and movement into the workforce.

V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister. When the minister mentioned advocates, one of the newer emphases that has grown over the last number of years is the focus on self-advocates, people being recognized to have the ability to speak and plan their own lives. The difficulties they may have in their lives don't deprive them of that opportunity to be significant contributors to family and to community at large. Persons need to have that and be supported in that self-awareness, self-respect and self-identify, regardless of whatever difficulty they may have, in order to participate as a volunteer or in employment.

Might I ask the minister, as we move into the discussion of support for persons with disabilities who are

trying to get back into participating in the community, which they've either withdrawn from or in some cases been forced out of: what is the focus in providing the base on which they can undertake to have the skills or the nourishment, if you like, and supports they need in order to get into programs where their disabilities may be an asset, indeed, rather than a handicap? Is there something…? As we look at the possibility of the program of persons with disabilities, what is it that gives the groundwork which they build on as the program supports them in moving ahead?

Hon. M. Coell: Just to touch on the comment about self-advocacy, I think — and my experience has been — that if someone can get that courage, in many cases, to be an advocate for themselves, that's really a step towards independence in itself. I have always encouraged that. I think where we see the benefit of advocates in many instances….

I use the Canadian Mental Health Association for one. They can take and deal with people with specific types of illness. They know that illness. They advocate for individuals. They advocate to government to see that we are carrying out programs that help those people. Within that group, for example, you've got people who are self-advocates. We may talk more about that as we get through the estimates process.

One of the things the employment program for people with disabilities does is that there's a continuum of support there. It's designed to be flexible. It's designed to improve and maintain employability as people move up that ladder. The member probably is well aware that there are tens of thousands of people with disabilities who work in the province and have different levels of disabilities, but the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 50 percent higher than it is for people without disabilities. We have to take that as kind of the baseline, and then how do you develop programs to help those people achieve a fair and level playing field with people without disabilities? That's the essence of the strategy for persons with disabilities.

Maybe I'll just take a moment to go through the continuum, as the member said. The dollar figure for this year's budget is $24 million. It's up 80 percent. We would start out with the basic assessments and individual planning, working one on one. These will mostly be outside contractors. They'll be the private sector, charitable organizations and community groups who have put in the RFPs, the requests for proposals, for this money. We would want them to go through individual assessments so we can assess what a person is capable of and what they need.

It would involve pre-employment services. There are many people whose skills are basic, and they'll need the pre-employment services. We also have employment services, as we do in the $330 million package. That includes job placement, job training. We're trying to work a way for self-employment, as well, to get people to work in the self-employment field. Now, the disability supports is one area that has, I think, probably a very, very important part of keeping employment. It is the adaptive technology that would help people with disabilities stay in the workplace and the supports in the workplace that would help an individual get a job, keep a job and then be supported in that job.

The employment planning. I'll try not to go too long. The employment planning aspect of the persons with disability services is the assessment. The service provider is going to determine what sort of formal or informal assessments will be determined to develop a client's capabilities. The ministry hands off, to some extent, to a contractor, and that contractor works on an individual basis, as much or as little time as someone with a disability needs, to develop that plan. The plan could include information interviews. It could include job-shadowing. It could include the collection of employment information in that person's community. As I see it, there's a whole continuum of services there for people with disabilities to take advantage of the talent and the skills that they have, or the untapped talent and skills that they have, and put them to use in their community.

I think that the plan, as we've unfolded it over this year — and the RFPs are out now — will start to really show an emphasis on employment opportunities, not just taking a course and looking…. You know, I can take a course and maybe get a job. We want to make sure the whole continuum ends with employment to the level that they're able to, in their own community, and to support with technical and human supports in that process as well.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I think of a cousin of mine who was about 30 when he became blind and the difficult transition he had to make within himself to get through that process and care for his own children. My difficulty was that when he got through the process and became aware of who he was in this new person, he was up on the roof taking the shingles off his roof after a thunderstorm. I'm not sure how he was able to do that, but that's what he did. He was out weeding the garden. I have difficulty weeding a garden, and I can see what are flowers and what are weeds, but he was out doing it because he had gone beyond the capacities that he had before he went blind, because he had discovered a whole new part of himself. I hear the minister talking about that kind of direction.

I would like to ask the minister if I'm right in that planning process. Do I hear the minister saying that this is an opportunity to do a kind of self-examination about where one wants to go with one's life — what kind of interests or goals one would have, and that here's an opportunity then for outside support in order to undertake the plan that you yourself diagnosed and developed? Am I hearing that that opportunity is available? If so, how would a person in the community who happens to listen to us and say, "Hey, that sounds like an opportunity for me" go about applying or getting in contact with such an opportunity?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of ways. As I said, we have $24 million worth of programs this year for people with disabilities, which will be throughout the whole province. Someone could contact one of our offices by phone or by going in. I think there are going to be some exciting programs. If the member hasn't had an opportunity to see the RFP and the draft RFP that was up on the Web, it's going to open up lots of opportunities that weren't there and, as I said, hopefully level that playing field for people with disabilities.

The strategy we're employing is starting at a level where someone would have the earning exemption now at $400 a month, so that would allow someone to work part-time or cyclically, if they could. You have the continued medical benefits. You have technical aids, workplace accommodations, and as I say, I can't stress that one enough. We're looking for ways to increase that on an ongoing basis to have funds available for that. And the follow-up support — I think the member also mentioned that the community support is out there as well.

The other thing we introduced is the rapid reinstatement so that someone with a disability can leave the caseload, but if they can't work or for some reason lose their job, they come right back on. They don't need to reapply. And that is helpful. The first step may be volunteer work in the community, the second step may be part-time or intermittent employment, and then there's the potential of full-time employment. There are many people with disabilities who move through that system to find employment, and we want to support them each step of the way.

V. Anderson: I'm interested that there are accommodations in the workplace that could be helpful. I think of a big discussion I had in the congregation of the church I was involved in about putting in a ramp so that people could come to church in wheelchairs. The big discussion was: "Why would we build a ramp, because there's nobody coming to church with a wheelchair?" Well, when they had 20 steps to go up, of course they weren't coming. But once the ramp was built, then one of the persons who argued most against it was one of the persons who found herself in a wheelchair and was the first person to use the ramp. So your perspective changes when you get into that undertaking.

You mentioned voluntary work. There used to be a program years ago, as I remember, where persons could volunteer for non-profit organizations and gain some income in that process. Is that program still available, or is it in the process of being discussed? Where might it be at this particular time?

Hon. M. Coell: Just quickly, yes, that program is still available, and there are many clients who make use of it. It will continue as part of our employment strategy and community volunteer strategy.

V. Anderson: I can remember that over the last 12 years I've been involved, one of the continuous discussions, both within and outside of government, has been the definition that a ministry uses in regard to employment availability and support systems for persons who might get support help. There have been not only the words that go on paper but also the interpretations that have gone along with that in the understanding of the purpose of those definitions.

I know there has been a definition used by the federal Human Resources and definitions used by the provincial. Could the minister share with us the understanding of the current definition and what its implication is for persons who are looking to go on, perhaps for the first time, receiving disability support?

I. Chong: Today in the gallery is a class, who arrived moments ago, from Hillcrest Elementary School, a school in my riding. They're grade 4 students. They're accompanied by five adults as well as their teacher, Ms. Eden. They're here to watch the proceedings in the House. I believe they've already had a tour. I know they're delighted to be here, and I hope the House will please make them very welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: The question with regard to the definition is…. I believe the new legislation was developed to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. We understand, as a ministry, the difficulties that disabilities can cause and the challenges the disabled have for daily living.

The new legislation provides assistance for those individuals who have a severe mental or physical impairment that significantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily living activities that are continuous or periodic for extended periods. For the first time we actually put in the definition the inclusion for mental disorders. The new policies and services encourage persons with disabilities to become involved in employment and volunteer programs, and they receive the same rate of assistance regardless of their ability to be independent through employment.

The legislation also includes people with cyclical or episodic illnesses. A client with a PWD designation who leaves assistance is not required to apply for the designation on reapplication, as I mentioned, which offers sort of a rapid reinstatement for clients.

V. Anderson: As I listen to the minister, he talks about a continuum of services and a continuum of development, perhaps of an individual who has a plan and begins to take stages to improve the completion of whatever goals they set for themselves. Could he help

us by giving a little more detail on what the stages are when you come to an office — between that time and when you actually get into employment? Could he be a little more specific on what kind of employment planning and employment services would be specific to persons with disabilities that would be different from or in addition to what you would gain if you came as a person who didn't have these particular obstacles to overcome?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and answer the question in a number of ways. As the member knows, not all disabilities are going to create the same needs for programs. You have someone who might be in early diagnosis of MS, for example, and who may work for a number of years before that disease makes them incapable of working. Their needs may be different than someone in a wheelchair or someone with a hearing impairment or blindness.

We're trying to look at contractors who can take individuals with specialized needs and work with them. We have in the province many, many contractors who will be able to fill that role. So you're looking back at individual plans, really, to assess the level of disability and to provide tailored, unique opportunities for people. I look at something like the pre-employment services. They may take someone through life skills or employability skills or maybe help them get their first volunteer experience. Many times that is a key to all sorts of other opportunities.

I think one of the things that we've tried to do and will continue to improve, hopefully, and expand on is the broad perspective of the continuum of opportunity. I think that the only way you're going to level the playing field for people with disabilities is to make sure that unique circumstances are incorporated into the programs we fund. As I said, $24 million will be there throughout the province. We're going to encourage people to participate. It's not mandatory to participate, but I truly believe that when people see what these programs are going to offer, they're going to see opportunity. They're going to be excited, and they're going to become involved. That continuum will just continue to expand.

V. Anderson: I'll mention two directions at the same time. There are going to be people who have good jobs and have had them for a number of years, and suddenly a major disability comes upon them. They have been exceptional employees up until that time, and then they need an adjustment.

Perhaps they've become blind, as I know in one case a number of years ago. The federal government would provide computer technology that would help the blind person, or the same with the deaf person, in order to enable them to get back into the workforce. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on the kind of opportunity there is for that area.

Specifically, at the Pearson hospital they had a computer program for some time, enabling persons there to get the computer skills that gave them new opportunities in the workforce which they did not have previously. I think of one fellow I visited while delivering food 15 years ago, who was probably ten years of age. He was operating his computer with a head stick before computers were very modern, as they are now. The computer technological age has opened whole new opportunities for people with disabilities. Is the program so engineered that these opportunities and privilege can be accessed through the government programs at this point?

Hon. M. Coell: The member brings up a good point. One of the drawbacks for people with disabilities in finding employment is finding an employer who is willing to make the changes that may be necessary, so what we've got in the strategy are some workplace accommodations. We've got things like the assistive technologies that the member mentioned — the computers — adaptive furniture, office modifications, low-tech devices that assist in the workplace and customized software for people. We use it in our ministry in many instances where we have someone with a disability working. We can use all those things. What we want to do, through our contractors, is expand that out into the business world so that when someone with disabilities is looking for a job, they know they have all these things in their back pocket. They can say: "I can have these things, and I can do the job." Many people with disabilities tell me that's exactly what they've needed for many years, and it's exactly what they want.

V. Anderson: This Friday I'll be visiting a new home that is being built in my community. Into that home are being incorporated cost-saving devices that have level ledges in the doorway so you can go in with wheelchairs and have bathroom stalls so that you can roll your wheelchair right in. All of the handicaps and having the plugs and other things…. The whole house is so engineered that a person with a whole variety of disabilities has the opportunity to have a comfortable place, and it can be adapted to suit their particular needs. I know that housing does not come directly under the minister's mandate, but is the minister working with community and safety in the housing planning in order that people with disabilities…? Whether you live in your home and whether you can get in and out of it are important.

Another question I might raise: what about the ability to have support in getting around, in transportation in the community? Are there support systems working with others in the government that would help people who have disabilities to travel in the community and to have a housing and home situation in which they're able to cope?

Hon. M. Coell: The member is correct. The housing component isn't part of this ministry, but we are working with Minister Bradshaw from the federal govern-

ment and Minister Abbott provincially on a number of strategies for housing. We continue to do that. The ministry does provide a yearly bus pass for persons with disabilities. Also, we have supplied and continue to supply transportation — electric wheelchairs and scooters and those sorts of mechanized machinery.

The member mentioned a house that was in his riding. In my riding there's actually a store where people with disabilities can go and purchase a broad range of technical supports. Many of those are adapted in people's houses. What we want to make sure is that those things can also be taken and adapted to the workplace so that someone will have the comfort and the ability to get to an employment opportunity or to an opportunity to volunteer in the community, and have the ability to have those supports in that setting as well as their home setting.

V. Anderson: We've talked about equipment help, if you like, that could help people with disabilities be enabled to go about in a normal sort of way. We've also talked about a plan and training skills that will prepare them to be able to adapt to new opportunities for work which they would not have been able to do before.

Could the minister explain a little bit about the job placement program? Interviewing for a job normally is a very nervous, difficult situation. If you have difficulties and are unsure of how your employer is going to respond to you or how you're going to adapt when you first go into an employment situation which is new for both you and your employer, what kind of help is there in making that very significant transition and carrying it through until both the employer and the employee have some sense of satisfaction with each other?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not quite sure how much detail the member wants, but the employment services, the employment job placement aspects of it…. We have the job placement, the general programs that people with disabilities can participate in if they wish. We also have the specialized ones under the strategy for persons with disabilities. That would identify the skills and abilities an individual would have. It would assist in the job search. You might have someone actually assisting someone with disabilities in the job search. The placement could, as we've said, be volunteer or paid. You could have — and this has worked very well in the past — a job coach who would go with someone. Maybe it's their first job, so they would have a coach go with them, as well, and have the follow-up services to assist an individual in adapting to their new status as someone who is working or volunteering on a regular basis.

That's an added group of supports that are very individualized, which I think will keep people upbeat as to dealing with the stresses of any new employment. As we all know, any new employment, when you haven't worked for a while or it's new to you, is stressful. We want to alleviate that the best we can. With the adaptive technologies and the individual supports, I think that goes a long way to helping persons over that major hurdle they'll experience.

V. Anderson: There are two things in that. If one goes to a new job situation — there's always a nervousness — and for some reason it doesn't work out, either because the employer can't adapt or because the person just isn't in the right situation for that particular chance, do I understand the minister to say that if that job doesn't work out, then it's not a black mark against you? You can come back and say that one didn't work, and there's another opportunity to learn from having made that approach and that attempt, and then you'll still have support to try it in another way and ongoing. It's not a one-shot kind of thing but an ongoing process. Is that what I understand?

Hon. M. Coell: Two things with regard to that. The follow-up supports, I think, are a major part of keeping people employed or keeping them in volunteer situations. That was the idea of having the rapid reinstatement, so someone could venture out. Maybe they only want to work and earn the $400 a month and stay on income assistance. That's okay. We'll support that. If someone wants to venture out and maybe earn $800 a month or more and it doesn't work out for them, then if they come back on, they have rapid reinstatement, which is that they come right back onto income assistance.

The ability to support someone in the job placement, with technology and with human support, is very important — and the ability to know that not everyone succeeds every time, that there is the opportunity to come right back in. The other thing is that you're not going to lose your supports — your medical supports, your dental support, your bus pass, those sorts of things — as you go out and try that job opportunity.

V. Anderson: One of the things I learned long ago with many young people who volunteer in the community is that a reference from a volunteer position is probably more useful, sometimes, than a reference from a paid position. In the paid position, you were paid to do the work; in the volunteer position, you did it voluntarily. Many employers would say: "If you do this voluntarily and get this kind of reference, without getting paid for it, you're the kind of employee we'd like." I understand the same situation would be here.

A number of people now are being encouraged and want to take the employment of being self-employed, of developing something they can do out of their home or something that they can do because they have a craft skill or something they can extend with. I know there will be some discussion on this later, but I thought in passing, I might ask: is that opportunity available? Are the resources there to help persons to discover what self-employment might mean, what kind of business plan you would have and what kind of resources would be available to help you in moving in that very creative direction?

Hon. M. Coell: The member was mentioning volunteerism and how it can have an effect on your life. I

just would share something myself. I can remember being in first-year university and not quite knowing what I wanted to do with my life, as most 18- and 19-year-olds do. I met a gentleman named Garth Homer, who was a well-known social worker at UVic and was developing a school of social work. I confessed to him that I had no clue what I really wanted to do. He said: "Why don't you go and volunteer? I have a friend at Glendale Lodge. Why don't you go and volunteer there one day a week and see if you like it?" I did, and it had a remarkable effect on my life. Volunteer situations can change your life. That's what we want to encourage people to do: to get involved.

Self-employment is a difficult one. I know the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned it in our first estimates last year. We're actually looking to see what sort of pilot projects we can do in order to allow people to try self-employment. It's been very difficult in the past to get a program that works. I've looked at years gone past as to what was there. We're going to be trying some pilot projects, but we're just in the process of putting them together now.

V. Anderson: I've been hearing a whole variety of things at this moment, and I'm trying to…. I always happen to want in my own mind to get the difference between the old world and the new world, if you like. Could the minister maybe summarize some of the key significant thrusts the vision and the mission are bringing forward as they are developed? I know it's a developing process. Maybe the minister might be able to say what's new, what's already underway and what's yet to come as part of the development process.

I keep reminding people that if you're going to build a new house, sometimes you have to start with redoing the foundation and tear the old one down and start up again, and it's very uncomfortable living in between. In this process of reconstructing a new program and a new vision and mission, what are the key elements and some of the things we might look forward to?

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate that comment. Any change for any government is difficult sometimes, just outlining what that change is and how it will work.

The time lines for some of our programs are…. The pre-employment services are in place, and they started in November. The employment planning and employment services will start July 1. The disability supports will start July 1, and as I mentioned, the self-employment pilot projects will start in the fall of 2003.

V. Anderson: One of the concerns I always had before I got into government, and have continued to have since I've been here in the Legislature, is that the feeling that the persons who are involved…. Let me put it this way. When I was out in the community, I was very much aware of what was happening in the community. Since I've been here in Victoria, I'm not there as much, so it's hard to keep up-to-date with what's happening, and you get out of touch. I'm asking how the minister keeps in touch with what's happening. I think of some university professors in medicine, doctors or whatever, who were practising part-time and teaching part-time, so that they were always up-to-date on what was happening in those two worlds.

I understand that the minister has or is going to have — I'm not sure which — a council for persons with disability in order to help bridge this gap and bring the community and the government-decision making in cooperation together. Could the minister explain where that is, what that committee is responsible for, how it might work and who might be a part of it?

Hon. M. Coell: The member brings up an interesting question. The ability of a minister to keep in touch with what's going on is sort of multi-pronged. You need to be in touch with the people you serve no matter what ministry that is, and you just have to make the time to meet with people. You have to make the time to get out and visit. A week or so ago we went and did a day in Burnaby where we met with our clients, advocates and people on income assistance. We had a meeting with a group of people to get some feedback directly from people who are our clients. We met, then, with some of our contractors that are employing the employment training programs — a number of them. Then I actually went and had lunch with all our staff at the disability office in Burnaby. We got feedback from a whole range of different perspectives on our programs.

One of the things that I identified early on was the need to change the attitude in the business community. We have some businesses in British Columbia that have tremendous programs for hiring people with disabilities. Some are informal, and some are very formal. I looked throughout the province at the need for bringing together a group of people that could give me some advice on how we would change employers' attitudes and employers' willingness to employ people with disabilities. I've put together a ministers council. There is more information on the website on the council and their terms of reference and some fact sheets about them, but if the member wants me to go into detail, I would be willing to.

V. Anderson: I think it would be helpful, at least for me, to understand. So many committees in the past have been figureheads. They were there to say that we had this committee, but they never met. Are there terms of reference for the committee and what it's doing and what it's responsible for? How does it tie in? Is that a way that people who want to know more about the program…? Can they talk to these people, or can they contact the committee? How does the committee fit into the evaluation and change and sense of direction of where the committee might be going?

Hon. M. Coell: I think one of the things I've been encouraged with…. I put that group of people together

just recently. They would like to have their own website, to be in an advisory role to the minister and to have an interactive website. That's under development now. There is a terms of reference on the website — the scope and purpose, the objectives. I'll just go through a few of those, if I might.

The objectives are really to identify barriers, opportunities and best practices for improving employment outcomes for persons with disabilities; to improve the linkages among persons with disabilities and the business community, the businesses and community-based job placement agencies, and major disability income and assistance providers; and to identify high-skill demand sectors and skill-shortage areas that could provide the best opportunities for persons with disabilities.

There are a number of other areas that they go into: the approach they will take, the number of times they would meet directly with me to give advice — the membership as well. I've looked to senior executives of B.C. companies and relevant organizations and, wherever possible, some broad provincial geographic representation — a sector or employer they represent that would reflect employment growth areas.

Then there's the member commitment that we want — a group of people who have said they would be willing to provide that linkage between the business community and the persons with disabilities. As I said, I was quite excited for their commitment to have their own interactive website that people could contact them with as well.

V. Anderson: The logical question that I know will asked by people in the community first thing is: are there persons on that committee who themselves have significant disabilities?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's true. There are a number of people with disabilities who have also joined us on the committee. We have Sam Sullivan from the city of Vancouver, who has a great interest in technology as well as services for people with disabilities; Robert Harry, who's the executive director of the B.C. Aboriginal Network, who has a disability himself; Maurizio Baldini, who's the coordinator of peer support programs for the Canadian Mental Health Association. Then coupled with that are a number of other people: presidents from the university council, presidents of the college councils and a number of business leaders throughout the province. That gives us a good mix for discussion and also gives them, I think, a good mix to give me information and suggestions back.

V. Anderson: That leads me to a question that comes out of that. One of the significant needs of many persons will be advanced education or a trade training or whatever it is they need. Is there a particular discussion ongoing between the Ministries of Human Resources and of Advanced Education that would tie us into postgraduate education or, for that matter, the completion of high school education that many persons might need? I know many persons have difficulty in normal circumstances in making those adaptations. Is there a way of facilitating that upgrading of your own educational experience?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, we do have an ongoing discussion with Advanced Ed on strategies. As I mentioned, I have the presidents of…. Both the University Presidents Council and the president of the B.C. University Colleges Consortium have agreed to sit on the advisory committee as well. The strategy also includes if persons with disability on income assistance may attend post-secondary education. That has been ongoing and will continue.

V. Anderson: Have discussions been developed that would be of particular concern to both employer and employee? Workers compensation benefits, for instance, and insurance requirements and the liability requirements that might be different because of a person who has a disability — where there might be more risk than normally would come with other persons…? Is there some discussion in those areas that would give us an opportunity to know that those questions could be answered before we get too far into the process?

Hon. M. Coell: A short answer to that is that those are distinct under workers compensation and really don't have a relationship to the ministry's programs. They would have a relationship to the employer and the individual, but not through the ministry.

V. Anderson: I would just like to suggest that it might be something to look at, because these are certainly — when all else is there, they could be — the roadblocks that would prevent people from going ahead at the last moment, which would be disappointing if that was the case when it could be examined earlier.

Most of the employment in our province is in small businesses rather than in large businesses. Oftentimes when we think of employers for people with disabilities, we think of some of the larger firms. Is there anything being done particularly to work in small businesses, where there may be only two or three persons in the business and where this person may have a more significant place? Is there some thought in relationship to small corner stores or small businesses in a community in the corner malls where there are opportunities there? Is there some discussion in that area?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, on the council I do have the chamber of commerce representatives, tourism association representatives and the western Canadian Retail Council of Canada, which deals with a lot of small businesses. What I want to do is keep the council to a workable size. As you would know, you could go on and on with people that could add input, but what I would try and do with this council is also seek input from others at all times as well. The advice isn't limited

to this council, but this council would give me some specific advice on employment opportunities and challenges. Then, of course, you get advice on a regular basis from many different groups within the society of British Columbia.

V. Anderson: I think another thing we mentioned just in passing was that historically, when I was involved in more community activities, there were many programs operated by Human Resources from the federal government and the resources from the provincial government, and never the twain did meet or talk to each other. Sometimes they would duplicate resources, and sometimes there would just be vacuums in between. It's been my understanding that there's been more discussion later between Human Resources Development Canada and the provincial Human Resources, and that there are probably prospects in the future for that developing.

Could the minister update us where in the planning for…? Particularly with people with disabilities, where programs have been brought from both directions, could the minister indicate what's happening? I put it in the context that out of the community experience, there were both pluses and negatives to that two-headed discussion. Sometimes if the local people wouldn't support you, the federal would, and vice versa. If the federal wouldn't, the local would. So you have two opportunities instead of one. And there was a danger that if they came together, you might lose the flexibility that many organizations have used very creatively in supporting people in the community. Could you update us as to where that federal-provincial discussion is at the moment and where it might be going?

Hon. M. Coell: The member actually is quite correct in his assumptions about the coordination between federal and provincial governments. Actually, on my council I have the regional executive head for British Columbia, who sits on the council to give us that coordination as well. And I actually am the minister who sits on the EAPD negotiations with the federal government.

There is a need. We have the labour market development agreement, which is about $290 million, and a formal comanagement agreement between the ministry and HRDC for regional services. So there are some things that are coordinated, and there's always room for improvement.

My initial year working with the federal government — with people like Claudette Bradshaw on the homeless strategy, on hostels and housing — has been very good. I think that coordination at the ministers' level is very important so that we're not serving different people but we're all serving the same people. We don't want to be duplicating services. We want to put the maximum amount of service into individuals rather than duplicate service. So we're going to be working at that, but I do understand and I do agree with your comments.

V. Anderson: Just to follow that up once more. A few years ago there was the year of the person with disabilities, which opened up to everyone the opportunities or the awareness that persons with disabilities had great contributions to make. There were some commitments nationwide, from the federal government as well as the provincial governments, that there would be a higher awareness and a greater undertaking in both supporting people with disabilities and employing them in many kinds of equity programs as well.

Maybe I shouldn't ask the question, but I will anyway. Is there some feeling about what the equity position is at the moment in the government in hiring, within our own ranks here, persons with disabilities and making opportunities or educational openings or anything for them? I know that'll come under another department, but it seems to me it's relevant to see if the discussion is taking place internally as well as externally, because I've always been of the awareness that if you're not doing it yourself, you shouldn't be asking somebody else to do it.

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry actually has a budget to support hiring people with disabilities. We have many people with disabilities who work within the ministry. We're proud and pleased to do that, and we will continue to do that.

V. Anderson: One of the realities of our particular community is that many of the persons we have living in the community — as well as whether there's a physical or mental obstacle they have to learn to live with — are new immigrants to the country. They have different cultures, different philosophies, different backgrounds and have a great deal to learn — the Canadian language or the particular language and field they might go into. So what is the ministry's focus in developing cultural responses that are culturally appropriate to many of the people in our community and reaching out to them? Many of them come out of a history of dealing with disabilities in a negative way rather than in a positive one, and for many of them ESL is a first requirement. Literacy programs, either in their own language or in English, are also appropriate. So this is a major undertaking in our communities. What's being done to work with that whole multicultural immigrant community?

Hon. M. Coell: We do have contracts through the community assistance program with a number of multicultural organizations. I'm hoping and I expect that they will bid on the current RFP for persons with disabilities as well, and that would be the July date that we mentioned earlier.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister. I would like to say thank you — noting the time — for your contribution, and I look forward to further discussions when we continue the estimates.

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

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I believe the member is probably referring to the homeowner protection office. The office continues to perform very well, actually, and continues to perform in four program areas of responsibility: licensing residential builders and building-envelope renovators; monitoring the mandatory third-party home warranty insurance system; conducting research and education; and administering a no-interest loan program and PST-relief grant program for owners of leaky condos.

Hon. G. Abbott: Over all, there have been $282 million in loans flow through the HPO. Of that, about $60 million is for the federal leaky co-op buildings, and about $222 million — or the balance — is for strata condominium renovation.

The volume of applications is down for the second year in a row. We are down now to typically three applications a day as opposed to around 20 a couple of years ago.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister update me on the warranty program? Who covers warranties now? Perhaps he could just update me on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The general breakdown in terms of the warranty providers…. The three largest, particularly in the area of new home warranty — or the two-year, five-year, ten-year warranty — are National, Residential and St. Paul's. Those are the three large companies in that area, and they account for about 95 percent of the market. Willis and Marathon are also warranty providers.

In the area of building-envelope renovation, two-year or five-year warranty, Residential, St. Paul and Willis are the three principal warranty providers in that area of renovation-repair.

J. MacPhail: So across the whole spectrum of warranty, there are four companies involved.

J. MacPhail: National, Residential, St. Paul's, Willis — and what's the fifth one?

J. MacPhail: Oh. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought Willis and Marathon was one company.

Now, how does this work? I'm getting some feedback from my constituents, many of whom are suffering from leaky condos, by virtue of where my constituency is. In order to have building-envelope repairs done, one must go through a warranty company. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a dividing point in terms of the cost of repair. For repairs under $2,000 per unit, the individual or the strata corporation would be free to select whoever they wished in the marketplace. If the repair is over $2,000, the legislation currently requires that a building-envelope consultant be engaged and that a licensed renovator be used for the purpose. The licensed renovator would have to be able to acquire a warranty for that repair.

J. MacPhail: How long have these five warranty companies been in operation? I do recall there was a

collapse of warranty companies, and then, clearly, these new companies come on board. How long have they been in existence?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally speaking, these companies have all been around for a while. They've been in this particular business since it became mandatory in the fall of 2000. In terms of the companies themselves, Willis, for example, is a subsidiary of Commonwealth Insurance. Residential Warranty Co. of Canada is a subsidiary of Kingsway Insurance. St. Paul Guarantee is an insurance company unto itself. Marathon is part of the Royal and SunAlliance, and National Home Warranty is also part of the Royal and SunAlliance but, again, geared to this particular marketplace.

J. MacPhail: So we've got probably just a little over a couple of years of experience. I'm talking about building envelope repairs now, not the warranty from new housing. Building envelope repairs: has the homeowner protection office examined the effect of warranty companies' responsibility for directing strata corporations to certain companies for repairs? What's the effect on pricing? Do we have any idea?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not aware of any sort of compulsion with respect to the selection between the strata council, the consultant they engage, the warranty company they engage, ultimately, or the licensed renovator they use. The only concern that HPO has in respect of the repair is that if it's over a $2,000 repair, it be done by a licensed building envelope renovator.

We do believe there is sufficient competition in the marketplace. If strata councils select wisely in terms of, in the first instance, the choice of consultant they take to give them the best advice around the kind of repair that would be appropriate for their homes…. Again, the strata council is free to accept or refuse the advice of the consultant they engage, but presumably, the consultant is going to bring to them the best advice they can with respect to who the appropriate licensed renovator would be. Our only concern in that is that they be licensed and that they be capable of securing a warranty for the repair.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting. I hear anecdotal evidence of market forces playing in this area of building envelope repair. It's only anecdotal, and that's why I was seeking information about whether there's any statistical tracking of these building envelope repairs. There is a potential in some communities — Vancouver being one, and Victoria being another — of almost a play of overheating the market in areas because of the building envelope repairs that are going on.

I hear some anecdotal evidence that in order to get a warranty and therefore go through the licensed building envelope repairs, companies…. Please don't misunderstand me. I think the only method of going is to have licensed contractors, but there appears to be a heating-up of the market that is putting pressure on pricing. There is a way to determine that, of course, and that is by community. You can tell whether pricing pressures are on the rise and a whole bunch of building repair is occurring at the same time, versus communities where building envelope repair isn't occurring.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to address the opposition leader's latter point first and then sort of move backward into some of the detail that backstops the first answer.

If there is a sense on the part of any strata councils, for example, that there were constrictions in the marketplace that were making it difficult for them to secure their repairs in a timely way, we'd welcome them to advise the homeowner protection office of that. The office is not aware of any particular problems in that regard, but if strata councils have that concern, we would certainly like to hear from them.

In terms of the marketplace itself — and, I guess, looking broadly at the marketplace — home repair or condo repair and renovation obviously occurs within the broader context of the home, institutional and commercial sector construction. That is doing very well right now, broadly speaking, in terms of housing starts and so on. We're doing pretty well. There may be a little competition for labour, which is probably a healthy thing, but we don't have any evidence that would suggest that repairs to condominiums are being delayed as a consequence of that.

We have about 74 licensed condo renovating companies in British Columbia, operating mainly, obviously, in the lower mainland and on southern Vancouver Island. There are approximately 24 consultants that work in the field, and of course, there are the four insurance companies that provide the warranties.

Just for the member's information, here is the breakdown of that warranty market. Willis Canada is the largest player at 50.2 percent, then Residential Warranty at 24.4 percent, Marathon at 14.5 percent and St. Paul at 11 percent. There is, I think, a fair bit of competition in the marketplace.

To the best of our information, there is sufficient competition between those players that there shouldn't be a kind of artificial restriction that would produce an unsatisfactory result in terms of the timely and effective repair of condominiums. Again, as I said at the outset, if there are those concerns, we would like to hear about them.

J. MacPhail: It just occurred to me to put on the record that I am a member of a strata council, but I assume I'm allowed to ask these questions. The questions aren't related to anything that affects me personally.

Is there an avenue through the homeowner protection office that strata councils or individual owners can file a concern or a complaint if there's even a suspicion in this area? I'm not asking whether there's a method

for investigation of those complaints but just about registering concerns that could be kept track of.

Hon. G. Abbott: There certainly are opportunities for people to bring forward concerns if they have them with respect to either the consultants that had been engaged, I suppose, the licensed building envelope renovators that had been engaged, or, indeed, the warranty company that had ultimately been engaged.

In each of those cases, and particularly with the building envelope renovators who we license, there's an opportunity to ensure there is quality assurance in the system. There's a 1-800 number that people can call — 1-800-407-7757 — or they can go online at www.hpo.bc.ca to access by electronic means.

J. MacPhail: I read an article in the newspaper about B.C. Housing suing for leaky condo damage, and of course, I do have B.C. Housing complexes in my own riding as well. Could the minister update me on how that came about and the status of it?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the opposition leader's question, it's estimated that about 250 social housing buildings have been affected in some measure by leaky-condo syndrome. Obviously, the extent of damage will vary among those 250 buildings. Generally speaking, the buildings in question are social housing complexes constructed between 1983 and 1997.

To date, about 50 of those 250 buildings either have had the repairs completed or the repairs are under construction. We estimate that the total bill for those repairs could be in the range of $100 million, so it is a very substantial problem. Obviously, social housing was no more immune than other forms of housing to the elements we term collectively as leaky-condo syndrome.

B.C. Housing is using well-established cost recovery methods to try to secure as much compensation for those damages as is possible. Clearly — and this is not a happy situation; it's a very difficult situation — in the absence of B.C. Housing taking action to secure compensation, we would simply be saying that the taxpayers of British Columbia should eat the cost of those repairs in whole. We're not prepared to go there on this or on schools that have suffered a similar syndrome.

B.C. Housing has launched litigation, as was noted in the article on the weekend, but we are not wedded to lengthy, expensive litigation processes if alternatives are available. Certainly, we are very open to alternatives to litigation, and some of those opportunities are being pursued.

Hon. G. Abbott: The range of issues that come into play on social housing are, broadly speaking, very similar to those that come into play with respect to the private condominium market and the leaky-condo syndrome there. Among the basic issues would be design, labour and materials.

J. MacPhail: How does one proceed on lawsuits as the Crown? Are there individual lawsuits? With 250 buildings…. I'm sorry, did the minister say from 1983 to 1997?

How does one proceed? Is it construction company by construction company, designer by designer? Are architects involved?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, the writs are filed on an individual basis, and to this point, some 50 to 60 writs have been filed in relation to leaky social housing complexes. The writs are filed after B.C. Housing has secured the best third-party legal and technical advice they can in respect of the issues in each of those individual cases. We would look, for example, at what the extent of damage is. Based on that, a judgment is made about whether it's appropriate to proceed legally or not.

J. MacPhail: The minister mentioned that this is one avenue of pursuit to recover costs, but there may be alternatives. What are the other alternatives?

Hon. G. Abbott: The alternatives to litigation are really no different than anywhere else in the world of litigation. One alternative is negotiation, and hopefully, parties can — again, based on the best advice each of the parties can secure — achieve a negotiated solution. To achieve that negotiated solution, sometimes mediation services can be engaged. Where the parties jointly agree, the parties could move to an arbitrated solution, if that's what they chose.

I think the other point that should be noted for the member's consideration is that almost all of those 250 buildings I described earlier are owned and managed by non-profit societies. We take on assignment of the non-profit's rights to streamline litigation.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, can you explain that in lay terms? I don't understand that last point.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try it this way. If it's still not sufficiently plain language, we'll try again.

As owners of the buildings, the right of legal action belongs to the non-profit societies. B.C. Housing takes assignment of those rights of legal action before proceeding, and B.C. Housing then becomes the plaintiff in those actions collectively. That streamlines the process rather than having 250 separate actions by non-profit societies.

Hon. G. Abbott: While there is obviously an element of unpredictability in respect of legal actions generally, the estimate is between $1 million and $1.5 million.

J. MacPhail: I assume that's for '03-04, which is what I asked the question for. The minister is nodding yes.

How many buildings of those 250…. Let me put it this way. Have all the 250 buildings that have been affected by leaky-condo syndrome had some repairs done to them?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted earlier, about 50 of the 250 have either been recipients of a final repair package or that is under construction. Of the balance, we expect that in some cases, non-profit societies have undertaken some limited repairs in relation to the problems they face, but of course, that's going to vary among those roughly 200 buildings.

J. MacPhail: What happens to the residents of buildings? Who is responsible for the individual costs imposed on residents as construction takes place for the leaky condo repairs?

Hon. G. Abbott: In most cases, the residents actually remain in the buildings as the repairs commence. In some exceptional circumstances, they may have to be relocated for a period of time. In cases like that, the relocation costs then form part of the broader repair costs.

J. MacPhail: At no time is there any assessment put on residents of B.C. Housing-managed sites.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. The rent that tenants are subject to in B.C. Housing is based on income. There is no additional levy for these repairs.

J. MacPhail: In the city of Vancouver, it's described in the newspapers, and I've had some discussion with the Attorney General on this, that there is a lesser ability to sue for leaky condos. Can the minister update me on that or distinguish any lawsuits brought forward in Vancouver as opposed to lawsuits brought forward for buildings outside of Vancouver?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Vancouver Charter provides a measure of immunity for the city itself in relation to building code–related actions by parties within the city of Vancouver, but the charter doesn't affect the legal rights of, for example, contractors, architects or engineers within the city of Vancouver. For the purposes of this discussion, whether it's within the city of Vancouver or outside of it, the issue remains the same.

J. MacPhail: None of the lawsuits being brought forward in the area that we're now discussing involves city councils or municipalities.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move on to other issues around B.C. Housing. What is the wait-list for B.C. Housing now?

J. MacPhail: What has been the change in that wait-list over the course of the last year?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's close to the same. There may have been a slight increase in the number, but it's very close to the same.

J. MacPhail: The minister talks about increases in his budget for provision of social housing. How much of that increase is to pay for subsidies for housing that was approved prior to his government taking over? In other words, here's what I'm getting at. I want the minister to explain what credit he can take for increasing social housing under his government in terms of investing money — that were decisions of his government — to expand social housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member can pursue this. I actually give all the credit around social housing developments and Independent Living B.C. and whatever other programs and initiatives of government to the taxpayers of British Columbia. They're actually the ones who foot the bill, regardless of which government may announce a project or may be in office when the project is completed and occupied. It is, in every instance, the taxpayers of British Columbia who foot the bill.

J. MacPhail: Of course, that's a given. That's for every expenditure on housing, education and health, but the bill put before the taxpayer is a decision of individual governments, so perhaps the minister could answer my question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to rattle off a bunch of numbers here for the member. She may want to pursue more detail with respect to them.

When we took office on June 4 or 5, 2001, there were about 2,500 units that were under various stages of construction. I made the decision early on that we, unlike some other governments, would complete those, and we have. Since June '01, there have been an additional 500 under construction and another 300 under development. Of course, the member is aware of the commitment of an additional 100 units at Woodwards, for a total in that area of 3,400 units.

Additionally, since June '01, an additional 610 units in partnership with municipalities, non-profits, etc., one-time grants, financing, rent subsidies, etc…. There are a number of examples of that, comprising 610 units.

As the member knows, the government has committed to an additional 3,500 units through Independent Living B.C. for low-income, frail elderly and mentally disabled. That 3,500 is composed of 1,500 new builds, 1,000 rent supps — of which we recently announced a batch on Vancouver Island — and 1,000 unit conversions. That's a total of 7,510 units.

J. MacPhail: Seventy-five…. Oh, I'm sorry. You're taking credit for the 2,500 that were already under construction — as if you could stop them.

As of June '01, please specify the 500 that were under construction. Those were decisions of the Liberal government to plan and proceed? What stage did the Liberal government enter into that construction?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be clear in terms of the 2,500, some began construction after June 2001. The 500 under construction were all approved after June '01. We will try to give the member the full list of those, if she wishes. I can either read them into the record here or we can send them on to the member's office.

J. MacPhail: Sending me the information on everything that has happened after June '01 would be fine in terms of the specifics.

Really, since June of '01, which is almost now two years, 500 are under construction and 300 are under development. I'll get to Woodwards in a minute. But if you add the 100, that's up to 900. What are the 600 units the minister referred to?

Hon. G. Abbott: The 610 are one-time partnering opportunities that B.C. Housing responds to in response to an initiative from a community. I'll give you a couple of very good examples of that. There is the Crescent Housing Society in South Surrey — I think the Knights of Columbus was the non-profit in that case. It's Crescent Housing Society. They provided about $2 million in commitments, and we provided some one-time capital to assist with that. That has provided about 111 units of supportive seniors housing for South Surrey.

In the case of West Vancouver, we have the West Vancouver Kiwanis who have come forward with a proposal for some support. That includes about $6.6 million from the society and the city of West Vancouver in relation to land and equity. It's our intention, through a partnership that includes Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to provide about $1 million from our side and $1 million from CMHC to partner with the West Van Kiwanis on the $6.6 million they're bringing to the table.

Those would be examples. Those are the kinds of one-time partnering opportunities that assist in generating some new housing in those areas.

J. MacPhail: All of the 600 units the minister talked about are for construction. What's the support of the ministry after construction?

Hon. G. Abbott: These are sustainable without the traditional 35-year rent subsidies. These are one-time injections of capital that assist them in getting the projects off the ground.

J. MacPhail: If the West Van group can provide low-cost rents, that's fine, but the government doesn't have anything to do with ensuring that it's low-cost housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. In fact, there is a commitment to low-cost housing on the part of the proponents. That's the reason why we get into the deals.

J. MacPhail: Okay, except that it's the charitable side — for instance, Kiwanis or, sorry, the South Surrey charitable group — that provides the low-cost housing element to it, not the government. In other words, if indeed the West Vancouver Kiwanis couldn't guarantee the low-cost housing element, there would be no low-cost housing. There's no subsidy provided by the government on an ongoing basis.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so it's clear to the member, whether the contribution from the government comes in terms of ongoing subsidies or an upfront capital contribution, it has a profound effect in both cases upon the market economics of the operation, and it does in fact assist them in providing, in the long term, those low-costs rents.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but before this government took power, non-profit societies got both the capital assistance, the mortgage assistance, and the ongoing subsidy. So the subsidies are gone now. That element is gone. Frankly, a community that doesn't have the ability to provide ongoing subsidy at a community or charitable level is left out in the cold.

The 3,500 assisted living…. What portion of B.C. Housing activity in the last 12 months and over the three-year fiscal plan that we're talking about right now is going toward assisted living? Or what do you call it now — independent living? What portion of the housing corporation's activity is now geared toward providing independent living?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to give as much detail to the member as I can. If the member is suggesting there may be some difference of philosophy in respect to how the resources of government are deployed in relation to these things, that may be a fair commentary. Of course, we can then debate which approach is better, but I'm certainly satisfied we are securing the best results we can with the resources we have available.

As the member noted earlier, those resources are very considerable: around $153 million in the coming fiscal year. That having been said, there is still a lot more that people would like us to do than is possible

with $153 million, but we are going to try to maximize the public benefit from that.

In terms of the member's comments with respect to how the former government did this versus how the current government does this, I think it's an important point to recognize that under the previous approach, about 100 percent of new developments typically was financed in the private market, which then produced a greater need for that ongoing cost, the 35-year subsidy, to be in place.

We've taken a little bit of a different approach, one in which we try to maximize the partnership opportunities. For example, we encourage local governments to bring contributions to the table, and in many instances, local governments do precisely that, either through a contribution in terms of land or a development cost charge waiver or a capital grant — those things. The non-profits, of course, work very hard to bring resources to the table. And, of course, we've secured a Canada–B.C. affordable housing agreement that brings federal dollars to the table as well.

The combination of all of those things means that in every project, by reducing the upfront capital costs, we can have a profound impact on the level of subsidy that is required on a 35-year basis from the provincial government. We try to partner strategically so that the resources of government are expended in a wise and thoughtful way and further, that the maximum public benefit is secured from every one of those taxpayer dollars we expend in this area. I think that's important to recognize.

Again, the member and I may disagree or may not disagree. I'm not sure. I suspect we would disagree, but it's our view that even in an instance where we have in government $153 million, a record budget for housing, there are still insufficient funds to address the affordability gap, as I call it. We need to work not only on the non-market side but also on the market side to try to address the affordability gap.

When I go to the federal-provincial-territorial housing ministers meeting later in April in Winnipeg, for example, I'm going to assert to the federal government, certainly as forcefully as I can, that they need to be looking at some tax reforms so that people in British Columbia and across Canada have some incentive to invest and reinvest in the market rental housing business. That has been lost now for a couple of decades because of the capital gains rollover provisions that exist in current tax law. People are discouraged by the current tax laws from reinvesting in market rental housing.

We need to change that. Government expenditure alone is not going to take care of the 10,000-person wait-list at B.C. Housing. We need to find an appropriate market response so that there's more new market rental housing coming into the marketplace, and then we can, hopefully by the mechanism of competition, see some reduction in the affordability gap. That's an ongoing issue, but I think it's an important part of the equation in terms of dealing with the issue of affordability.

The second part of addressing the affordability gap or the critical housing challenge we have in British Columbia is, rather than attempting to address the full spectrum or continuum of housing needs, that government attempt to deploy its resources in the most strategic way it can to address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. What we are attempting to do, Mr. Chair, is address those needs of the most vulnerable in our society. Among those we reckon to be, for example, low-income frail elderly who in the absence of housing options may find themselves inappropriately in institutional care or may find themselves, even worse, in acute care beds. We need to provide that for them.

We also need to address the needs of people with disabilities. I suspect the member might actually agree with me on this point: that governments — and that's small-g government; I'm talking about governments across time and space — have done a far better job of deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill than we have of providing support for them after they're deinstitutionalized. We need to address that particularly vulnerable group in our society as well.

Often, when we talk about the homeless, we are in fact talking about the mentally ill who have been deinstitutionalized and who have not enjoyed the kinds of supports they need to have — secure and stable housing. An important element here, too, is to address the issues of the mentally ill. Further, if I'm asked to identify who's among the vulnerable, I would say that women and children coming out of abusive or violent relationships is a group we need to be particularly cognizant of as we move forward.

The first of those groups, the frail elderly and the people with disabilities, is one we address through the various mechanisms I outlined earlier — rent supplements, conversions and new construction. To address their needs through Independent Living B.C., I think, is a very important piece. We also look forward to partnering strategically on other projects — in partnerships with the non-profits, with the federal government, with local governments and, perhaps in some instances, with the private sector — to address the needs of other vulnerable groups in our society.

J. MacPhail: My question was: how much of the B.C. Housing budget this year, in the three-year fiscal plan, is going toward Independent Living B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that it's a low figure for the current year, because, of course, ILBC is just coming on stream. We are just announcing some of the rent supps and the development of some of the first projects. It's almost new, so the number is very low. Probably by year 3, as many more of the units are on stream, about $17 million a year.

J. MacPhail: Everybody out there thinks that B.C. Housing has become Independent Living B.C. What

activity of B.C. Housing, in terms of new construction — to the poor, not to the frail elderly, because that used to be the business of the Ministry of Health…. They're not in that business anymore. It's been shifted over to B.C. Housing.

How about just low-income families who can't afford expensive housing in British Columbia? How much of that, over the course of the three-year fiscal plan, will be targeted toward the poor?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, let me make a distinction to the minister. I'll get back to her on a little more of the detail in respect of this. When we're talking about the poor and the vulnerable, the low-income frail elderly are poor by any measure. The homeless are poor by any measure. The mentally ill are very often poor by any measure, and often, women and children coming out of abusive or violent relationships will be among the poor.

It goes back to the point I made to the member earlier. When government has an almost unlimited demand on its resources in terms of housing dollars, is it better to try to do that full continuum, or is it better to try to focus resources so that we can actually make a difference among those we would consider to be most vulnerable? Again, the decision we've made — and we can debate whether it's right or wrong — is to focus our dollars on the most vulnerable.

Much of the answer in terms of the affordability gap for those who we…. Well, let's describe them as low income rather than poor, which is a little bit different expression of the same thing. We reckoned that in British Columbia, there were about 167,000 people or families who expend more than 30 percent of their income on shelter. Those 167,000 have an affordability problem. In some cases, they may be expending 50 percent or more of their income on rents or on the costs they face on home ownership. What we need to do is address that affordability gap.

Is the government — your government, my government, any government — going to be able to expend sufficient resources in one year, five years or ten years to eliminate the affordability gap for those 167,000 people? The answer, clearly, is no. Even if I were the most spendthrift minister in history — and I'm not, but even if I were — we couldn't come close to beginning to address all the housing needs of those 167,000.

What we need to do — and I'm going to drive this point home again and again, hopefully in concert with 12 other provincial ministers and territorial ministers in our upcoming conference — is to find ways through the market side of the equation to address the affordability gap as well. We need to find ways to get people investing in affordable market rental housing once again in British Columbia and Canada.

Until there are some fundamental changes in respect of the tax system we have in Canada, that's not going to happen. I don't believe we're going to be able make that really substantial step forward in relation to the affordability problem until we do that. The member may disagree, but that's the philosophy driving the approach I've taken to the housing issue, and I do believe it's the correct one.

Again, in terms of the distribution, and this is among units completed since June 2001…. I'd be happy, if the member derives satisfaction from this, to extend whatever credit she feels is appropriate to her government for the development and announcement of some of these. In any event, the taxpayers of British Columbia, as we've already agreed, get to pay for them, but I'm happy to extend whatever satisfaction or credit she'd like to take from the announcement of these.

Since June 2001 — since the formation of the new government — 3,300 units have been completed or are under construction. The distribution of those: 23 percent — and again these are approximate numbers, so they could vary up or down 1 percent…. Seniors and supportive, about 29 percent; homeless, about 33 percent; families, about 38 percent — and that's presumably the group the member was asking about; and about 6 percent seniors…

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. Seniors were included in the 29 percent. Actually, it's pretty close to a third each, with the slightly larger piece being the low-income families, then the homeless and then the seniors.

J. MacPhail: What will be the shift in those percentages over the course of the next two years?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be consistent with what I've said earlier about the government focusing its resources with respect to low-income frail elderly, the mentally ill, people with disabilities, the homeless, etc. As we move forward, what we are going to see is a gradual reduction in the family side and, likely, increases in terms of the seniors — low-income, frail elderly — side of the equation. There will be some shift within those cohorts.

That having been said, again, we are going to partner strategically with non-profits, with municipalities, with the federal government as we move forward. I talked about some of the 610 units we did in the last fiscal year, and we're going to be looking forward to many more partnerships of that character as well. Some of those may well be in the family area.

There are always innovative things that can be done to help move the affordability problem forward. There are always things we can do. We want to partner innovatively and strategically to ensure that we do get the maximum public benefit for every dollar we expend.

Hon. G. Abbott: We can't give precise percentage shifts when we don't know precisely where the dollars

will be going. As we announce projects from month to month and year to year, we will then be able to give precise percentages retrospectively, but because we don't know where exactly these strategic and innovative partnerships we might engage in are going to come from, it's difficult to put precise percentages on it.

What I've said is that it may well be that there will be marginal shifts among those different expenditure areas as we move forward, but until we get there, it's difficult or impossible to put precise percentages on them.

J. MacPhail: What's the sense of having a three-year fiscal plan, then? I'm just asking a question, which I'm allowed to ask, because this government takes great pride in a three-year fiscal plan. That's all I'm asking. For what you do have planned, what's the percentage shift?

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of a three-year plan, and I know it's a new concept for the member, is to identify where the focus of the government's energy will be in those three years. As I've clearly identified to the member repeatedly in our discussions, we do as a government intend to focus on the most vulnerable in our society in the next three years, and Independent Living B.C. is the centrepiece of that. It's not exclusively what we are going to be doing, but it is certainly the centrepiece.

In terms of the summary financial outlook where you can take that $153 million and look at the distribution of it, I'd suggest that the member may want to look at page 19 of the B.C. Housing service plan, which provides some of the detail I think she's looking for.

J. MacPhail: God forbid that the minister actually put it on the record. There's a difference between what we use Hansard for and the public having to go and look up their own records.

The reason why the minister doesn't want to give me an answer to this is because "centrepiece of B.C. Housing" means that the vast majority of its resources over the coming years will be put into Independent Living B.C., which is for the frail elderly — which, prior to this government taking over, was the responsibility of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is getting out of the business because they don't have the money to actually look after the frail elderly.

They're turning it over to B.C. Housing, and the people who are suffering are poor families. Not low-income families but poor families, the 10,000 who are on the wait-list. That's because this government made a nice election promise about how they were going to build 5,000 beds for people who need nursing home care, who the minister calls the frail elderly. Instead of taking that out of our health care dollars, it's what B.C. Housing money is now being used for. The people who lose out are the poor families — the single moms and the kids.

My last area of questioning is on Woodwards. What's the status of completion of the negotiations on Woodwards? I should make it clear: the sale of the Woodwards building in the downtown eastside of Vancouver to the city of Vancouver.

Hon. G. Abbott: This is an important enough point that I don't want to leave it hanging where the member did. Just so we're clear, perhaps the member is more fixated on credit than I am. As I've said throughout these discussions, the credit for all of what's being done here rests with the taxpayers of British Columbia, not with a particular government.

J. MacPhail: So how come you take credit for certain things you're doing, then?

Hon. G. Abbott: You may be fixed on that, member, but I'm not. I think, in fact, that what we need to be debating is not who's going to line up to take the credit…. I mean, the member is certainly welcome to do that, if that's what she wishes. In fact, the great majority of the $153 million continues to go to servicing the 35-year subsidy for those 55,000 units of ongoing B.C. Housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: Here we go again. Now we have the member once again saying: "Oh, it was my government that did it, my government that did it." It's the taxpayers of British Columbia that get to do it, not the NDP government, not the Liberal government. It's the taxpayers of British Columbia who, in fact, underwrite all of this through their tax dollars, $153 million a year.

In terms of Independent Living B.C., I'm not going to retreat for a moment on the member's suggestion that ILBC is the wrong thing to do. I think it's absolutely the right thing to do from a whole range of perspectives. What seniors and low-income, frail elderly want, because I've seen many of them, is not to be institutionalized. They don't want to go into an institution if they don't need to. They want to continue to live independently for as long as they possibly can.

ILBC is geared to do precisely that. It provides a continuum from the healthy senior who requires only home care; to the opportunity to go through what we call supportive seniors, where they can get a couple of meals a day, their own living place and those medical supports when they need them; through assisted living, where they may, again, require some higher level of availability, perhaps 24-7, of medical supports; through intermediate care, which is absolutely a necessary part of the system as well.

We don't expend any dollars on intermediate care or long-term complex care. That is the sole responsibility of the Ministries of Health. It's not our issue. Our dollars are being expended on homes for that group under the banner of Independent Living B.C., which includes supportive seniors and assisted living. That's where we focus our resources, and I think it's absolutely the right thing to do.

I'm 50 years old. I have a mother who, right now, lives independently. She has her own place in Si-

camous. She doesn't need any housing supports, and she's doing great. Perhaps at some point in a few years she'll want to look, if necessary, at a supportive-seniors or an assisted-living kind of complex. That may well be. Depending on the health conditions an individual is experiencing, they may need that. My father is a good example of this. He went from living on his own at age 79 to requiring long-term, complex care as a consequence of strokes. Almost overnight he went from completely independent living to complex-care needs. We have to be honest, I think, about the range of needs we're going to face.

I think Independent Living B.C. is entirely constructive, entirely appropriate and very beneficial from the perspective of allowing seniors the opportunity to live independently and with dignity for as long as they possibly can. If the member is thinking I'm going to make any apologies for Independent Living B.C., she's absolutely wrong. Independent Living B.C. is absolutely the right thing for British Columbia to be doing, and I'm very, very proud that B.C. Housing is playing a role in provision of that.

In terms of the member's latter question about Woodwards, the sale was completed on March 12. The province is committed to 100 social housing units in a redeveloped Woodwards, when required by the city's redevelopment schedule.

J. MacPhail: I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life: that the minister of housing thinks that somehow it's credit we're talking about here. It's priorities we're talking about, not credit. The taxpayer pays for everything. It's governments who make decisions about what taxpayers pay for, after consultation. It's about priorities that governments put forward, not about asking for credit.

There's a government here that takes credit for consumer…. In fact, the only thing this government can take credit for — they say because of the economic conditions — is that there is a booming housing industry. This government actually stands up and says: "Gee, because people buy houses and buy cars, we're a good government." Talk about misplaced credit.

What I'm talking about here are priorities of commitment. The previous governments, including the Social Credit government and including the NDP, actually believed that the frail elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled and the poor families should be provided with housing — government-supported housing. What this government has said is that they're not going to be in the business of providing all of that, that they'd rather give away tax breaks to the richest, and the poorest pay the price.

Here's exactly what has happened. The provision of care, housing care and health care for the frail elderly has been abandoned by the Ministry of Health. Care levels 1, 2 and 3 are now…. There's only one level of care being provided by the Ministry of Health now. In fact, it's now over to social housing.

Just as the minister said — although he wouldn't go on record, because he's too embarrassed to put it on record — there will be a shift in B.C. Housing's priority over to the frail elderly independent living, away from poor families. The wait-list of 10,000 now, which hasn't moved one iota and, in fact, has grown in the last year, will grow even more, because this government's priorities are misplaced. It isn't about credit one iota. It's about priorities. This government's priority is about tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor, and that includes housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the member recalls that dark decade where she and her government led this province, the wait-list at B.C. Housing continuously grew through those ten years of NDP government. Was their shotgun approach to this issue effective? Apparently not. It certainly wasn't effective on the market side either. If you look at the market side, for example, you actually see that very early in the NDP years, back about I think 1993, was the highest point in terms of market activity and construction. Then we see a death dive, as we see in so many other economic indices as the NDP years wore on.

Was their approach effective? No, I don't think so. Again, we've got furious agreement going here between myself and the opposition leader in respect to this, Madam Chair. I'm readily agreeing that we are a government that's trying to focus our resources on the needs of the most vulnerable. I admit that. If that gives her satisfaction, I admit that. I think any sensible government should be trying to focus its resources on the most vulnerable.

Again, the member is entirely wrong about the Ministry of Health deserting their responsibilities. Not at all. In fact, they're going to be focusing their resources on intermediate care and long-term needs. That's entirely appropriate.

Our participation in this is on the housing side. Again, it provides independent living opportunities for the frail elderly, the mentally ill and severely disabled in this province. I make no apologies for that. We are hopefully going to see some gains as a consequence of that. Certainly, we are going to improve the life outcomes for at least 5,000 people through this process, and I make no apologies for that.

Again, in terms of the $153 million. — and there will be slight shifts, as I said earlier, as we move forward with Independent Living B.C. — the lion's share of it is to maintain, to service, those 55,000 units of social housing that exist in the province.

J. MacPhail: The Ministry of Health hasn't contributed one new unit in terms of residential care for the frail elderly. Not one. All of the energy by this government into looking after the frail elderly comes out of this budget.

I would put up the record of the 1990s in the expansion of social housing, not only against this government and this government's entire mandate of two years that's left but against all across Canada except for

Quebec. It was during the 1990s that the federal government abandoned social housing completely.

J. MacPhail: Absolutely. It was the federal government, and in fact, if the minister actually had any compunction to meet with social housing groups, he would know that that's the message.

Throughout the course of the 1990s, not only did the provincial government take up the slack that was left by the federal government but expanded it to the extent that by the year 2000, 2,400 social housing units were being built each year. This member, when he was in opposition, said to the federal government: "Oh, don't give any more money. There's absolutely no necessity for it."

So the fact that wait-lists actually were accommodated through the 1990s shows exactly where the priorities were of the government in the 1990s, which was to look after the poor and look after the frail elderly, people with mental illness and people with disabilities. Here we are again, in the year 2002-03, when the only thing rescuing this government is transfer payments from the federal government that started only last year. That's it.

I'd be happy to sit and listen to the questions coming. Actually, I think I'll go to my office and listen, but they can rest assured that I'll be listening in my office to questions around this matter by the other members.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's awfully fun when a debate breaks out, and I hope the member doesn't have to leave us. It's always great to have a debate in this chamber, and I look forward to it, but I can't let the record show that the member had made some valid points, because she was wrong on every count. If she can bring to me the name of a social housing group that I haven't met with, I'd like her to do that. I have always obliged every non-profit association, every social housing group, either….

Hon. G. Abbott: No, no. You said if I would meet with them, actually. You can check the record on that point. You said if I would meet with them. I meet with them all the time. Whenever they invite me to meet with them, I do that. They invite me to address their annual general meetings, and I do that.

J. MacPhail: I stand corrected. You're right. I stand corrected. You listen to them.

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the member would like to heckle from her chair if she's going to stay and continue the debate.

I'm always delighted to meet with them. They don't always agree with me, and that's great.

Hon. G. Abbott: You know, I know everybody in the province used to agree with the NDP government and everything they did.

J. MacPhail: In social housing, you're absolutely right. We in fact won national awards.

Hon. G. Abbott: Did Seth Klein and the CCPA give them an award? I think that would be quite exceptional if they did. I mean, I'm sure they accepted that with enormous pride as socialist organizations around the world recognized how they had exceeded the Cuban and Albanian housing records in British Columbia. That's great.

In terms of the federal government, I'm not going to make any apologies for actually getting along with the federal government. I get to deal with federal ministers on a whole range of ministerial responsibilities that I have, and I don't make any apologies for getting along with them. British Columbians actually benefit from us proceeding on a cooperative basis with the federal government.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says, "Thank God for the federal government," when just moments ago she was saying: "Damn that federal government. They made our lives miserable in the 1990s." Again, as is usual, this member is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. On the one hand, she's saying, "Thank God for the federal government, rescuing us from the evil B.C. Liberals," and she's saying: "Damn those federal Liberals because they've made life miserable for us when we were in government."

This is so typical of the kind of approach that they take. Is it surprising that they weren't able to ever develop any agreements with the federal government? No, not at all, because they would say one thing in one format and one thing in another format — typical, typical, typical for that government to do that. We benefit mightily from getting along with the federal government, and I'm proud to say we're going to continue to do that. The NDP never could. They were too busy playing partisan games in relation to the federal government and could never do an agreement.

J. MacPhail: It is absolutely embarrassing how disrespectful this minister is to all of the people who have devoted their lives to providing social housing. It is absolutely shameful that he would take that approach.

Throughout the 1990s, under then Finance minister Paul Martin, the federal government abandoned social housing across Canada. It had nothing to do with federal-provincial relations on an individual provincial basis — absolutely nothing. They abandoned….

Hon. G. Abbott: What accounts for it, then? What accounts for your totally dysfunctional relationship, then? What accounts for that totally dysfunctional relationship?

J. MacPhail: It is absolutely disrespectful for him to somehow suggest it was a breakdown in federal-provincial relations that money stopped flowing on housing. It was a massive budget-cutting exercise by the federal government that they applied to every province. It's highly recognized by the federal government and by provincial governments that the federal government got out of social housing

There were two provinces, as a result of the abandoning of the federal government, that continued to fund social housing at the provincial level throughout the 1990s — Quebec and British Columbia. It had nothing to do with the fact that there was an NDP government that was at war with the federal government.

Social housing continued throughout the 1990s because of a provincial contribution, a municipal contribution and not-for-profit contribution. In 2001 Claudette…. I think I've got her name right. I'm sorry if I'm not saying it exactly right.

Claudette Bradshaw, under the federal government, reinstituted for the first time since 1993 the contribution by the federal government to housing — for the first time. I would put it that the only reason the wait-lists are not longer now and that there is any social housing able to carry on now is because the federal government is back in the game.

I say it quite clearly: it was awful that the federal government got out and reduced transfer payments for welfare, health, education and housing in the 1990s. Every province, regardless of political stripe, decried the federal government for that. I say now: thank God for a federal government that has seen their way, for whatever reason, to restore payments in those areas. It is the only reason why this government is able to continue in the provision of services at all, because they've frozen the budgets in all of those areas. That's why.

I'm sorry. I actually have to go, but I'll be listening to the minister with great interest to see how he somehow thinks that is a recounting that's revisionist history. The other day he liked to call it a Stalinist revision of history.

I know the minister is famous for citing poetry when he was in opposition, like My Dog Shep and that kind of stuff. He carries on with the same level of maturity now that he's a member of executive council by referring to countries like Albania and that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're clear on the record, the federal government continued to spend approximately $2 billion a year to support existing housing in British Columbia after 1993. That's straightforward and on the record.

In terms of what we have done after June 2001, I want to reiterate the point, because I'm proud of our record and what we've been able to do. We have completed the construction of projects that were underway as of June 2001. We have undertaken thousands of new units of affordable housing across the province. We've launched the Independent Living B.C. program, which will substantively improve the lives of low-income frail elderly and people with disabilities in this province, a program I'm very, very proud of.

We have signed a Canada–B.C. affordable housing agreement. British Columbia was the first province to sign that agreement, and it sees close to $90 million in federal money that is going to come into British Columbia and be partnered strategically to ensure that we can move forward. The record is one I'm very proud of, and I look forward to any further questions that members may have in respect to that.

The $2 billion I mentioned was actually an expenditure across Canada, not just in British Columbia, but the federal government did continue. I'm glad we have been able to enhance that through the Canada–B.C. affordable housing agreement. I welcome any other questions members may have.

T. Christensen: The minister has had a good debate around questions of building new social housing. Certainly, that's an issue in certain parts of the province where vacancy rates are low and there's a need for additional housing. Part of that, certainly, may be things government can try to do and try to accommodate through general policy so that the private sector can actually get on with building some of the housing we need.

In other parts of the province, particularly some of the more rural areas, perhaps the heartlands of the province, there's an issue as to the relatively high vacancy rates in some communities. The issue comes down to one of matching available housing with folks who need housing.

In some communities, like my own, there's actually a big question mark as to what our social housing needs are. In my own community we've been fortunate that we've had some low-income housing open over this last year, housing for families, and the community is very thankful for that, and housing that will house people with disabilities, which, again, we're thankful

for. We're very thankful that we're seeing this minister move forward with housing for our seniors, whether that's assisted living or other means of housing that ensures that our seniors can maintain their independence as long as possible.

Perhaps the minister can provide me with some information on what B.C. Housing or his ministry is doing or contemplating doing around the issue of trying to identify the need for housing in various communities around the province. That's perhaps the first question. I'll leave it at that, and then I'll follow up with a further one.

The Chair: Noting the hour, maybe you could answer the question and then move adjournment.

Hon. G. Abbott: Time flies when you're having a vigorous debate. I had no idea we would be near this time. I will answer the question, then I will move that the committee rise and report.

The hon. member's initial observation about the variance in housing needs in different parts of the province is bang on. We have a very different situation in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island than we do in most other parts of the province. In the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, we have vacancy rates in and around 1 percent.

In other communities where we are seeing, regrettably, some depopulation, there can be very high vacancy rates. In some cases there may be issues about quality of housing or still, perhaps in some cases, affordability, although vacancy rates usually take care of that. Some of those issues could come into play. In the member's own home communities of Vernon and Lumby, when we're looking at the needs there — while B.C. Housing's interior office is mindful, obviously, of what's going on in every community — generally we would look to the non-profit associations to provide us with some guidance.

Certainly, we always look to the local governments to provide information on where they think there is current and growing need. We also work with the health authorities, who often are a first line of contact in terms of needs, whether they might be special needs, mentally ill or disabled, or in some cases, even addictions and that sort of thing. The health authorities are very useful in terms of identifying some of those situations as well.

I know the member joined me at some of the special events we had around some of the new facilities in Vernon. We were there for the opening of the Okanagan Commemorative Pioneer Cultural Society, which has got to be the longest title since Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. That's a great project, combining all the elements in Independent Living B.C. Of course, we've had a couple of much-needed and much-welcomed aboriginal housing projects in Vernon as well. I continue to look forward to working with the member to assist him in meeting the needs of his communities, and he may wish to pursue this further.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY