Hansard -- Thursday, April 3, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 14 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5979

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5979
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33) Hon. C. Hansen

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5980
	Partnership network for community fundraising P. Wong Nursing partnership program P. Sahota Museum Act and heritage legacy fund S. Orr

Oral Questions		5981
	Availability of health supplements for disability benefits recipients J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell Renewing funding for the lower mainland treaty advisory committee (LMTAC) H. Long Hon. G. Plant Comments on Accenture by Energy and Mines minister P. Nettleton Downstream benefits from power projects G. Trumper Hon. R. Thorpe Transfer of patients from Gorge Road Hospital S. Orr Hon. K. Whittred Salvage logging J. Wilson Hon. M. de Jong Release of documents in former Agriculture, Food and Fisheries minister investigation J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Border crossings and B.C.–U.S. trade J. Les Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Reports from Committees		5984
	Special Committee of Selection, first report, fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House		5984
	Procurement Services Act (Bill 23) Hon. S. Santori

Reporting of Bills		5984
	Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Third Reading of Bills		5984
	Procurement Services Act (Bill 23)

Committee of Supply		5985
	Estimates: Management of public funds and debt Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. J. Murray B. Kerr S. Orr

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		6001
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) T. Christensen Hon. G. Abbott L. Mayencourt R. Hawes J. Bray R. Stewart P. Sahota

P. Wong: I'm honoured to introduce several guests in the gallery today. They are all attending a master's degree program for public administration at the University of British Columbia since last fall. After graduating this summer, they will return to our B.C. sister province, Guangdong province in the People's Republic of China, to serve their government.

The group is led by Ms. Kaiyuan Tao, Senior Judge and Associate Chief Justice of the High Court of Guangdong province. Other members include Bin Chen, Senior Judge and Associate Chief Judge of Guangzhou Maritime Court, Guangdong province; Mr. Yuliang Li, director of the organization division of Zhanjiang Port Affairs Bureau; and Mr. Jian Chen, deputy director of the justice publicity division of Guangdong Provincial Justice Department. May the House please make them most welcome.

R. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to introduce some officials from the People's Republic of China who are pursuing advanced studies in British Columbia. They are leaders in science and technology administration in China: Dehua Chen, vice-president of administrative committee of Zhongkai high-tech zone of Huizhou City; Zhihua Liang, director of science and technology division of Guangdong Provincial Construction Department; and Yimin Lin, director-general of Shantou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau.

Would the House please join me to give our distinguished visitors the warmest welcome.

S. Brice: In the gallery today are 26 grade 5 students from Lochside Elementary with their teacher, Ms. Keeb. Not only is Lochside Elementary in my riding of Saanich South, it is also in my neighbourhood, so I ask the House to make them welcome.

I. Chong: I join with my two colleagues, the members for Vancouver-Kensington and for Burnaby North, in welcoming some visitors from the People's Republic of China. We had the pleasure of having them join us for lunch today, and I know they very much like being in our beautiful province and are enjoying their studies at the University of British Columbia.

I would like to introduce Huijun Chen. She's the vice-president of the Workers Union of the Guangdong Provincial Economic and Trade Commission. She's commonly referred to and has adopted the western name of Karen. Also, Zhixiong Shen, who is the director, general planning office of the Guangdong Provincial Information Industry Department, and Junfa Guo, director of science and technology division of Guangdong Provincial Transportation Department, and he has a common western name, known as Mike.

B. Kerr: In the gallery today is Lara Harker, Sara Kubica, Tannis McDonnell, Kelly McLeod and Heather Russell. They're here from the Frances Kelsey Secondary School debating team, along with their teacher, Phil Archer, and parent volunteer, C.J. Kubica. They've done a tour of the museum; they've had a visit to the Legislature. Because they're on the debating team, they've come to watch question period to hear the thrust and parry of intelligent debate during question period, so I hope the House will make them feel very welcome.

B. Suffredine: We have a member of this House who believes that under the constitution and in accordance with the Magna Carta, everyone is entitled to hunt and fish on their birthday. He's getting on in years. He's not as old as the Minister of Sustainable Resources; he's not even as old as you, Mr. Speaker.

B. Suffredine: He's not old enough to receive congratulatory letters from the Prime Minister or the Queen, but he's well into the second half of his first century. I know the member for East Kootenay would appreciate this House wishing him a happy birthday or happy hunting and fishing on his birthday today, and a happy birthday sitting by his coal-fired fireplace.

L. Mayencourt: I have a couple of friends here in the gallery, just looking up there. The first is Daniel Fontaine. Daniel was the constituency assistant to the Minister of Health in another life and is now with Western Brewers Association. Beside him is Mark Jiles. Mark is an incredible campaigner who worked very, very hard on the yes committee for the Olympic bid. He was also the campaign manager for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and did a pretty good job of getting him elected. So I would just ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

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

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce the Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, which will ensure appropriate MSP billings, update legislation around hospital funding and improve our ability to ensure food safety.

I would first like to mention the amendments to the Medicare Protection Act to better protect our health care dollars. The amendment will speed up the process for following up with physicians who have irregular billings. It will allow us quicker remedies in those rare cases where the Medical Services Plan may have been overbilled. Occasionally, there are cases where patients are overserviced, and consequently the Medical Services Plan is billed for more care than is appropriate. We expect these changes will result in faster resolution of hearings that could potentially result in cancellation or restriction of a physician's right to bill the Medical Services Plan.

The ministry will also have recourse to order mediation to resolve disputes regarding MSP billings, if necessary. These changes will reduce hurdles we face currently in ensuring that there is proper accountability to the public.

Secondly, the bill will update the language in the Hospital Insurance Act. Some of our older legislation refers to outdated business practices that existed prior to regionalization being introduced to our health care system. This bill will amend the Hospital Insurance Act to reflect the fact that hospital funding now flows through the health authorities, and previously these funds went directly to hospitals.

Finally, the bill will revise the Food Safety Act to protect the public from harm. The amendment will allow licensing officers to review proposed alterations to existing food preparation facilities and renovations to new and existing food establishments. We are doing this to ensure that the public's well-being is not adversely affected by construction practices in premises where food is being prepared. These changes ensure that health-related legislation is up to date and appropriate.

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

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

P. Wong: Having represented the riding of Vancouver-Kensington for nearly two years now, I have met with many disadvantaged groups that are desperately in need of financial help to build a better community. Parents have told me that they recycled bottles and cans for three months to help students for a sports day, yet they were able to raise only $300. They have drained their resources, but the money generated was dismal. They are in need of assistance from the community at large. The good news is that there are many individuals and organizations willing to help. Several volunteers came to form the Better Community Partnership Outreach Network, or BCPON. They are Johnny Fong, a philanthropist; Bennie Yung, a businessman; and Bill Lim, a lawyer.

We intend to use this network to breach the gap between groups in financial needs and those groups that have the funds or means to help. I'm pleased to announce that the Vancouver Oakridge Lions Club is the first sponsor partner and has agreed to set up a fundraising event to raise $5,000 for the South Vancouver Police Community Association. This is a good start for a community group to help each other. There are several other groups that require financial help. They understand the government is doing all it can to restore our province's fiscal health and, as such, cannot provide funding to all the worthwhile groups. However, they must continue their efforts to raise funds to make contributions to the community.

I am pleased to inform the House that we have received many inquiries that are willing to participate in the partnership network. It's my sincere hope that if this network pilot project is successful, I can share this working experience with my colleagues. I will post this information on my constituency website soon. I would also like to thank the individuals that form the community network, BCPON, and the sponsor partners already on board.

P. Sahota: Recently I had the great pleasure to be part of a very special ceremony at the UBC school of nursing. UBC hosted four exchange students from the Guru Nanak college of nursing from Punjab, India. During their stay here the four young women attended classes, observed clinical practice and learned about some of the research projects that are underway at the school. Last week the four students headed back to India, taking back with them knowledge, technical know-how and a Canadian educational experience that will make them great contributors to their own country.

These relationships and partnerships are unique, special and inspirational. This partnership is about a very special group of people who want to make the education of young women a priority in a part of the world that is still struggling. Due to the involvement of the UBC school of nursing and people like the founder, Mr. Budh Singh Dhahan, this international partnership has flourished. In addition, UBC is helping the college become an internationally recognized baccalaureate degree institution of nursing, because then the students are more prepared and eligible for registration internationally.

This partnership is also very aware that there are many challenges with brain drain, so it has put specific

strategies in place to avoid the potential to drain human or other resources. The active participation of people like Dr. Sally Thorn, who is a director at UBC school of nursing, Sarup Mann, Ajmer Mann, Ajit Thandi, Barj Dhahan, Balbir Gurm and many others not only contributes greatly to our society here in Canada, but they rise to the occasion to address the challenges that are global. These people have the foresight and the vision to help foster the development of education for women in India, so they, too, can reach their highest potential.

S. Orr: When I get excited about something, I like to make sure that everyone knows about it.

S. Orr: I think if I was younger, fitter, cuter and had different coloured hair, I would be a cheerleader. Let me tell you what I'm pumped about: the new Museum Act and the new B.C. heritage legacy fund. Both of these initiatives have been championed by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Our culture is the soul of our society. Everything we can do to protect it enhances our lives. I know that the constituents of Victoria-Hillside would agree with me. The Museum Act now opens the doors to enable our museum to go after bigger and better exhibits. Many world-famous exhibits are hesitant to come, as they do not want to deal with governments but prefer to negotiate with independent bodies.

The museum is a treasure, and it now has the tools to deal on the world stage. We will all benefit from this when we get to experience all sorts of large, exciting, interesting and world-famous exhibits.

The heritage legacy fund with its partners, the Heritage Society of B.C. and the Land Conservancy, now allows communities to take leadership in heritage conservation. Again, we will all benefit as we protect our history.

Well done, minister. It was long overdue. In another cultural language — Australia: "Good on ya."

J. MacPhail: My questions follow up on the theme of the private statement from the member from Kensington.

Corrinnia Laurie is a constituent of mine. She's a single mom with two kids. She's on disability assistance. The ministry, thankfully, didn't force her to go through the disability review. Ms. Laurie needs a kidney transplant and must stay on a low-sodium diet. She needs expensive nutritional supplements merely to stay alive, but the Minister of Human Resources will not help cover the cost.

To the minister: can he explain why Ms. Laurie would be turned down for nutritional supplements that will save her life, and how many more people like Ms. Laurie are being turned away?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, I can't discuss individual cases, but I will assure her that I will review that case for her.

J. MacPhail: One of Ms. Laurie's children, Isabella, was born prematurely, and she suffers from serious health issues. She's one year old, and her pediatrician says she needs expensive, special baby formula. Her pediatrician submitted a letter asking the ministry to provide Isabella with the necessary formula, but the ministry wrote back and denied the request. They said that the baby was too old, just over a year, and therefore ineligible. They said there was no medical justification. They told her she should use her disability funds to buy regularly priced formula.

Can the Minister of Human Resources explain why his ministry would deny a baby a special supplement for baby formula? How much could that possibly cost?

Hon. M. Coell: As I've said to the member, I will have that case reviewed for her.

J. MacPhail: Well, I appreciate that the minister says he will look into this issue, but he'd better move quickly. In desperation, Ms. Lorry is asking for money on the street to buy formula for her child's needs. She is not willing to compromise the health of her baby daughter by waiting for the appeal process. She is on the street panhandling right now.

Again to the Minister of Human Resources. Can he explain how his government could be so cold-hearted that it would deny a baby specialized formula that it needs to stay healthy, forcing that baby's mother to ask for money on the street?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, privacy laws in this province don't allow me to speak about individual cases in this House, but I'll assure the member I will review the situation.

H. Long: I'd like to ask a public written question submitted by Ed Steeves, chairman of the Sunshine Coast regional district, to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

Further to the declaration made in the February 11 Speech from the Throne, the Minister Responsible for

Treaty Negotiations emphasized the government's renewed commitment to revitalize the treaty process. Given the fact that your government is committed to recognizing local government as a legitimate third level of government and that the local government considerations are a crucial aspect in treaty settlements, when will the provincial government renew their previous funding commitment to the lower mainland treaty advisory committee to ensure that local governments' positions and positive input into these critical negotiations will again be articulated?

Hon. G. Plant: I want to express my thanks to Mr. Steeves for submitting the question. Yes, government is committed to doing what we can to revitalize and reinvigorate the treaty process in British Columbia, and local governments have a very important role. We have an obligation, as a provincial government, to listen to local government and to try to give effect to their interests at the table.

We don't have the funds at the moment that will allow us to support the very good work that is being done by the lower mainland treaty advisory committee. From time to time we have been able to fund specific tables around the province in a few areas where that's been needed to ensure that the local government discussion is a good one, and we are always willing to look at those opportunities when they arise.

I have to say that government truly appreciates the work of the lower mainland treaty advisory committee, and I hope they will continue. I hope the individuals who are the members of that committee will continue to devote the time and the energy that they do devote to ensuring that we, as a provincial government, get the benefit of their insight into these important questions.

P. Nettleton: I was absolutely astounded at the answers I received from the Minister of Energy and Mines in the late sitting of the Legislature Wednesday night, which was last night. I was confronting the minister on the issue of Accenture appointments to the board of newly formed Accenture Business Services of British Columbia, which has taken over the management services of B.C. Hydro.

Responding to my questions regarding whether the minister was aware of Accenture's history, especially in connection to the reported connections with Arthur Andersen and Enron, the minister stated: "It's obviously no secret that Accenture and Arthur Andersen were a business before. I think we have to move forward from there, and we should not say that anyone that ever worked for Andersen Consulting, Arthur Andersen or Enron are all bad people. Obviously we know the name," he went on to say. "I've confirmed the name, and that should answer the question."

My question is: will someone, will anyone on the government side of the House, act immediately to protect the interests of British Columbians in this sordid affair and demand this minister's resignation?

G. Trumper: I have a question for the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. On Vancouver Island there has been a great deal of discussion about the need for more power generation, and within the discussions around power generation, the potential for downstream benefits is often emphasized. Could the minister explain to my constituents what the downstream benefits are, who owns them and how the province benefits from them?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Downstream benefits are half of the additional electricity generated in the United States as a result of dams built in the Kootenays during the 1960s. These benefits are owned by the province of British Columbia. These benefits returned almost $360 million to the provincial government when sold on the open market in the fiscal year 2001-02. That's $360 million that went to the priorities of our government — namely, health care and education.

Government must ensure that it gets the greatest return from these assets that is possible from the downstream benefits. For example, in the past two months we have received upwards of $85 per megawatt-hour of electricity through sales of the downstream benefits. This is almost three times what we would have received if these benefits had been sold at B.C. Hydro's current industrial rate.

Government must ensure that this legacy for British Columbians is there for all the interests of all British Columbians. That is why we are focusing our efforts on getting the best financial return for all British Columbians.

S. Orr: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Patients from the Gorge Road Hospital, which is in my riding, are currently being transferred to other local facilities. Some of my constituents have expressed concern that the residents of the Gorge Road Hospital, who have received excellent care at that facility over many years, will not receive the same quality of care at the facilities they are being transferred to. I ask the minister: where are these patients going, and what level of care will they receive?

Hon. K. Whittred: I would like to assure the member that the patients from Gorge Road will certainly be cared for at the same level they have been accustomed to. In fact, Gorge Road Hospital is quite an obsolete facility. It has been slated for closure for several years. I'm really happy to announce that the new Mount St. Mary facility has been opened. I had the pleasure of attending the opening just the other week, and the

residents were delighted with their new surroundings. They are in a modern, up-to-date facility suitable for their care.

J. Wilson: My question today is for the Minister of Forests. A major part of good forest stewardship involves the removal of windthrown and insect- or beetle-infested timber known as salvage timber. It provides three major benefits if it's addressed properly. First, it adds a valuable source of fibre to the market. Second, and importantly, it protects the health of our aging forests. Third, it provides a considerable number of jobs in the harvesting sector because of the low-volume production.

Many people have been pleading for a good salvage program for years. Up until now it has been ad hoc at best, varying from district to district. Can the Minister of Forests tell us if he is prepared to address the small-scale salvage in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. He alludes to an issue that has not received a great deal of public attention since the forest revitalization plan was unveiled last week but is a very important part. The member has correctly identified the fact that not only do British Columbians expect the fibre we grow here to be processed here, but they expect us to maximize the fibre that we harvest, including salvage.

I'm pleased to remind all members that thanks to the work of the members for Cariboo North, Okanagan-Vernon, Prince George North, Skeena and other members — Kamloops, as well, the shy, retiring member from Kamloops — that small-scale salvage is very much a part of this revitalization program to the extent that we have, on the advice of communities, created or are in the process of creating a new community salvage tenure that will ensure there is enhanced access to that salvaged fibre and ensure that we implement this in a way that maximizes those benefits. The member for Prince George North and the member for Cariboo North will serve on a committee of MLAs to liaise with all members of the salvage community to ensure we meet our objectives.

RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS IN FORMER
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND
FISHERIES MINISTER INVESTIGATION

J. MacPhail: Given that the special prosecutor has decided not to press criminal charges against the former Fisheries minister, the government should have no trouble tabling all documents relating to the investigation. British Columbians still have the right to know why the former minister tipped off a fish farmer about an investigation into its practices. Will the Attorney General please table those documents today?

Hon. G. Plant: The usual practice, which is going to be followed in this case, is that the work done by a special prosecutor in respect of potential criminal investigation is privileged, and as I say, I think it would be good to respect that practice in this case. I'm not aware of any documents the member refers to that would fall outside the scope of the work done to investigate a criminal matter by the special prosecutor, but if there are documents she believes are in the hands of other ministries that are or ought to be a matter of public record, then she could certainly make inquiries of those ministries.

J. Les: My question is for the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. My constituency, like most of British Columbia, is heavily dependent on trade with the United States. However, in the light of current events, many of my constituents are concerned that cross-border trade will suffer, costing individuals and businesses time and money. Can the minister inform this House what is being done by our government to ensure that the free flow of goods across the U.S. border is maintained?

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: As the member is aware, the border is a federal responsibility. However, the provincial government has been actively engaging many American officials on this issue. As you know, the Premier met just last week met with Ambassador Cellucci to convey the importance to the Americans of the free flow of goods across our border. I also attend the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance meetings and continue to push Canadian and American officials wherever possible to create a more efficient border.

We've recognized the legitimate concerns that both Canadians and Americans have over security, and in fact the province has been actively working with Canadian and U.S. security officials to make sure that any cargo leaving the port of Vancouver and going across the border is, in fact, secure.

Finally, I'm very proud, as has been mentioned before, that our government has approved $130 million towards the improvement of border infrastructure. This investment will significantly increase the capacity of our border crossings.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your guidance with respect to a matter raised in the estimates debate of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Last night in debate I asked the minister if she was the lead for this government on making submissions to

the National Energy Board's hearings on the Sumas 2 project. The minister replied: "The political lead on this issue is John van Dongen." I know the minister meant to say the member for Abbotsford-Clayburn, but my question to you is this. If ministers of this government are passing on ministerial responsibilities to government caucus, private members, MLAs of the government, in what forum are those backbench MLAs accountable to the public for those responsibilities?

My understanding of the standing orders of this House is that I am only able to put questions to the members of the executive council. I'm well aware that the line has been almost eliminated between this government's ability to distinguish between executive and legislative functions of the government. But perhaps, Mr. Speaker, after giving this some thought, you can shed some light on how the opposition can have questions answered in estimates or in question period when the ministers of the Crown have abdicated their responsibilities to a private member. I seek your guidance on it, and I await the answer.

Hon. G. Collins: First of all, the member opposite should raise a matter of order that occurred in committee in the committee, not in the whole House, and I think she's aware of that.

Second of all, I know that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will be prepared to answer her questions with regard to that issue to the best of her ability. If we require staff from the other ministries to provide answers, we'll endeavour to do that, as well, to make sure that the questions can be answered to the best of the ability or the willingness of the minister to provide answers to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your input. We'll come back to the House with a response in due course.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the fourth session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Hon. G. Collins: In committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 23.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. S. Santori: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm moving an amendment. I've already advised the Leader of the Opposition — a vote that was missed during the earlier estimates. I move vote 41.

Hon. G. Collins: I call estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — or advise members that that will be taking place. I move the committee recess until 3 p.m. to await the arrival of the minister as well as the Leader of the Opposition.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 11 students from the Fraser Heights Secondary School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead and their teachers, Mr. Tino D'Alfonso, Miss Sharon Shilliday and Glen Payne, visiting the House and parliament buildings today. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: Under goal 1 of the service plan of the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, the ministry promises to protect the environment and human health and safety by ensuring clean and safe water, land and air. A subcategory of this goal is the objective to limit air pollution and contribute to meeting global atmospheric objectives. Could the minister detail some of the policy that she hopes will achieve this objective?

Hon. J. Murray: The member opposite raised a point of order today in the House. I would like leave to respond to that before answering the question that was posed.

Hon. J. Murray: The question was raised about the government's intervention in Sumas 2 and the National Energy Board hearings. There's a joint intervention. The province is working closely with the city of Abbotsford. On the province's side, this complex issue is a team effort. I am the lead on air quality issues. The Attorney General is the lead on legal issues. The Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations leads with issues around the relationship between British Columbia and Washington State, and the Minister of Energy and Mines leads on energy and power policy. The ministers work together as a team.

If the member opposite has questions relating to air quality — those technical aspects — I would advise the member to direct those questions to me; if the member has issues around legal complexities, to the Attorney General, and so forth. The group works as a team. They bring together a number of the pieces of the puzzle. Because of the many aspects of this issue, the group is chaired by the member for Abbotsford-Clayburn, who is also the link with Abbotsford city and the other Fraser Valley MLAs.

My comments yesterday attempted to reflect this complexity in this approach. We believe it's a sensible approach, and the appropriate minister can be asked about the appropriate aspect of this very important issue — stopping the SE2 power plant from being built in the Fraser Valley airway. I expect that the member opposite will continue to support those efforts of this government.

J. MacPhail: Well, thanks for the clarification. That was the question I asked last night. I was asking questions on air quality, airshed. I was asking the minister that, and she referred me to someone else. Thank you for finally getting it right, I guess.

Hon. J. Murray: To support the goal of cleaner and safer air, the ministry is part of the team opposing the SE2 power plant. The ministry leads local airshed planning with other partners in local areas where there are concerns. The ministry is doing technical work to improve our understanding of these issues. The ministry is leading a set of airshed characterizations as part of its work to develop a framework for improving air quality in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Is there a workplan that the ministry has developed — a coordinated and cohesive workplan to combat climate change?

J. MacPhail: The government is working on a climate change plan. Is that work being done in accordance with the federal government's commitments to the Kyoto protocol?

Hon. J. Murray: That work is being done in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia, which supports the federal government's Kyoto protocol work.

J. MacPhail: What aspects of the workplan will incorporate the federal government's commitments on Kyoto?

Hon. J. Murray: The provincial plan will seek to work with the federal approach and not have overlaps and not have gaps. The federal plan has not been fully identified at this point.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister can clarify: what are the province-specific policies?

Hon. J. Murray: Our target is to have something by the end of June of this year.

J. MacPhail: When is the next provincial-territorial ministers meeting dealing with this matter that either includes the federal government or doesn't?

Hon. J. Murray: There are no joint ministers meetings on this planned at this point. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment will be meeting in September, and that agenda has not yet been set.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister implementing the recommendations of the report contained in Updating B.C. Provincial Air Quality Objectives and Options discussion paper? I think that was commissioned by the government.

Hon. J. Murray: Government is seeking advice from a number of sources, and we don't recognize the particular study that the member has mentioned.

J. MacPhail: Updating B.C. Provincial Air Quality Objectives and Options discussion paper. Okay, I'll get you a copy. It's a government-commissioned report, but I'd be happy to give the minister a copy.

Well, let's just carry on then. Does the government intend to reach the Kyoto targets by the year 2008?

Hon. J. Murray: The setting of a target is something that will be part of our plan, which we intend to have in June.

J. MacPhail: Yes, except that the plan doesn't decide the targets. I would assume that the minister starts by planning with a specific goal in mind. Or is it the reverse?

Hon. J. Murray: We're still working to develop our target. The federal government did not assign targets to the provinces. The federal government's focus is working with the sectors across the country.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So it's the minister's view that the Kyoto protocol doesn't determine targets for 2008?

Hon. J. Murray: The Kyoto protocol determines a national target for 2008. The federal government is creating an implementation plan to determine how to meet that target for Canada, and the federal government at this point has not assigned that target to each of the provinces.

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government is working actively with the various sectors and is having bilateral negotiations with those sectors as to how their contribution to greenhouse gases can be reduced.

J. MacPhail: How much money is the provincial government dedicating to combatting climate change in this budget?

Hon. J. Murray: My ministry has seven staff dedicated to this. We will follow up with the actual dollars assigned to the climate change group.

J. MacPhail: To go back to the point the minister just made about the federal involvement with the provinces and territories on setting targets. Have the bilateral meetings begun between the federal government and B.C. on setting targets?

Hon. J. Murray: There have been no discussions with the federal government about a provincial target at this point. We are having a meeting with the federal government representatives next week.

J. MacPhail: How did the bilateral meetings start? Is this the beginning of the bilateral meetings to set targets on a provincial level?

Hon. J. Murray: This is the beginning of the bilateral discussions with Canada. The subject of those discussions and the agenda are yet to be determined.

J. MacPhail: Just so the ministry can find this report that I just referred to, it's entitled Updating B.C. Provincial Air Quality Objectives and Options, discussion paper, May 2002. It was commissioned by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — the water, air and climate change branch. It was prepared by Robert Caton and David Bates.

Hon. J. Murray: That discussion paper, as well as a number of other sets of information, will be looked at as we develop our airshed management strategy.

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, our staff are monitoring sea level rise. That was one of the factors in our climate change indicators report released last spring.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister update the House on the results of the monitoring — changes, if any?

Hon. J. Murray: That's technical information we don't have here. We will send the member a copy of that report.

J. MacPhail: Is the government monitoring sea surface temperature? What, if any, are the results?

Hon. J. Murray: We can confirm whether sea surface temperatures are a part of the indicators being measured. Just for the member's benefit, that will be in the report. We'll make sure that she has a copy of it.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday, in a very interesting discussion with the Minister of Energy around matters of air quality and greenhouse gas, he said that I should be reminded that the greatest contribution to greenhouse gas comes from vehicles. What has the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection done to reduce transportation emissions?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry has supported programs like Go Green, bike awareness and commuter challenges, and has engaged with partners that have a delegated responsibility for air quality and emissions reduction, such as the GVRD. In terms of airshed management and the work with the communities that have threatened airsheds, there is a transportation component. The ministry is working on a climate change plan that will bring together some of the issues around transportation emissions.

J. MacPhail: What's the current status of vehicle emissions being regulated by the provincial government? What has been the change in that area in the last year or whatever? I'm thinking more of the trends that are occurring, particularly on the west coast of the United States, about change in vehicle emissions. There's going to be a substantial change in regulation in that area, I think, next year — 2005. Where do we stand here in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government regulates vehicle emission standards. As they have become tougher, the provincial government is harmonizing with those standards.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please outline the trends that are occurring in that area?

Hon. J. Murray: For the member's information, there is an environmental trends report, 2002, that the ministry published in December. That has a wealth of information about environmental trends. I'd be happy to give the member the website address where that trends report and the technical information about what's happening with air quality trends will be — on that indicators report.

J. MacPhail: Well, sorry. I was just wanting to put the information on the record for the public about what the trends are in vehicle emissions. Yes, I have been to the website at length. What does the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection think of the Minister of Energy's plan to pursue a voluntary goal to acquire 50 percent of new supply from alternative electricity sources? Is that sufficient, does she think, in addressing the climate change issues faced by the province of greenhouse gases arising from energy production?

Hon. J. Murray: British Columbia is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions–producing provinces in the country, and I'm proud of that. In British Columbia B.C. Hydro had a 10 percent renewable and clean energy portfolio target prior to our energy policy, so I am very pleased to see a 500 percent increase in that goal. I know that is leading edge in North America. I would like to see us in British Columbia exceeding that goal and producing more than 50 percent of our new power from clean and renewable sources. The interest the private sector has shown in offering green power projects to B.C. Hydro, I think, is very encouraging in terms of the potential for green and clean and renewable energy in B.C.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I would agree with the minister if it indeed becomes a reality, as she subscribes. I subscribe to the same hope. It was interesting, though — the discussion we had last night in the Energy estimates, particularly around the Duke Point generating plant. I was pursuing with the minister the fact that this was going to be a natural gas–generated electricity plant.

One of the reasons why British Columbia has such a wonderful record of low greenhouse gas emission is because most of our energy is produced by hydroelectricity. In fact, beyond any other jurisdiction, I think, in North America, energy is produced by hydroelectricity.

My point to the Minister of Energy was: couldn't we pursue a continuation of expansion of energy production through hydroelectricity rather than through natural gas production, which would continue our great record with greenhouse gas? I talked about it in the context of the energy proposals that have come in, the green and clean energy proposals, but he said that the proposals didn't provide a consistent enough guarantee of supply in order to allow him to use those projects to make up for the 250 megawatts required as replacement only — just replacement megawatts — on Vancouver Island once the cables are no longer in use from the mainland to Vancouver Island.

What's the minister's role in approving those green and clean projects around energy production?

Hon. J. Murray: If the project is over 50 megawatts, the environmental assessment process will be reviewing the project. My ministry permits projects and is working on in-stream flows to ensure that there's adequate water flow for fish in projects that involve microhydro.

I do want to just remind the member that the B.C. Utilities Commission will be reviewing any plans with respect to the Duke power plant. Considering that it was her government that put this project on the books and made major, major financial commitments and pushed forward with this project in a very aggressive way before we were elected, I find it quite surprising — the vigour of her entreaties that this government not go forward with it.

J. MacPhail: I wouldn't advise the minister to go down that road at all. We thoroughly debated that and put that issue to rest during the Ministry of Energy estimates. So I wouldn't advise her to go down that road at all.

I'd be happy to review it with her again, but she's dead wrong. The project that was put forward by the previous government bears absolutely no resemblance at all in type of energy production, cost, location, jobs, cogeneration — no bearing whatsoever. We've covered all of that. If the minister wants to get into it, I'd be more than happy. She does seem to be a little touchy this afternoon on looking to spoil for a fight. I'm not. But I'd be more than happy to do it. Is the minister interested in reviewing the discussion?

Hon. J. Murray: If the member believes that has been fully canvassed in other estimates, then we'll leave it there.

J. MacPhail: I do have a question around the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing that will occur around the Duke Point power plant. The minister revealed yesterday — I was pleased to note — that B.C. Hydro will be putting forward the costs of transmission lines as an alternative to the Vancouver Island gas pipeline.

What position will the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection take at the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing on transmission lines or cable transmission of hydroelectricity versus the natural gas pipeline?

Hon. J. Murray: Our role is not to take a position at the hearings. Our role is setting standards and making sure that they're enforced. Whichever project is approved, that's what we'll be doing.

J. MacPhail: Sorry — what standards? So the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection won't be participating in the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing on the environmental aspects of the Duke Point plant. Is that left entirely to the environmental assessment office?

Hon. J. Murray: My information is that we provide technical information if asked at the Utilities Commission hearings. We don't have a role as an intervener, and this ministry hasn't in the past. With respect to the environmental assessment office process, we work with the environmental assessment office and provide information as needed.

J. MacPhail: The service plan of this ministry also establishes an objective to protect water. How is the minister ensuring that the recent expansion of the energy industry to include coalbed methane does not affect water quality?

The Minister of Energy and I had quite a discussion on how coalbed methane production proceeds, but discussions around standards were left to this ministerial estimates debate.

Hon. J. Murray: I have had ministry staff working with Energy and Mines and the Oil and Gas Commission for the past 15 months to set standards for water with respect to coalbed methane. We've had staff dedicated full-time to looking at what the issues have been in other jurisdictions and how we can avoid environmental problems.

We are developing a code of practice. It will be used by the oil and gas commissioner. Any developments for coalbed methane will need to take into account both the quality and the quantity of the water that's being pumped out, and the receiving environment.

J. MacPhail: What's the title of the job — the occupation classification of the ministry staff dedicated to this full-time — and how many FTEs are there?

Hon. J. Murray: We had a biologist and an engineer from the Kootenay area leading this project. We had environmental protection staff from Nanaimo, environmental protection staff from Prince George and legislative staff in Victoria. Not all of these were full-time. It was led by the two people in the Kootenays. We had a biologist in Victoria and engineers in Prince George and Victoria working on this.

Hon. J. Murray: As with some of the other standards that the ministry has, some would describe this as results-based, and some might describe it as too prescriptive. That's a matter of perspective, I would say.

J. MacPhail: I just wondered how the government was describing it. I've got some information from government here. I guess I'll ask more questions, then, in terms of the stuff I have from the ministry.

Has the minister committed resources to assess and combat dewatering? Just for those who may be watching or for the record, dewatering is when millions of gallons are removed from the ground and stored above the surface. That's what happens when coalbed methane is produced. Dewatering removes a large amount of water from the aquifer, which will not be replaced for over 200 years. Sometimes when this occurs, the aquifer is permanently damaged and aggregate groundwater levels are lowered. I'm sure the minister knows this, because I got this information from the end of her service plan. What resources are committed to assess and combat dewatering with coalbed methane production?

Hon. J. Murray: Dewatering is a core issue that's addressed in the code of practice that the ministry staff have been working on. We, as a government, believe that this is an industry that can be done sustainably and without environmental damage, and that's why we've been preparing this code of practice. We will work with the Oil and Gas Commission to make sure that the monitoring and compliance activities take place as this new industry grows and provides economic benefits for heartlands communities across the province.

J. MacPhail: It's the Oil and Gas Commission that will actually be doing the compliance and enforcement around this code of practice? What is a code of practice versus regulation? What is the difference?

Hon. J. Murray: A code of practice identifies what's expected, and it is a voluntary guideline. However, we are bringing amendments to the Waste Management Act to ensure that we can, if necessary, bring codes of practice under the Waste Management Act so that they can be enforced, if that's deemed necessary.

J. MacPhail: What's the timing of all of this? The government is going to be moving forward, from what I understand, pretty quickly on allowing coalbed methane production to expand. There are nine pilot projects in existence now, but the government, as we've discussed yesterday — and many members have made statements about — is going to expand it quickly.

I want to know how quickly these codes of practice are going to be made enforceable, because here's my concern — and that's why I asked the minister about the Oil and Gas Commission doing the compliance and enforcement…. The last report that they have out, January and March 2002, shows that 38 to 40 percent of drilling companies active in B.C.'s north field failed to comply with sewage disposal and water protection regulations. Those were from audits in '02. Then, of course, that was in addition to the fact that the overall number of inspections in '02 totalled only about one-third of those undertaken in 2001. There were 186 inspections by the Oil and Gas Commission in 2002, and in the year 2001 there had been 540 inspections — so fewer inspections, but a failing grade of compliance of 38 to 44 percent of drilling companies.

As the Minister of Energy points out very quickly, that's the oil and gas industry; this is different. I'm wondering how the minister is going to ensure (1) compliance and (2) that the trend isn't transferred to the coalbed methane production.

Hon. J. Murray: In response to the question of timing, the code of practice has been signed off by both the deputies at this point, so this code of practice is pretty much ready to go. I would say that non-compliance is not acceptable in any industry. We strive to have 100 percent compliance in any activities that impact the environment, and we will be working towards that end. We will be cooperating with the Oil and Gas Commission to make sure that the compliance and enforcement in this industry, as in other industries, is in place and is working and is protecting the environment.

J. MacPhail: The report on the Oil and Gas Commission review actually noted a significant increase in water-related violations — up to 44 percent in '02 from 13 percent in 2001. Those included a failure to obtain permits to haul water, taking excess volumes of water and removing water from beaver dams. Those are a couple of examples. The report goes on to say that the latter results in damage to wildlife must be stopped through all available means. The Minister of Energy took comfort in the fact that there would be four more compliance and enforcement officers hired by the Oil and Gas Commission. Am I correct in saying that the compliance and enforcement around all of this will be in the hands of the Oil and Gas Commission for coalbed methane production as well?

Hon. J. Murray: In the past we've done compliance work jointly with the Oil and Gas Commission, and we'll continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: So the ministry will have a role in compliance and enforcement around the coalbed methane production, then?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, the ministry will have a role in auditing to ensure that appropriate compliance and enforcement is taking place.

J. MacPhail: The Oil and Gas Commission says it's added four additional compliance officers. Do you

J. MacPhail: On further issues around water quality and protection of water quality as it relates to coalbed methane production, does the minister know if, during coalbed methane production, water will be discharged into streams?

Hon. J. Murray: I believe it will, and the code will make sure the quantity and quality of water being discharged is within parameters that are safe for the environment.

J. MacPhail: One of the areas we explored last night was concern by farmers — ranchers, actually — in the area where there's also going to be coalbed methane production. They cited Hudson's Hope and Peace River. The Minister of Energy is up there tonight attending a public meeting on this matter. Their concerns were that water would be discharged into streams, but they were also concerned about water that maybe has a higher particle level in it being discharged onto fields, etc. Will water be impounded with coalbed methane production?

I was wondering, then, if the answer is yes: will the ministry require holding areas that would actually have to be lined with some sort of impermeable skin in order to protect against leaching?

Hon. J. Murray: We're confident this industry can be developed in a way that is environmentally sustainable. We're working on a code of practice that will ensure that, which will address water quantity, water quality, the receiving environment — whether it's surface or ground. We will make sure that the code of practice is taken into account in the development of this industry. We will audit, and if the member would like technical answers to the questions she posed, we can have staff brief her.

J. MacPhail: Who would I get that briefing from? I thought that's what I was doing here. As I understand it, the expansion is going to happen very quickly. I'll just keep asking my questions, and whatever the minister can answer is fine; and if not, we can save it for written answers.

Hon. J. Murray: Our intent is to have a result that is environmentally sustainable. If the water is clean…. I understand some of the coalbed methane has drinking water–quality water that is pumped out. We are looking for a particular result, and that's what the code will address. If it's safe to use the water that is emitted, then it will be used.

J. MacPhail: From my research on coalbed methane production, I've also learned about methane venting. Who will monitor venting, and will there be any chargeback to the industry for monitoring of venting?

Hon. J. Murray: Venting of gas would be the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission.

J. MacPhail: How does the ministry receive communication reports from the Oil and Gas Commission? Are there regular meetings? Are there reports submitted back and forth? How does it occur?

Hon. J. Murray: The deputy minister and the oil and gas commissioner meet. Our staff meet on a regular basis, particularly in Prince George and Fort St. John. The agencies work cooperatively on a regular basis.

J. MacPhail: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection service plan promises to reduce and remove toxins and waste that contaminate land. The ministry's contaminated-sites panel produced an interim report in September 2002 and promised a final report in the spring of 2003. When does the minister expect this report to be finished?

Hon. J. Murray: We've received the final report from the panel. We're working with it. When we make amendments to the Waste Management Act, we'll release that report.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm certainly intending that it is going to take place in the spring session.

Hon. J. Murray: I thought the interim report was an effective articulation of some of the problems and frustrations with the current regime. It gave some recommendations for how we can clean up environmentally contaminated sites more quickly and more effectively. I thought it had some useful information to offer.

J. MacPhail: I was interested to see how the interim report actually concentrates on the polluter-pay objectives. I thought that was very interesting. However, it also did suggest that business shouldn't be entirely blamed, because the people of the province benefited from the efforts of the businesses — interesting comment.

I'm wondering. It seems to me that there are several directions in which the final report can go, one of which is that the polluter-pay objectives continue. If the minister thinks the regime of administrating polluter-pay objectives is too complex, then she can offer up an achievement of those polluter-pay objectives in a more

streamlined way. Or else they could have a reduced polluter-pay scheme, where the emphasis is taken away from business to have to pay those costs, and the public absorbs those costs. I'll be interested to see how the final report comes out and how it's received by government.

If there is a change in the polluter-pay concept such that business doesn't absorb those costs but the public does, I will be very curious to see how there will actually be remediation of contaminated sites, because, of course, that would cost money. If the public is paying for it, that means, I hope, that it would be out of the tax…. No, I'm sorry. I don't hope that at all. If it's a shift to the public, it means the taxpayer would pay, and that would be through government revenues. Government doesn't have the revenues to do that, so I certainly hope it's not the latter.

Hon. J. Murray: For the current year the ministry has 32 staff that have responsibilities around contaminated sites, and it's approximately $2.5 million. If the member needs….

J. MacPhail: Does the ministry give the sites a ranking of no risk, limited risk and high risk on contaminated sites?

Hon. J. Murray: There are, effectively, high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk sites. We don't have a formal categorization of those differences. Currently, the regime requires us to treat all of them identically, no matter whether they are in fact a higher-risk or a low-risk site.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but I do understand that internally that categorization takes place. Can the minister break down the informal categorization of sites then, according to how many are no-risk, how many are limited-risk and how many are high-risk?

When a site is designated as high risk, what actions does the ministry take? I'm particularly interested in what actions it takes when it's private land or Crown land.

Hon. J. Murray: We're the regulator, whether it is Crown land or private land. There are provisions for dealing with identifying and mediating contaminated sites that are in the Waste Management Act and the contaminated-sites regulation. We regulate according to those provisions.

Hon. J. Murray: There are currently no requirements to distinguish high-risk sites under the current regulatory scheme.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm aware it's an informal system. I have the information here about the informal system.

Is the public informed…? Let's just put this in full context. The auditor general released his audit of contaminated sites, and that happened in the last year. It's happened since the last time we've had a chance to talk.

The auditor general asked this ministry, in conjunction with other ministries, to create a plan of action for contaminated sites. Part of that dealt with the plan of action of how the ministry would inform the public of contaminated sites. Where's the ministry at in preparing that plan of action?

Hon. J. Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is the regulator for contaminated sites. Sustainable Resource Management is actually the ministry responsible for remediating and dealing with contamination on Crown land. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will be leading the job of preparing the plan of action and will be working with our ministry on the technical side. The focus of that plan of action will be Crown land.

Hon. J. Murray: Our ministry is on that team. The deputy minister for Sustainable Resource Management is working on that plan. It will be discussed with our staff. Our staff will be involved. It will be signed off at the deputy minister level. Then it will come to the ministers, and so I will have a role at that time.

Hon. J. Murray: That would be a question to direct to the estimates for Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I want to move to air quality and climate change now. I want to discuss the air quality issues that are faced around the province.

The Sumas 2 power plant continues to be an issue for the people of the Fraser Valley. I know this government has dedicated resources to contest the national energy system's closeness to the U.S.–Canada border. I note that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection service plan commits the ministry to oppose the Sumas 2 power project. The minister clarified her role in that earlier today, for which I thank her.

How has the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection continued to oppose the Sumas 2 power project?

Hon. J. Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was in the lead in applying for intervener status. The process has moved on since then. We now have the team working on the National Energy Board intervener process, and Water, Land and Air Protection is the lead on air quality aspects of this process.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to continue to ask my questions, because the minister is the one that stands up here in question period and answers these questions when her own members ask them. She's quite comfortable answering those questions, so I'm hoping she's going to be comfortable answering my questions.

Has the minister or the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

J. MacPhail: How much money did the government spend on that request for appeal?

Hon. J. Murray: My ministry has invested approximately $750,000 in this project to date.

J. MacPhail: I'm just going to take a moment to do an introduction. I'm looking around here and trying to see where these people are. May I just have leave, Mr. Chair, to make an introduction?

J. MacPhail: Graeme Bowbrick, Julie Hewlett and their son Alex are in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome. And if they're not in the House, they should be. Thank you very much.

J. MacPhail: So $750,000 — that's what the ministry has dedicated to the entire Sumas 2 project?

J. MacPhail: How many FTEs has the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection dedicated to the Sumas 2 problem?

Hon. J. Murray: I would like the House to please welcome a friend and supporter and enthusiast of our government, Daniel Fontaine from New Westminster. Please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry has had between one half-time FTE and two FTEs, full-time-equivalents, devoted to this. It will be various people at various times depending on the need of the project.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why I'm exploring these issues…. I'll just quote from the debate exactly a year ago on this matter — well, sort of air quality, air pollution, etc. The minister said on April 11, 2002:

That was last year. We're a year later. We have Sumas 2 moving on, and we have the energy policy in place. I'm just putting my questions in context for the minister to know that we're a year later, and much has changed.

Should I be asking the Attorney General how many lawyers the government has committed to the National Energy Board review on Sumas 2, or does the minister know?

Hon. J. Murray: There is a lawyer that the city of Abbotsford and the province are jointly funding in this intervention. I don't have the answer as to how many lawyers in the AG staff have attended to this file.

J. MacPhail: Has the government hired any expert witnesses? If so, how much did the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection pay for those services?

Hon. J. Murray: The expenditure on expert witnesses would be part of the $750,000 the ministry has expended on this. We can get that breakout if the member wishes.

J. MacPhail: How much money has the minister dedicated to fighting Sumas 2 for 2003-04?

J. MacPhail: If the government's appeals to the National Energy Board fail — and we understand that…. Sorry. The minister gave me the information that the appeal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed already. If the government's appeals to the National Energy Board fail, does the government have a contingency plan to reduce air pollution in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry is developing its air planning framework. The ministry is also developing a climate change plan that will be addressing transportation issues. The ministry has a clean air issues paper on its website, which is a discussion paper to solicit input and ideas about reducing air pollution.

I also know the member is aware that air quality in the GVRD area is an issue that is attended to by the GVRD, who have the delegated authority on that issue.

J. MacPhail: Yes, TransLink is responsible for the GVRD area. However, it's my understanding that the airshed is much bigger than the area covered by transportation management, by TransLink. Is there no contingency plan specifically for a failure to prevent Sumas 2? Will it just be part of the overall air quality planning?

J. MacPhail: How will that look? It's interesting. The member from Chilliwack was quite assertive in the debate last night around Sumas 2. What's the timing of the air quality planning in relationship to the coming on stream of Sumas 2, if the appeal of this government fails?

Hon. J. Murray: At this stage we're focused on winning the fight, as we have been since we were first elected. We've been taking that a step at a time. We've been taking a very vigorous approach, because we strongly believe that's the wrong site for that facility, and we will continue to engage in that fight. We will make every effort to succeed with that. If we don't succeed, then we will take stock and look at what our next step is.

J. MacPhail: Will the FTEs within the ministry committed to the Sumas 2 power plant be reassigned elsewhere after the conclusion, whatever the outcome of this? Will they continue to concentrate on air quality in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes. These are air quality staff, and they will be able to focus on improving air quality in other ways.

J. MacPhail: First of all, let me ask this: am I correct in saying that it's TransLink that's responsible for air quality in the GVRD area, or is it the GVRD?

J. MacPhail: What is the liaison between the GVRD and this ministry in ensuring high air quality? Of course, the airshed does cover more than just the GVRD.

Hon. J. Murray: There's a joint committee at the staff level that meets regularly, which includes the GVRD and ministry staff. There's an executive committee that meets twice a year. The ministry and GVRD meet as well, as needed, on an issue-by-issue basis.

J. MacPhail: I think it's safe to say in regard to Sumas 2, as the minister just articulated, they're looking for a positive outcome on their appeal. It's safe to say that the whole government is committed to improving air quality. The Premier's letter to Governor Locke of Washington State says: "B.C. recognizes its own opportunities for action in this regard, and the province has undertaken a number of measures to improve air quality in the face of rapid growth in the most populated regions." That's from the Premier of B.C.'s letter to Governor Locke of Washington State.

I think it's fair to say it looks like the government is living up to its commitment to limit air pollution and contribute to meeting global atmospheric objectives. Could the minister outline in a little bit more detail the specific programs the Premier was addressing?

Hon. J. Murray: I won't presume to interpret the Premier's letter, because I was not the author of that letter. The province has done a number of things that improve air quality in the GVRD area and the Fraser Valley area as well. That will include programs like AirCare. That will include the urban design. In British Columbia in our lower mainland we've actually done a much better job than some of our neighbours to the south in terms of urban growth that's concentrated in such a way that people can bike and walk and take transit to work. That's been a real focus at the regional level and at the provincial level, and I know that air quality has improved in the lower mainland through some of these initiatives.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but those two — the Livable Region strategy and now AirCare — are both regional

government initiatives. The Premier was very clear in saying that B.C. recognizes its own opportunities for action. That's why I asked what the relationship was between the GVRD and the provincial government. I mean, it's safe to say that the GVRD…. What would happen if the GVRD stopped its air quality improvement programs? What happens then?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm not sure it would be productive for me to speculate. The GVRD is very committed to air quality and has that delegated responsibility. If I were to write a letter that says B.C. is committed to something, I think that includes actions of regional government. They are part of B.C., and the ministry does work in partnership with the GVRD on projects like the air quality and health study of the year 2002.

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, I don't think that's correct. But if it is, does the minister think that what the Premier's letter meant was that the GVRD is doing good work in this area?

Hon. J. Murray: I interpret the letter to mean that the province is doing good work in this area, and that includes various partners. Some of those partnerships include local and regional government as well as non-governmental organizations, businesses and the provincial government. Our focus is working in partnership to identify problems and to make improvements, and I think the results that have been obtained in the air quality in the GVRD are a testament to that partnership approach being successful over the past years.

J. MacPhail: Well, okay. I read the Premier's letter. I read the Hansard debate from last year, where the minister says it's our top priority — air quality — and then outlined…. "I'm clear that reducing air pollution is a top priority." That's what the minister said a year ago. All I'm trying to figure out is what it is that the B.C. government is doing to enhance air quality and reduce air pollution. So far the minister hasn't given me anything. I'm well aware of the regional programs, and the success or failure of those will be the success or failure of the GVRD.

I'm looking for government actions in this area. In fact, the only thing I can figure out is that the government increased gas tax in the lower mainland to give to…. This is not the 3.5-cent gas tax; it's the 2-cent increase in gas tax that the government did, I think, in September 2002. Until very recently TransLink was using that for road enhancements, not public transit enhancements. So that was the provincial government's contribution.

Is there anywhere else the minister can point me to in terms of enhancing air quality?

Hon. J. Murray: The member's question is about improving air quality and what the province has done. I've made the comment that the province works in partnerships in a number of ways that have been effective.

I appreciate the member pointing out that a 3.5-cent gas tax is actually a very positive contribution to decisions that people make in terms of the kind of vehicles they purchase. This government increased the tax credit for low emission vehicles. In this past budget this government made a tax credit available for cruise ships that use gas turbine engines, because they are far less polluting than the diesel engines.

As I've mentioned already, there are various projects that have to do with increasing commuting, increasing the use of biking. We are working on our airshed planning framework. We have a very progressive energy policy that is intended to address air issues.

We are putting money into transportation improvements. In my constituency alone, there is $59 million — over half of which is coming from the province — for transportation improvements that will reduce traffic jams and bottlenecks in New Westminster, where we have trucks idling and creating air pollution. We'll be improving our air quality through those transportation improvements, as well as providing incentive for the public to use lower emissions vehicles or to park their vehicles.

I am proud to say that as well as our partnerships, we have a number of initiatives of all kinds that are intended to reduce air pollution, because it is one of the government's top priorities, and it is an issue of concern to the public.

J. MacPhail: Good, because the copy of the letter sent to Governor Locke from the Premier is co-signed by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. It is actually a letter from the minister herself as well.

I'll just read the paragraph again. It says: "I would like to add that British Columbia fully recognizes its own opportunity for action in this regard and that the province has undertaken a number of measures to improve air quality in the face of rapid growth in the most populated regions." That's why I've been pursuing this at length. It's signed by both the Premier and the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

What's the $59 million of transportation improvement? Did the minister say it's coming out of her budget?

Hon. J. Murray: It's $58 million, and that is a project that is…. What I said was that it was more than half funded by the province, and this is through the transportation initiative that has been recently announced. This will be part of what the gas tax is dedicated to. It is not coming from my ministry's budget.

I appreciate the member pointing out that that was a joint letter. There are a number of initiatives — and I have listed off many of them — including the support of local airshed planning, public outreach activities and our clean air initiative where we are beginning the consultation through the clean air issues in British Columbia paper.

I'm just wondering in terms of the transportation improvements, though, but that's not the project…. The $58 million project still keeps vehicles on the road. It's not actually the 3.5-cent gas tax increase I was talking about. It's the 2-cent-a-litre gas tax increase that the government imposed on the GVRD residents to go into TransLink, and then TransLink, as far as I can tell…. Well, there's been a change at TransLink which I'm thrilled about, but that goes into road improvements, and there's very little…. Well, how much extra money is the government putting into public transit — this government, the B.C. government?

Hon. J. Murray: That is not a policy decision covered by Water, Land and Air Protection's budget or estimates.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister was more than happy to stand up and take credit for a transportation improvement that didn't involve public transit. So I thought she might know if there are any public transit investments that she could take credit for — that she'd stand up and give them. The government can't just deliver what they consider good news. When asked questions, they have to give all the news.

J. MacPhail: It is — on its talk about air quality improvement. The Minister of Energy said the greatest detractor from enhanced air quality is vehicle emissions. That's what I'm exploring right now, Mr. Chair.

How does raising the surtax threshold on luxury cars from $35,000 to $47,000, and thereby eliminating a deterrent in the purchase of high-pollutant vehicles, limit air pollution in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. J. Murray: The question is of tax policy that the member can choose to direct to the Minister of Finance.

J. MacPhail: No, it's a question about air quality enhancement. It is noted by almost every study that most of the SUVs being bought in this category are in the lower mainland and that SUVs disproportionately contribute to airshed issues. So it's not a tax question. It's an air quality question.

Hon. J. Murray: Our ministry's objective is to see cleaner air, and we would like to see more people using bikes, transit and other methods of getting where they need to go. We encourage those choices.

J. MacPhail: How does the continued deployment of the Burrard Thermal plant reflect recognition of the opportunities to limit air pollution?

Hon. J. Murray: We have a new-era commitment to phase out the use of the Burrard Thermal plant, and there's an in-house group of members who are looking at that issue.

J. MacPhail: They've been looking at it for quite a while. I was wondering what the minister can update us on, on Burrard Thermal. I know that the Minister of Education has made a commitment to close it. I know that's what the new-era commitment is. We're two years into a mandate to have a four-year term, so where are we at on it?

Also, I know that if it is closed, the issues facing the Minister of Energy will change substantially. He didn't give us any indication that that was going to happen.

Hon. J. Murray: Specific questions about a power plant would be best directed to the Minister of Energy and Mines. The other place to seek information would be the energy policy.

J. MacPhail: I don't want to read into the record again what the minister said in April of 2002 — that reducing air pollution is a top priority. I read it into the record. These are legitimate questions for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Burrard Thermal and air quality are linked.

Now, in the ten years of the NDP government, Burrard Thermal stayed powered, but there was a huge investment in the context of Burrard Thermal staying open, for it to be upgraded to reduce pollution as much as possible. In fact, it stands as a model, given the context of it being a thermal-powered electricity generating plant. But even in that context, the government made a new-era commitment to close it. The Minister of Education made that commitment, and there's a committee struck. It's inextricably linked. Why doesn't the minister have a view on this?

Hon. J. Murray: Just to repeat to the member: we do have a commitment to phase out the Burrard power plant. We also have a responsibility to the citizens of British Columbia to ensure that we have adequate power to meet their needs.

Part of our energy policy is a very aggressive approach to energy efficiency and energy conservation. We have things like stepped power rates for industrial customers, which will provide incentive for reducing any use of energy that they can avoid and for them to find ways to reduce their energy usage. We have a commitment to update our Energy Efficiency Act. We are seeking every possible way to manage our energy demand in British Columbia as part of the whole package that will include the phasing out of Burrard Thermal over time. There has been no decision made as to the time frame for that at this point.

J. MacPhail: How does the introduction of coal as a source of energy…? The Minister of Energy and Mines said yesterday: "It's a bright future for the coal industry in the province." How does that contribute to meeting global atmospheric objectives?

Just to outline what the government has done in promoting the coal industry, it's reduced taxes on the coal industry; it's cut taxes on exploration equipment; and it has, of course, eliminated the corporation capital tax. How does the promotion of coal as a source of energy meet with the minister's objectives?

Hon. J. Murray: The reduction of taxes and the reduction of corporate capital taxes are a very important part of our government's policy for revitalizing the economy so that we can move from last place in Canada, which we have been in, regrettably, in the past number of months. My ministry does air quality permitting and sets ambient air quality guidelines and standards that any facility, whether it is a coal-fired plant or a pulp mill, needs to adhere to. Should there be an application, my ministry will make sure that any emissions from that power plant are such that they don't exceed the ambient air quality standards for that area.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. Yes, from this binder I do have the ministry's document around Q & As for coal emission guidelines. I just want to go through them, if I may.

There's the question: "How do B.C.'s new guidelines compare to those in other provinces and states?" Of course, for the public's information, this ministry will be putting in place coal-fired power plants. B.C. doesn't have any existing coal-fired power plants now, according to this document. Where do we stack up in comparison to other provinces?

Hon. J. Murray: I would like to correct something that the member just stated. The ministry will not be putting in place coal-fired plants. Should the private sector decide to invest in coal-fired electrical plants, that will be the decision of the private sector.

The guidelines are compatible with Alberta's guidelines, with the exception that there is a higher allowable level of sulphur for the use of waste coal. That waste coal has been being landfilled. It's been used as a waste, so turning it into an energy source would reduce the pollution potential from the landfilling of that material.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the minister is correct to say that it will be the private sector providing coal-fired energy plants, except that it is the government's plan for increasing power to allow the private sector to do that. That's the only way this government is going to increase energy supply. It will be the private sector, but it will be at the behest of this government to do it.

I'm not sure why the minister would back away from the great pride that the Minister of Energy and the member for East Kootenay took yesterday. I sat here and listened to it, about how exciting it was that the government was moving in the direction of coal-fired power plants.

I'm just looking at this document here. Sulphur dioxide. The emission guidelines for B.C. for January of 2003, the emission limits, are 180 to 290. In Alberta they're at 180. Let me see. Saskatchewan allows 50 to 520 but then says 50 to 200 for the same coal that B.C. would use. We're pretty much the highest of every jurisdiction except for Washington. Why is that?

Mr. Chair, I just want to make it clear to the public who's watching too. Lower is better when we're talking about emissions, and we're at the highest level.

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to clarify here that these guidelines are a starting point for discussions with potential proponents. The actual levels will depend on the ambient air quality objectives and the character of the airshed. This ministry's guideline for sulphur dioxide is the same as Alberta's, which is 180. The higher levels are for the potential of using waste coal to create energy. Waste coal does produce more sulphur dioxide, so that's where the higher figure comes from. It is not for the regular industrial quality of coal; in that case it's the same as Alberta's standard.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's interesting. That certainly is a good explanation beyond what this briefing note says.

What about our other competitors like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana — Washington is higher — Oregon…? What about that?

Hon. J. Murray: B.C.'s guideline is similar to its nearest neighbours of Washington and Alberta. This guideline is a starting point. The actual allowable levels of emissions will depend on the character of the airshed and the ambient air quality standards that the ministry has set.

J. MacPhail: Isn't the use of coal at odds with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. J. Murray: Various ways of producing electricity do create various levels of greenhouse gases. It is the federal government's negotiations with sectors that will determine how those sectors across Canada help Canada to achieve the Kyoto targets that it has agreed to and ratified recently. That discussion — bilateral, between the federal government and the industry sectors, including the coal sector — will determine what the allowable levels of greenhouse gases are from that sector.

J. MacPhail: So the order of proceeding on these matters is important. Will this government work out the standards to be met for the Kyoto protocol on a provincial basis first and then determine whether it makes sense to proceed with coal-fired energy plants?

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government is engaged in negotiations with the various sectors like the electricity sector, and those are not concluded yet. So it's not clear at this point whether it will lead to a cap and tradable permit system, whether it will lead to a requirement for offsets or whether there will be particu-

lar equipment required that will reduce greenhouse gases. That's a discussion the federal government is having with the sector, and we will be watching with interest as to what is concluded.

J. MacPhail: Well, is there anyone that says coal-fired power plants are anything but at the upper end of greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. J. Murray: I believe there is a higher level of emissions from coal-fired plants than from natural gas plants. There's some question about whether the full life cycle of the natural gas plant is taken into account when that conclusion is reached. I think what's important is that no matter what the energy source, proponents and businesses that produce energy use equipment that as best as possible reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of energy created.

J. MacPhail: Did the Minister of Energy and Mines consult with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection before he introduced the energy plan that included coal?

Hon. J. Murray: The Minister of Energy and Mines consulted with all of his cabinet colleagues throughout the development of that plan.

J. MacPhail: I guess, because of the fact that there's such emphasis on coal-fired power, the minister supports that direction. Is that right?

Hon. J. Murray: I fully support the government's energy plan. I am very proud that we are a leader in North America in terms of our 50 percent target for a clean and renewable energy portfolio.

We are doing some leading-edge policy-making in the planned step rates for industrial energy users. We have a very focused energy conservation and efficiency approach that's built into that plan. We can be proud of our energy plan, and I am proud of it.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that the reintroduction of coal as an energy source is consistent with the government's climate change strategy?

Hon. J. Murray: At this point the provincial government has not concluded its climate change plan. The energy policy is a part of government policy that we fully endorse, and the climate change plan will build on our energy policy.

J. MacPhail: What is the minister's view on the ease of meeting the standards of Kyoto with the introduction of, and quite heavy emphasis by her other colleagues on proceeding with, coal-fired power plants?

Hon. J. Murray: As I mentioned earlier, part of our plan development will be looking at what target the province will aim for. The federal government has not assigned targets to the provinces.

I do want to point out to the member that by far the majority of British Columbia's energy is produced by hydroelectric power. We can be proud to have very low per-capita greenhouse gas emissions compared with the rest of Canada. Our level of greenhouse gas emissions is one of the environmental measures that are being tracked by our progress board. We are number one in terms of environmental performance across this country, according to the measures the progress board is tracking. And we intend to continue to be the number one environmental jurisdiction in Canada.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and that terrible ranking of being number one in environmental quality took place during that decade of decline in the 1990s. How shameful that that great achievement occurred during that period of time.

The reason why we're so low on greenhouse gas emissions is because most of the energy is hydroelectricity, and that's about to change. That's about to change by this government with its unbelievable enthusiasm…. I mean, I'm sure the minister was in her office watching the discussion of almost…. Well, I won't describe the kind of enthusiasm that was shown between the member for East Kootenay and the Minister of Energy and Mines about the move toward coal-fired energy power plants. It was a pleasure to watch, in some ways, in terms of its intimacy.

However, the Premier of Ontario has recently committed…. That's a lifting of the moratoriums. What everybody is so excited about is that there's going to be a lifting of the moratoriums on developing coal-fired power. The Premier of Ontario just recently committed to phasing out coal-fired plants. The reason why he did that was — at least, this is what he said — acknowledging their contribution to greenhouse gases.

Was the minister aware that the Premier of Ontario recently committed to phasing out coal-fired plants? How does that jibe with this government removing the moratorium on coal-fired power plants?

Hon. J. Murray: There has been no moratorium on coal-fired power plants. In fact, the previous government did have coal-fired emission guidelines, interim guidelines, in place when this government was elected.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, but there were none in operation. I'm sorry. Maybe I missed it. Could the minister repeat her last answer? My apologies.

J. MacPhail: If the minister is committing that there won't be any in operation, I'd be happy to sit down and say thank you, but that's not what's happening. The government is proceeding with coal-fired power plants. That's what the debate was about all day yesterday. That's what this government takes such great

pride in. That's why all the changes made to the financial expenditures — reducing the tax expenditures by the industry. That's why there was such pleasure yesterday between the member for East Kootenay and the Minister of Energy and Mines. It is going to happen.

I'm fine if the minister is saying it's not going to happen, but I'm not sure she can give that guarantee. In fact, she'd have to undo everything the Minister of Energy and Mines said yesterday. Let's put it this way: what other jurisdiction is going to grow coal-fired power plants?

Hon. J. Murray: I just would like to remind the member that British Columbia has very low per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases. We have an abundance of clean, green energy production in British Columbia. We will continue to do that. We have an energy policy that is leading edge in terms of the percentage of green, clean and renewable energy in any new energy production. We're proud to be setting the conditions where businesses choose to invest in British Columbia. That's what our energy policy supports.

We will continue to have a competitive advantage through our low power rates in British Columbia, and we will continue to have low greenhouse gas emissions per-capita compared with most of the other parts of Canada. We have a very committed group of people in Water, Land and Air Protection who do the job of regulating in terms of permits and allowable emissions and the setting of ambient air quality standards in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I've got in my notes here that the government will probably say that B.C. is the first jurisdiction to establish goals of generating 50 percent of its energy through clean sources. That's laudatory. Is that a voluntary target?

J. MacPhail: How many coal facilities are going to be built, and what will they contribute to the greenhouse gases in the province?

Hon. J. Murray: The responsibility of the province is to ensure that the energy needs of the people and the businesses of British Columbia are met. As far as I am aware, the expressions of interest in coal-fired electricity production would account for less than 2 percent of the entire production of energy in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. The two plants that are in the making now are about 1 percent, but energy production is not what we're talking about. I'm talking about emission production. What will those plants contribute in terms of greenhouse gas emissions compared to other sources of energy at the level of 1 percent?

Hon. J. Murray: Insofar as the negotiations between the federal government and the coal-fired electric producer sector have not been completed, I cannot speculate as to what would be the constraints, what would be the technology requirements, and what would be the offset potential and offset requirements of those potential coal-fired power plants.

J. MacPhail: What are some of the potentials for technology available to reduce emissions for coal-fired plants, and what determines the type and effectiveness of the technology needed?

Hon. J. Murray: Our ministry's job is to set the ambient air quality standards and then to ensure that in the issuance of permits, those standards are met. It would be the proponent's responsibility to make choices as to how to achieve those air quality standards.

J. MacPhail: I'm reading here from the ministry that the main emission control devices for coal-fired power plants include electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters. Is there a potential that those could be demanded as part of the guidelines?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry sets the air quality standard, the result that needs to be achieved in terms of the air people actually breathe. Then the proponent would need to make choices as to how to accomplish that result, including choosing the technology.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering if the government standards for air pollution apply equally across the province.

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry has set a general objective for air quality that is consistent across the province, and then there is another level of ambient air quality standard that factors in air flows and characterization of the air in that region.

J. MacPhail: In regard to the Vancouver Island generation project, the air pollution created by this proposed plant is equivalent to, I'm told, adding 150,000 cars to the city of Nanaimo, and of course, the population of Nanaimo now is only 73,000. Doctors in Nanaimo are speaking out en masse. They've made a submission to the minister against the location of this power plant and on the potential health impacts. Air quality in the region is already poor due to the adjacent pulp mill.

Nanaimo citizens are facing many of the same issues faced by the citizens of Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Of course, the difference is that this government supports the plant in Duke Point and opposes the plant in Sumas. Let me ask this of the minister: will the same

standards apply to the Vancouver Island generation project that this government applied to the Sumas 2 project?

Hon. J. Murray: This project is under review by the environmental assessment office, and our ministry will be providing comments to the environmental assessment office. The project also is being reviewed under the B.C. Utilities Commission.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking what position the government's taking on this. Are the positions the same between what they're asking for out of Sumas 2 and what they're asking for, for the Vancouver Island generation project?

Hon. J. Murray: Could the member please clarify what she means by "holding it to a standard"?

J. MacPhail: Well, my understanding is that part of the submission the government of British Columbia has made to the National Energy Board is around air quality and air emissions. I'm just wondering. A very strong position has been put forward by the government in opposing Sumas 2. All I'm asking is: will the same standards of air quality assurances be demanded on the Vancouver Island generation project at Duke Point as they are demanding for the Sumas 2 project?

Hon. J. Murray: Sumas 2 did not go through the B.C. environmental assessment office process, and the Duke power plant proposal will go through that. The government's premise for intervening in Sumas 2 is that it is believed that the plant would create an additional quantity of emissions in the Fraser Valley that would lift the air quality above the Canadian standards.

This will be something that will be assessed by the environmental assessment office, which has the role of doing this kind of investigation. It will be assessing the location of the Duke Point plant, the airshed and whether those kinds of concerns in terms of air quality that the provincial government had with Sumas — those same concerns — are had about the Duke Point project.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. Those were the assurances that I was looking for. The reason the B.C. government is saying Sumas 2 can't proceed is because of the damage or the degradation it will do to air quality. The minister has given me assurances, and I'm pleased by that — that the same standard will apply to the Vancouver Island generation project at Duke Point.

How many FTEs are assigned from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to the Vancouver Island generation project?

Hon. J. Murray: Three staff people, on and off, will be doing work with respect to the air quality modelling for the Duke Point power plant.

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that there was an air quality survey done by the Vancouver Island generation project itself but that flaws were found in this report. Will there be an independent survey done of present-day air quality in that area?

Hon. J. Murray: The environmental assessment office will be in the lead and will make a decision as to whether the current information is adequate or whether more is needed.

J. MacPhail: I read a report not that long ago. It's the Peer Review of VIGP Air Quality Assessment done by — I only know it by its acronym — SENES. Is the ministry aware of this air quality assessment?

Hon. J. Murray: I'll accept the offer that the member made to get that for me.

J. MacPhail: How many FTEs are dedicated to air quality in the province as a whole?

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that there have been some air quality warnings issued in areas such as Prince George. I may not have it right, but have there been air quality warnings issued in the Prince George area recently?

Hon. J. Murray: I believe an air quality advisory may have been issued in December.

J. MacPhail: Are there FTEs, people dedicated to air quality issues, specifically in Prince George? How are the 20 FTEs allocated?

Hon. J. Murray: The 28 air quality staff break down in this way. There are two per region, and we have seven regions. There are six that work on policy, there are six that work on air quality monitoring policy, and there are two that are roving auditors who audit air quality monitoring. The policy group, of course, is a resource for the whole province. Ministry staff do work with Prince George, which has an airshed management plan.

J. MacPhail: The other areas I'm concerned about in terms of air quality are Bulkley Valley and also Elk Valley. Have there been air quality warnings in either of those areas recently?

Hon. J. Murray: There may well have been. I don't have that information here. If the minister would like, we can get that information for her.

J. MacPhail: I understand that this government extended the permitting of beehive burners. Is that true?

J. MacPhail: Just for those urban socialists, beehive burners are hog fuel burners used by the forest sector to burn off waste, and they tend to contribute greatly to degradation of air quality. In fact, there have been physicians in the area where beehive burners continue to be fired up complaining that air quality is damaging the health of the residents. Why did the government extend beehive burner permitting?

Hon. J. Murray: The government extended the permits for, I believe, four of the beehive burners that would have been required to shut down by December otherwise. I do want to remind the member that some of these extensions have been happening again and again, during the decade that she was a member of government. Of course, we're looking for a goal of the shutdown of all beehive burners, and we will see that over time. However, when a beehive burner is unable to meet the time line and the choice is between shutting down and closing down the sawmill or getting an extension so that they can put a plan in place to use that resource in another way, it makes sense to give them the chance to do that. That's what we did.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm always curious that many of these government ministers say, "We're just doing the same thing you did when you were in government," and then they call that time the decade of decline. God. Actually, budgets were balanced during that time, the economy was on the rise, and job creation was up. Now we have all of this in decline, and the government's only refuge is to say: "We're just doing the same thing as in the 1990s."

How many investigations did the ministry carry out in '01-02 regarding air quality?

Hon. J. Murray: Investigating compliance with respect to air quality is part of the day-to-day work of the compliance officers in the ministry, so we don't have the compliance reporting broken out that way.

J. MacPhail: But if there's a violation, doesn't there have to be a non-compliance injunction issued? Were there any of those issued?

Hon. J. Murray: I would be happy to have a report prepared on non-compliance injunctions with respect to air quality and to forward that to the member.

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that investigations occur…. At least, this is what I thought it was. Investigations regarding air quality compliance occur, and investigations that find there's non-compliance issue an injunction. Then there has to be a plan created to resolve the non-compliance — by the polluter, so to speak. Am I correct in that? Would the minister's report to me contain that information as well?

Hon. J. Murray: I need to clarify with the member. When she says the word "injunction," that means a legal enforcement action as opposed to a compliance monitoring report. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm sorry. I may be saying the wrong words. But an injunction, as I understand it, is a stop action. Then the polluter has to put in place a plan to resolve the non-compliance before the injunction is lifted. That's how I understand it. But if I'm incorrect…. I'm just looking for the details around this issue.

Hon. J. Murray: We'll provide the details in the report for the member and clarify what the process is.

J. MacPhail: That ends my questions. I look forward to receiving the information from the minister, and I thank the minister and her staff for the debate.

B. Kerr: My questions aren't going to be as lofty or as important as clean air or the Kyoto accord, but they're important to my constituents nonetheless.

I'm concerned about the fees that are being charged for marine parks in the southern Gulf Islands. I have some concerns that the fees you're charging and the method of collecting them are based on some ways that are going to be difficult and costly and also aren't necessarily fair. I'm wondering if those fees have been etched in stone or whether we can address that issue — what we can do about it at this stage. I'll get more specific.

It's a charge of $2 a metre. I'm thinking that if a person goes into a south island park in the daytime with his family and kids, and they go into the park and play all day and use the facilities and then leave, and then somebody that might be passing through in the middle of the night and is just stopping puts his anchor down, doesn't use any of the facilities…. He pays, but the other people don't. Of course, these people who are just anchoring for the evening are not using any of the facilities. They're not tying up to a buoy or a dock, and yet they're going to be charged according to the size of the boat.

My other concern is that $2 a metre…. Maybe if there is a charge, it should be just a flat-rate charge or something to that effect. I'm just concerned whether there's some method by which we can discuss that issue or not, or whether it's etched in stone.

Hon. J. Murray: I appreciate the member's having brought this concern to my attention. The ministry staff is meeting with the boating and yachting groups on Friday in order to hear their concerns about the policy. I'll be meeting with concerned MLAs next week. I do appreciate having this brought to my attention.

This has an effect on 14 of the marine provincial parks in British Columbia, and I understand there are some changes that have been made. I'm looking forward to working with the boating and yachting groups to find out if the ministry's objectives, which are to have the funds to be able to provide the kind of services and facilities that our visitors enjoy in those ma-

rine parks, can be satisfied in a way that the boating and yachting club members believe is fair, equitable and appropriate. We'll be pursuing those conversations with them this week.

B. Kerr: That's great if there's going to be a meeting, so I won't hold us up now and ask any more questions until after that meeting is done. Thank you very much.

S. Orr: I actually just want to make a comment, because I want it on the record that I, too, have had questions, e-mails and letters from constituents on exactly that question. So I don't need to re-ask it. I just want it on the record that we do have an answer, and we'll wait to hear from you.

Hon. J. Murray: Thank you to the member. I have appreciated the members representing the concerns of their constituents. We believe that collecting overnight fees from all visitors in campsites but also in our marine park areas — making a fair contribution by the overnight visitors — contributes to our continued ability to provide safe, clean and sanitary operational facilities and, in the case of marine parks, docks. It's important. We appreciate the users paying a part of the cost of providing those services, but we are very willing to talk with the yacht and boat owners as to what would be a balance and a method of collecting those contributions that they would recommend to us.

B. Kerr: I just have to make one point. You can't compare the way marine parks are used with the way that day parks are used, because in marine parks people come during the day and then go home. With the other parks, they stay overnight. The people using the facilities are the ones that are there during the day, not the ones that are anchoring overnight. I just thought I'd bring that point up.

Vote 48: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,895,000 — approved.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock on Monday morning.

T. Christensen: Before the break we were talking a bit about housing and how B.C. Housing and the ministry look at various communities and determine what the need is in a particular community. Just in follow-up to that, can the minister tell me whether there is any process in place or funding or assistance available to try to match individuals who may need housing with available housing, to identify available housing in particular communities so that it's not a case of building new units but identifying what's already there?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not entirely sure I captured the member's full question, but I think the answer is this. If someone comes into a B.C. Housing office in Penticton, Vancouver or wherever it may happen to be and they're looking for a particular type of housing in a particular community, they can access a list of all the social housing projects or facilities that exist around the province, and they can move forward with that. There's also a link called, curiously, The Link, which they can find at www.bchousing.org.

T. Christensen: What I'm hearing is that those services are within B.C. Housing. They identify housing that B.C. Housing has in its inventory, either that it operates itself or has assisted in bringing to market with a non-profit organization.

Has there at any time the minister is aware of — and perhaps the officials can help him in terms of the

history — been a proposal whereby funding would be available to non-profits to try and draw those links in a community, so it's not a case of a non-profit housing group proposing a new structure but of a non-profit group that may have identified a population at risk of homelessness and then having some assistance in identifying the housing market in their own community and trying to draw those links together?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is no overall reference program. Nor, to the staff's knowledge, has there ever been a request to provide one. Within a number of communities in British Columbia, though, there are local groups or community groups that provide things, like the Seniors Housing Information Program and that kind of stuff. We do provide ad hoc funding to some of those groups. On a community-to-community basis, there may be some of that. There isn't an overall program in that regard.

L. Mayencourt: On the topic that was raised by my colleague just a moment ago, we have in the city of Vancouver, for example, a network of all the social housing that's available within the community. Perhaps something as simple as providing links through the B.C. Housing website to the various non-profit housing providers would be of great benefit.

My question to the minister is: could I get some sort of sense of how many units of affordable housing we have in the province? When we take a look at the various categories that B.C. Housing and this ministry is trying to address — whether it's youth at risk, frail and elderly seniors or what have you — is there a ratio of those categories? What percentage, for example, is available to seniors? What is available to low-income families? What is available to the mentally ill, and so on?

Hon. G. Abbott: On the B.C. Housing side, the number of units is 55,900 in total. Those break down on the following basis. For frail or low-income seniors, 34,200 or about 61 percent of the total are occupied by low-income or frail elderly. The second largest group would be low-income families at around 13,000. Low-income singles are typically hard to house and frequently have dual-diagnosis or mental illness issues, 4,500, or 8 percent, and special needs, transition, supportive, etc., about 4,200, or again, around 8 percent.

L. Mayencourt: We talked a little earlier about the fact that there are about 10,000 individuals who are on the wait-list for subsidized housing in the province. I'm wondering if there has been a breakdown done along those same categories? Has there been a breakdown? Is it mostly seniors who are in that, or is it people with mental illness or what have you? Could I get an idea about that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The approximate breakdown, and I don't have the precise — well, we do have the precise — numbers here, but it's approximately…. Of the 10,000, about 6,000 of the applications to B.C. Housing are from low-income family people, about 20 percent, or around 2,000, are seniors, and another around 2,000 are special needs — physically, mentally incapacitated, etc.

R. Hawes: I'd like to thank the member for yielding. I have another meeting to go to in just a couple of minutes, and I was hoping to ask a couple of questions of the minister that were not housing-related. I know I won't get an opportunity later.

Maybe I'll start with my first one. I have been asked by a number of mayors around the province about reserve accounts, particularly the reserve account that's established for parkland — the 5-percent-in-lieu reserve account that is restricted at this time to the purchase of parkland only.

There are municipalities all over this province that have ample parkland purchased, ample funds in the reserve account but no ability to develop the capital portion of the park. They're seeking an ability to use those funds to invest in the capital development of the parkland they've already purchased. Does the minister, I wonder, have any thought about expanding that capacity for municipalities?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his very good question. The issue is certainly one I'd be prepared to look at. I think the mayors and the member make a legitimate point around the possible expansion, in terms of flexibility, around the use of the reserve account. The look at that issue could come in a couple of ways: either a stand-alone change to the Local Government Act, or it could come as part of the discussion around stage 2 of the community charter. In either case, certainly, I'd be prepared to look at that. I'm not sure whether we have received a formal request from local governments or from the UBCM with respect to that, but certainly we'd be prepared to look at that.

R. Hawes: The only other question I had for the minister was with respect to…. I think it's in the special fees. At this time, charges that can be attached to property taxes are limited to, I think, the cleanup of messy premises and false alarms in homes. I've been asked again by a number of municipalities if there is a way to expand the offences for which non-payment could be charged against property taxes — specifically, those that might directly be property-related such as noisy dogs, noisy parties, that sort of thing.

They are very disruptive in communities and are causing bylaw officers right across this province huge headaches because they can't…. Without going to court and spending a lot of money, there is no way to have these things adjudicated or have that improper behaviour stopped, so it causes friction in neighbourhoods.

Certainly, the ability after, say, a 30-day period to serve notice on the owner that the fine would be charged against taxes would very likely go a long way

to stopping a lot of those abhorrent behaviours in neighbourhoods. I know bylaw officers across this province would very much like to see an expansion of that power, and I wonder if the minister has a thought on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, certainly these are always issues for municipalities. Invariably, municipalities and regional districts, just like the provincial government, have to try to find that appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities. In the case of some of the issues the member mentioned, these are ongoing challenges to the local government, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that due-process opportunities also exist for the property owners.

This is an issue which I certainly would be prepared to discuss with the Attorney General in the context of the development of bylaw courts in the province. Hopefully, that might be one mechanism whereby we could, without clogging up the regular court system, find some way to redress in an efficient and effective way some of these issues that are of important municipal concern but which are not necessarily of broader court concern.

L. Mayencourt: I was very impressed, actually, and quite astonished when you said there were about 55,000 low-income housing units available in the province. I'm also conscious of the fact that the minister also said there are about 165,000 British Columbians who probably spend more of their annual income than would be properly fair, so there's still a lot of work to be done. With the 55,000, are we, through your ministry, providing financial support to all those units?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the ongoing support to those 55,000 units, the support may come in different ways, and that would depend on some historical factors around the age of the units, the occupants and other issues, but in all of those 55,000 there is some measure of provincial support. It may come in the form of rent supplements. It may come in the form of 35-year operational subsidies with the non-profit, or it may come from the provincial SAFER program, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. It could come in any of those three ways. Obviously, the magnitude of the provincial support varies among those different units.

L. Mayencourt: Okay. So in some way the province is participating in providing or subsidizing those types of buildings. That's very impressive.

There was a little bit of a discussion earlier this morning, and I know you were trying to remain very non-partisan about the whole matter of social housing. I do agree that at the end of the day, it's not one minister or one government that delivers on social housing, but I am a politician and am a bit partisan, and I have been trying to figure out what our record is against a previous government in terms of developing and providing affordable housing, not just in my neighbourhood but in many others.

My question to the minister is: since you have become the minister responsible for B.C. Housing, how many units of affordable housing have been made available to the people who are on that wait-list?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll do my best to give the member a sense of that. I'm sure he captured the flavour of the debate this morning, which was, from my perspective, that it's the outcome that's important and not claiming credit for these things.

To give you a sense of what we're attempting to do, the best estimate we have of units built and occupied in the period roughly between 1993 and 2001 is 4,971. That's built and occupied during the period. After June 2001 there have been approximately 2,500 units that have completed construction or started and completed since June 2001, so about 2,500 there. About 500 remain under construction. About 300 are in development. We have an additional commitment, as you know, of 100 units at Woodwards, presumably in partnership with the city. That's a subtotal of 3,400 units.

We have in the past couple of months been working on some one-time partnerships with a variety of groups around the province. Sometimes these involve one-time grants. Sometimes it involves financing. Sometimes it involves rent subsidies, etc. There are about an additional 610 units there. As a couple of good examples, the Crescent Housing Society in south Surrey and the Kiwanis Manor in West Van are both very good projects.

Additionally, as the member probably knows, there are 3,500 units that will meet our commitment to Independent Living B.C. and the development of that program, which is aimed at the low-income, frail elderly and people with disabilities. The composition of those 3,500 units, as I noted earlier, is 1,500 new builds, about 1,000 conversions and 1,000 rent supps in the private market.

An example of rent supps in the private markets, one we announced just earlier this week — I guess it was Monday, March 31; time flies — is 128 rent supps under Independent Living B.C. for Vancouver Island. I think it was six communities involved in rent supplements — very well-received, I can assure the member, on Vancouver Island. Those are the first 128 rent supps committed to in the province under the Independent Living B.C. program.

When you total all that up, as we have, it is 7,510 units that have either been completed, are under construction, under development or committed to. That's a significant number. Again, if you're looking for the comparison, the number between '93 and '01 is about 4,971. That's reasonably promising in what we've been able to secure through innovative and strategic use of the dollars we have available.

Again, the dollars we have available are a pretty good indication of the kind of commitment we've taken. Unlike the Conservative government of Ontario

when they came to power some years ago, which stopped construction on a number of buildings that were underway, we didn't do that. We followed through on the commitments, and we've honoured the commitments we made. Despite the fiscal challenges we face, we've seen the budget move from $141 million in fiscal '02-03 to $153 million in fiscal '03-04, largely to take account of our commitments for Independent Living B.C.

L. Mayencourt: I don't have my calculator here, but it seems to me that from '93 to 2001, we were looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65 units a month or something along that line. It looks like you're heading for about 110 or 120 a month over the course of this term, and I think that's a significant number. I hope whoever will forgive me for being partisan, but I think that's a pretty good record to stand on. I'm very pleased to hear that.

I wonder if the minister could tell me: one thing I noticed, having been here for the last 20 months, is that it seems we've done a pretty broad job of looking at housing in general. For example, we revised the Strata Property Act. We went out and did some consultation around the Residential Tenancy Act, and that reflected a new act. We've done the same around co-ops. Most recently, I had the pleasure of hosting a forum in my community on long-term leases. That's another form of affordable housing that is an important part of the housing stock. I know we're just starting a consultation on that.

What's the grand plan? How far are we going through the housing market? Are there other areas where you will be doing consultation and perhaps making changes to the overall housing strategy for British Columbia, not just on the affordable side but actually on the market side as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a number of aspects to the overall housing policy that I think need to be noted. Some of them were noted earlier today in the context of the debate with the opposition leader. Both on the market side and the non-market side of the equation, there are very important issues at play, and I think we need to identify the critical elements that help us bridge the affordability gap and, in a sustained kind of way, try to deal with those.

Particularly on the market side of the equation but also to some extent on the non-market side, we need to look at appropriate deregulation to try to find ways to get barriers to affordable housing out of the way. Some of those involve working with municipalities to ensure that there aren't elements in their public policy that discourage or inhibit affordable housing in their communities.

But it's not exclusively there. Certainly, we talked earlier about tax reform and the critical need for the federal government to take a look at their capital gains rollover provisions in relation to market rental housing so that hopefully we can engage the private sector once again in building affordable market rental housing. They're not doing that now.

We're doing great in terms of the numbers around new condominium construction. We're doing great in new single-family residential construction. But market rental housing? No one's doing it, because the tax system is very discouraging of that end. That's going to be a big issue. I'll take forward at the federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers meeting later in April, because it is very, very important.

The deregulation on the non-market side is important as well. One of the first things our government did as a government was to repeal a particularly onerous and, I think, oppressive piece of legislation that the former NDP government had brought forward. I regret that I didn't remind the opposition leader about this. She invariably delights in hearing about it.

It is the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act, which the NDP brought in and which forced non-profits, anytime they wanted to make any kind of substantive change to their operation — put a new roof on, put in an activity centre, or whatever…. It demanded that a portion of the value of the property be returned to the government.

We repealed that, much to the delight on non-profits across the province. It's something that the former government claimed, when we did it, would have been something they would have done if they had had the time and inclination. But of course, like so many good things, they just didn't have the time or the inclination to do it when they actually had the opportunity to exercise that legislative authority. So that's important.

We have to, as we move forward, keep those two parts of the equation in balance. There are not enough resources in government, no matter how spendthrift we may be, to meet the affordability gap. We're not going to be able to do it alone. We're only going to be able to do it if we can get into the kinds of partnerships on the non-market side that we have.

That's where numerous levels of government, non-profits, private sector and others come together to build projects — enough projects that it makes a difference — and to find on the market side of the equation the right combination of deregulatory measures and tax reform measures so that people see value and opportunity in generating new market housing, and in particular market rental housing that is affordable to the group we talked about. That was the roughly 160,000 or 170,000 people who were expending a disproportionate part of their income in securing housing.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you very much for reminding me of the housing issue around the non-profit agencies that had to turn over a part of their assets and therefore encumber themselves. It was a real big problem for people like the Affordable Housing network and the B.C. Housing Foundation. That was indeed something I heard, and I know the member for Okanagan-Vernon was also hearing quite a bit about

that. That was an important way of supporting the people we want as partners in helping us achieve these goals. As the minister says: "I don't think any government by itself can ever close that gap of 165,000 families in the province that are needing support."

The issue of life leases and long-term leases has been…. I mentioned it just briefly a moment ago. When I first got elected, one of the things I did was go to an annual general meeting at a leasehold building. Boy, did they have a lot of problems that they raised for me. It seemed to me the real issue was that they didn't fit under the Residential Tenancy Act, because they owned of a piece of the building or had pre-paid their rent on that part of the building. They didn't fit under the Strata Property Act, because they didn't own the common areas, and they didn't under the Real Estate Act because of…. And so on and so forth.

Those people have expressed to me — first with that one group at 1075 Comox, but most recently at a meeting I hosted in my constituency — that there are absolutely hundreds and hundreds of these buildings around the province and that there doesn't seem to be a kind of partnership between the people that live in those buildings and the people that run them or, at least, not a respectful kind of partnership.

What seems to be the issue is that those tenants and sort-of owners don't really have a way of communicating and receiving communication from the head leaseholder, if you will. I just want to say that I expected I'd have five or ten people come to this, and I had 70 people that pretty much gave me about five to seven different issues that were really, really important and did seem unjust.

Can the minister please tell me what we're doing to do to try to address the concerns of those individuals? How can they participate in talking to us? Undoubtedly, there are leaseholders that would like to see this problem solved as well. Can you give me some status on that and what we will be talking to those people about?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a very important question that the member raises around the life leases or long-term lease housing. It's an unusual form of tenure and a relatively new form of tenure, and it is being marketed in large measure to seniors. There are some interesting and difficult areas of consideration with respect to that form of tenure.

The member will be pleased, I think, to know that in partnership with the staff from the Ministry of Finance, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and our ministry, Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, we'll be holding consultations in the spring of 2003 with respect to some of the issues that flow from this new form of tenure.

Sessions are going to be held in Victoria, in Kamloops and in two lower mainland locations that will be determined soon. Consultations will be by invitation and will involve owners of life leases and long-term leases, service clubs currently involved in life-lease projects, developers and seniors organizations. The response from these consultations and the discussion document will be considered and a recommendation put forward to cabinet concerning mechanisms for providing some consumer protection for life leases. Pretty much the nub of the issue is: how do we bring about some consumer protection to this new form of tenure we call a life lease?

Among the consumer protection issues that will be considered at the sessions are protection of the parties on termination of a lease — for example, how and when entrance or prepayment fees are refunded. The sessions will look at issues like disclosure, deposit security, governance, monthly maintenance fees, reserve funds, dispute resolution, retention of resale value, security of tenure and registration of life-lease agreements on title. Finally, residential leases on first nation reserve lands are not addressed in this consultation, as they fall within federal jurisdiction.

L. Mayencourt: I am pleased to hear that the consultation will be going on. Those are really the issues brought forward in this community meeting I had recently. As long as we can get some genuine dialogue going on, I think there's some room for good compromise.

I see life leases and long-term leases as another valuable kind of product on the market that makes housing more affordable for people. You're quite right that a lot of people who buy into those life leases and long-term leases are the elderly, and they're looking for a way to secure a place to be for the remainder of their lives. This gets them into the market for about 25 percent less, in most cases, than, say, a strata unit. It's an important part of the housing market out there, so I would really encourage us to work to keep it as an option that is secure and where there is some consumer protection around it.

I recall that you had the B.C. Housing people here, and you wanted to have some of the B.C. Housing stuff out of the way before too long. I want to go back to B.C. Housing for a minute, to the issue raised by the member for Vancouver-Hastings with respect to the leaky-condo issue. I know that in my neighbourhood, I've had a couple of those that were owned by B.C. Housing. Sure enough, we went in there and, quite rightly, repaired them. Those are a couple of the 50 buildings you've mentioned that have been repaired.

You said that overall, there are about 250 buildings that may have some form of structural problem or water problem with them and that the potential cost of fixing those could be as high as $100 million. I wonder, given that you have that $100 million bill coming down the track, how that might impact your budget of $153 million this year, and how might it play out in the next few years.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to review some of the more salient features of the discussion earlier today, the units in question — correct — are around 250 units. These were constructed between '83 and '97, by and large. In most of the instances, because of the time period involved, the federal government is also cost-sharing on the repairs, because they were also partnering in the construction at the time.

There is enormous variation across those 250, from minimal repairs to more extensive repairs in some cases, so it's difficult to say with precision for any particular building what the cost is going to be. There's going to be variation across the stream. B.C. Housing does have a multi-year repair plan to deal with the repair of the buildings. The plan should be completed around 2010. The object is to retrofit or repair the worst buildings first and then try to get through all the repairs. Obviously, we want to keep people in their buildings and have them in a healthy circumstance.

The combination of all of that, including, particularly and most importantly, the federal participation in the cost-sharing…. We think that particularly with some cost-recovery on some of the writs that have been filed or some of the actions that have been launched, this is all manageable within the scope of the budget.

L. Mayencourt: The 50 writs that have been put forward. Those are for 50 different buildings, I would assume. Is B.C. Housing still doing business with people we are suing? In other words, are we using the same contractors, engineers and architects, or have we moved on to other people?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll do my best to answer this. Again, there's no simple answer to the question the member poses.

First of all, it should be noted that in terms of new construction underway, B.C. Housing doesn't engage them. The non-profit owner of the property engages them. There are certainly some cases where architects or engineers or contractors who were involved in some of the now leaky social housing buildings and who may be named in the actions may well still be in the business. We know some of them are. There are some, as well, who have gone out of business or moved out of the province or whatever.

The difference, I guess, between the period in question — '83 to '97 — and today is that we do have licensing and warranties in place today that we have confidence in, and we believe the interests of the homeowners and taxpayers are being protected as effectively as we can. That having been said, you know, no one is having a whole lot of fun around this particular file, and we are looking forward to as reasonable a resolution of it as we can.

L. Mayencourt: I appreciate that. I also am aware there have been changes to the Building Code to deal with the building envelope failure. That will also help, I'm certain.

You had mentioned that in this budget, you are going to spend about a million or a million and a half on legal fees for that. That's for the 50 suits currently out there, and presumably, as you advance to the other buildings, that may grow as well. Do you have to fix the buildings before you can sue these folks? Do you have to actually physically repair them and find out how much it costs before you go back in and ask them to help you out with the payment on it?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'll try to give the member the best answer I can in respect to this issue. When damage or cause is identified in respect to a particular building, the first thing that is attempted long before any legal action is contemplated is to work with the builder, the architect or the engineer, as the case may be, to negotiate a solution or a settlement in respect to the outstanding issues related to that particular building.

If those attempts to negotiate are unsuccessful, B.C. Housing would move on at that point to an evaluation on a business-case basis of whether to proceed. In every case, we would secure third-party legal and technical advice with respect to the particular building and its circumstances. When it's clear we should proceed, based on the advice secured, we have to look at issues like limitation periods. We have to look at, I guess, all the things that lawyers look at in these instances.

Just to clarify the point, as well, we certainly don't contemplate anything like 250 suits. Some of them will be on the minimal end of the scale, and no legal action will be necessary. In some of the cases, there will be early resolution through negotiation of the issues with the responsible parties involved, and in some cases there will be a grouping of buildings in terms of a particular suit. There will likely, over time, be more than 50, but there certainly will not be 250 suits involved here.

L. Mayencourt: Now I'd just like to go on to a different area, and that is on the issue of some specific projects, actually. I think you were here when I was speaking to the Minister of State for Women's Equality, and we talked about the issue of women who were sexually exploited working in the sex trade. We had this wonderful conference and get-together and we talked a lot about ways that we could be helping that community to recover to have successful lives.

Of course, one of the key points that came up was the issue of housing for those women — and not just for themselves. Oftentimes, they have small children. I know we have started a project. Your ministry, I think, the Solicitor General, MHR and others are all involved in a project that involves Sheway and the YWCA at Crabtree Corner, and we're building a new facility on East Hastings that will provide 12 housing units for women who are members of Sheway.

Just for a little bit of background, Sheway is an organization that helps women who are dealing with

alcohol substance abuse and are usually quite impoverished. Some of them are working in the sex trade. And this is a wonderful thing: we have put a daycare centre in that helps them to look after their kids. We've provided an area for support services to occur for those women in terms of alcohol and drug counselling, family services and those kinds of things, and that's really great. For those who are in the program, we've also got these 12 units of housing, and it's great as a first stage.

When I was asking the Minister of State for Women's Equality about that particular project and about that conference we attended, we brought up the issue of second-stage housing. I visited one at the B.C. Housing Foundation, and I think it's got 45 suites or something. It was set up for women who were chronically unemployed. They were single, and they had kids. They were having real problems, and they brought them in there.

A hundred percent of the 42 families that moved in there, really, were on income assistance and were dealing with all sorts of crises and what have you. In that particular project over the course of four years, they got 85 percent of the women that were living there either in jobs or in school. They were creating real opportunities in life.

I just wonder: have we got some plan within the overall plan for B.C. Housing over the next few years to put some resources toward that second-stage housing, so women can graduate out of the Sheway program into something like the B.C. Housing Foundation program and perhaps even beyond that? Is there some opportunity for that to occur?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his important question. The issue of providing a kind of continuum of housing for people who want to move on from the sex trade or addictions, for example, or for people who, perhaps, have their mental illness issues diagnosed and treated, to allow them to move on to a more stable and secure life…. For a range of people, this is a very important progression that needs to be made.

I think the government does have a role, first of all, in identifying and providing the necessary supports, particularly on the housing side, for people as they progress toward that stable, secure life I think we all seek in this province. We work with the federal government, particularly around the SCPI program, and as you know, that has just recently been renewed. That will see some new federal dollars brought in, which both my budget and the Minister of Human Resources will also be partnering there. We'll be working out some new partnerships to address the need for stabilization, emergency shelter and so on.

From there, we need to have opportunities for them to move on, as the member noted, to second-stage housing. There are some real good examples of that around. The project which we opened — I don't know, perhaps it's about a year ago now — at 5th and Yukon is an example of both a shelter and second-stage housing. As well, in addition to the Sheway project, which will open in November 2003, there are also another 20 units out in Langley for second-stage housing for single moms and kids that we think is going to be an important addition here.

We're always looking at partnerships, which typically will involve the federal government and will also involve community non-profit organizations like the St. James Social Services. They're a good example of a group that we can work with to put together partnerships to ensure that the continuum of housing needs is met as people try to move on from the difficult social circumstances that have confronted them in the past.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, and when you said St. James, I recall this wonderful project they've just started with B.C. Housing. That's a good reminder for me, because that's a very important partnership.

Throughout your comments, you've been talking about the partnerships you've been developing with the city of Vancouver, non-profit agencies, other community groups and, of course, the province and the feds, and I really salute you on doing that. I think that has been a real strength. It's making a difference.

Has there ever been a study or anything that tells us what the appropriate mix of social housing is to market housing? I know that in the city of Vancouver, in all of the developments that are in my neighbourhood, we've targeted somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 percent non-market and 85 percent market. I don't know how that 85 percent breaks down into condos and houses and so on. Is there a magic number?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a relatively complex matter here. There have been a range of studies done over time in this country and in the United States in relation to this important matter. Sometimes the studies will look at what's the appropriate mix within a building, and sometimes it will look at what is the appropriate mix within a neighbourhood. The city of Vancouver, for example, tries to have a mix of about 20-80 percent in terms of non-market and market housing in their neighbourhoods.

It's been our view that issues around the appropriate mix within a neighbourhood are something for which we will depend on the best advice, knowledge and wisdom of local governments in trying to address. We typically would respond to the need that they express rather than us having some received wisdom that we can bestow on them.

I guess that's a way of saying we'll work with local governments on this, being mindful that there probably is a healthy mix there somewhere around 15-85 or 20-80. We certainly are not going to be prescriptive about that. We'll respond to partnering opportunities based on the value that we see as flowing to the public or to a particular client group in any partnering proposal.

L. Mayencourt: Minister, thank you for the answer to that. Yes, I'm mindful of the fact that sometimes the 80-20 or the 85-15 may not work in some neighbour-

hoods, particularly in the downtown east side, where we're trying to find just some good, clean housing stock for people who are living down there. Sometimes we hit higher percentages. I was just wondering if there were some reason for a particular city picking a number like that, but I guess it's really up to them.

The other question I have on housing, and this is for B.C. Housing, is: do we have a ratio of how many portable or transferable housing subsidies we grant — in other words, giving someone a couple of hundred dollars a month so that they could go somewhere and rent an apartment in a non–low-income housing project? Do we have a ratio of the number of portable subsidies to actual facilities either that we've built or some non-profit society has built?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, hon. Chair, the answer is that about 15,000 of the 55,000 are, I guess, essentially portable kinds of rent supplements. Of those 15,000, 12,000 or 22 percent of the overall total are in the SAFER program, and about 3,200 or around 6 percent of the overall total are tenants in the private rental market who are receiving a rent supplement of some sort.

L. Mayencourt: I raise that because one of the very popular ones I've known about through Wings Housing Society and…. I'm trying to remember the name of the agency right now. I guess I've forgotten it. That's too bad. But there are a few agencies in the West End that provide those portable subsidies.

Just speaking to the people that receive those subsidies, they find it…. You know, not everybody wants to be in a housing unit that is identified as low-income housing. We've done a pretty good job of blending those into the community, but there are people who do really appreciate the ability to move on with their lives and move to a neighbourhood they like and be able to have that portable housing subsidy.

I wouldn't doubt that there are probably some savings if we're looking at trying to fix a building that has a leaky condo problem or whatever…. Well, we wouldn't have that if we had them in a regular rental unit, or what have you.

Before I close off, I want to just say to the minister that the work that he, through B.C. Housing, has undertaken in Mole Hill — which I think is 100 units of affordable housing in a historic old neighbourhood in my riding — and adjacent to that, the Dr. Peter Centre, is moving along pretty darn good and has turned out very well. There are a lot of really happy families and singles and people with long-term disabilities that really appreciate that kind of a project happening. I want to salute you for that.

I also want to mention the MCC Housing, which I attended the opening of just recently — their new place on Granville Street — as well as the Coast Foundation. Tomorrow, I think, we're going to be together to do the groudbreaking of Dunsmuir House, which is the Salvation Army project. Those are all just terrific projects.

I think this is going to conclude my questions to the minister on B.C. Housing. I do want to say — because Shane is here from B.C. Housing, and others may be listening — that you guys have done a terrific job on the B.C. Housing side of things and that you're making a terrific difference for a lot of people in the world. I know you've got 10,000 people waiting on the list, but I also know that we put a few thousand of them into good, clean affordable housing in the last year. That's really important work, so I thank you for that.

Madam Chair, the remainder of my questions are on another topic within that, so I'm just going to yield to other members who have questions on B.C. Housing.

J. Bray: Certainly, the member for Vancouver-Burrard has canvassed several of my issues, now and for several years to come, probably. I do want to thank the minister for some of the answers, because they are very pertinent to my riding in Victoria, where we have a lot of housing issues both from the affordability side and just in general. I appreciated the debate that was going on because I got some excellent information for me.

I'd just like start out first by acknowledging the service plan of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Having come from the public service before my election, I know that these documents actually are not just words on a page. A lot of work goes into them. They are very useful documents for the staff who work for ministries. They are very useful for the public to get a sense of direction and vision. The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has done an excellent service plan. I want to acknowledge the obvious hard work of staff, because it is an excellent document and is going to be the basis of many of my questions.

I will confine them, at this point, to the housing issues. The first area I want to talk about is that the service plan acknowledges the importance of housing and the industry. I notice that in the housing and building section, there is a housing starts chart that shows there is an increase in housing starts, really starting from 2000 but accelerating in 2001. The forecasting from CMHC shows continued strong growth.

I'm wondering if the minister can start off by explaining, in terms of the economic impacts on the province and on communities, the importance of the housing industry to the strength of communities economically and socially?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to give a kind of high-level response to the member's question and also provide some statistics that might underline the importance of housing.

Obviously, food, clothing and shelter are the three essentials of life. Obviously, housing is the form of shelter which most of us enjoy, and it's a continuing challenge to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to be safely and securely housed, for them and their

families. The housing industry is also one that is a very important employer in the province. Whether it's on new construction or the renovation industry, there are a lot of people who are employed there. I have a little bit more information with respect to that.

Overall, the renovation industry alone had a value of some $4 billion in the last year. It's very substantial. All of the home centres and hardware stores around the province provide an enormous boost to the economy as well. They're a very large part of the economy. In fact, 3 percent of the GDP in the province is related to the construction sector.

In the residential construction sector alone — and this is giving an indication of how things are going — if you look at pretty much any graph, starting in 2001, you see a rise in that. We hit a low in 2000, in fact, and it bounced back a little bit in 2001 and has continued to rise in 2002-03 to now. Well over 20,000 housing starts are anticipated for 2003.

In 2002, the January to September period, the value of residential building permits in B.C. totalled $2.8 billion, representing 68 percent of the total value of all building permits in the province, combining residential and non-residential. The value of residential building permits in 2002 was 38 percent higher compared to the previous year, and the year-over-year increase was similar to Alberta, at 41 percent, and higher than Ontario, at 26 percent. There were 123,200 people employed in the construction industry overall during the third quarter of 2002, up 5.7 percent over the previous years. Those stats come from B.C. Stats.

Obviously, housing is important both as one of the principal factors in determining the quality of life that people enjoy in British Columbia and also as one of the principal determinants of economic growth in the province. People will often say that housing starts lead the recovery. I think that has been true in British Columbia, and we look forward to housing starts continuing to lead the economic recovery in this province.

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that answer. Certainly, that's good news. In the Victoria area, the capital regional area, we've seen strong growth, and I'm pleased to see that's reflected provincewide.

I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard canvassed some of the strategies the ministry and the minister are employing, so I don't want to go over those, but I'm wondering if I can just…. In the service plan, it acknowledges that one of the important factors of strong housing starts and the whole issue of permits being issued is that it shows, as the minister mentioned, good signs of recovery.

It also shows great confidence in the economy when people are willing to make probably the largest purchase of their lives when they actually buy residential housing, be it a condominium, be it a single-family dwelling. That certainly is good news, and the forecasts show that that confidence is growing.

In Victoria we have a vacancy problem with respect to rental housing. For much of last year it actually ran at about 0.5 of 1 percent, half of 1 percent. We are seeing that vacancy is starting to grow. Is it is a spinoff, not a strategy but a spinoff, that when you have a large amount of residential construction — new families moving in and buying their first homes — that actually does to some extent help to free up some of the existing stock in rental as people make the transition from rental into purchased housing?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are some important factors at work here in relation to the availability of market rental housing in greater Victoria or elsewhere in British Columbia. Again, we canvassed some of that earlier, but I do want to say this. I had the opportunity last night to be the guest speaker at the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. One of the things they talked about in the chat I was having prior to and during dinner was about the program they had just put on for new homebuyers. These are largely young people, often newly married, into their professions and looking for the opportunity to get into the homebuying market. They may be looking at condominiums. They may be looking at single family residential or duplexes or whatever.

The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association had by far the largest number of potential new homebuyers out at their program just a few days ago than they've ever had before. These young people are confident about the economy. They're confident about the direction our government is taking the province in. They're looking forward to making an investment for themselves and their families for the future. That's great to see.

We are aided in that, certainly, by the relatively low interest rates we are enjoying right now, and everyone is hoping those low interest rates continue. The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association had a couple of economists come to the event to answer questions around interest rates, and the two economists managed to generate four different predictions about what direction the interest rates would go in.

Hon. G. Abbott: They may all be wrong. Who knows? Hopefully, interest rates will remain low. That is a very important part of housing recovery.

As well, there are other factors involved in the availability of market rental housing. Whenever a new home is built, regardless of whether it's in the form of a condominium that can be rented or in the form of new market housing, whether single family or otherwise, it does open up market rental opportunities.

All those factors seem to be working in greater Victoria to marginally be improving the availability. I think it's probably still a little bit lower than we would desire, optimally, but hopefully, some of the changes we're making will improve the situation.

J. Bray: Thank you to the minister for that. One of the issues I like to point out with that, and I agree with

the minister that it's certainly not the whole answer…. In fact, by showing strong economic activity and private sector involvement, that is one of the spinoffs. It does help the rental market and does free up some of the existing stock for individuals.

I'm wondering, to that end, if we can move to the actual discussion of the existing stock. Certainly, in Victoria if one were to drive around this beautiful city, one of things people will notice is that there is a great deal of rental housing. In my riding, rental housing makes up approximately 62 percent of all available housing. Many of those buildings are the typical three-rise, four-rise that were built 30, 40 and even, to some extent, 50 years ago. There is a concern in the community that those buildings are, in fact, starting to get old. They are requiring, certainly, major capital investment to extend their lives, and as the minister alluded to in an earlier debate, there's not a lot of new stock being built.

I'm wondering if the minister could provide us with some information on possible strategies the ministry is exploring with respect to how to encourage owners to reinvest in their existing stock — to extend its life and make sure it doesn't just fall apart and, ultimately, become unusable.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a couple of important pieces here — at least a couple of important pieces — as I discussed at some length earlier, but I'll briefly summarize now. I think it is really important that the federal government reform their tax structure so they can encourage people to invest, or reinvest, in affordable market rental housing in British Columbia and across Canada. With some of the tax changes they made in relation to capital gains rollover close to 30 years ago now, we haven't seen the kind of investment and reinvestment in market rental housing that there needs to be.

I know the principal aim that I'm going to take forward to the upcoming federal-provincial-territorial housing ministers' meeting is to try to get some federal recognition about this concern. We share that with the provinces, at least, of Ontario and Alberta. They're going to be pushing the federal government hard on the issue as well. I think that's an important part of it. I think the member's comment about some of the aging rental housing stock is important, so perhaps some federal tax changes would help there.

We're also prepared to work with non-profits and the private sector and so on, to talk about ways in which we can use some federal dollars, and, perhaps, minimally, some provincial dollars to help move forward on retrofit and recovery of some of the more decrepit kinds of market rental. That's a piece that's very much in progress.

J. Bray: I'm very encouraged to hear that he'll be taking the issue of taxation forward with our federal counterparts, because, certainly in Victoria — which has had traditionally low vacancy and not a lot of rental construction — that's an important piece. I know that is going to be welcome news for many in my community.

Also, on the offer to work with some of the non-profits, we have some excellent non-profits and people who work here in the capital region, and I know they'll welcome the opportunity to work with the minister and his staff on some innovative ideas. I think there are some already that are underway. We've shown a lot of innovation here in Victoria, so I welcome that as well.

Just a couple more questions on the housing front. I note in the estimates that the housing and building budget is $147,600,000, approximately. I'm just wondering if the minister can let us know how that compares to other jurisdictions across Canada with respect to provincial participation in direct housing such as that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Of the figure the member mentioned — $147 million — about $140 million of that is targeted to B.C. Housing and their programs. B.C. certainly has been a leader in the area of affordable housing across Canada. We were the first jurisdiction to sign the affordable housing agreement with the federal government. Of course, we've been working in the range of ways we've been discussing previously to try to meet the affordability gap both on the non-market side and on the market side.

It's difficult to really do a valid comparison of provinces, because every province has a different set of housing challenges. Manitoba, for example, has plenty of housing stock, but a lot of it needs to be repaired and retrofitted because it's inadequate. They have a different kind of complexion to their housing program than we have in British Columbia. Plus, the cost of an existing unit in Manitoba may be many times lower than what one would pay in Vancouver or Victoria.

It's kind of dangerous to compare, because there are a lot of sort of apples-and-oranges comparisons you can make. Generally speaking, though, I think the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have probably been the national leaders in terms of that investment in new non-market housing.

J. Bray: Actually, I have two more questions. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the complexity of the analysis, so I appreciate the answer the minister gave.

Sometime back we had a presentation from Dr. Clyde Hertzman, who is doing a lot of work with respect to early childhood development and doing mapping of cities and neighbourhoods with respect to identifying children at risk with a variety of things: low educational attainment, low gestational birth weights and those types of issues. He also broke down some very significant factors that impact on early childhood development.

One of the interesting things he talked about was the fact that the neighbourhood around a family is critical, and the interaction between the family and that neighbourhood is critical. One of the examples that Dr.

Hertzman provided was the housing that has gone up in False Creek over the last 20 years that really did make sure there was a mix of social housing surrounded by regular market housing.

The effect of that, from his research, showed that the risk factors were reduced to those families, even though they may have been on income assistance and even though their parents may have had low educational attainment rates — those types of factors. The neighbourhood and the mix of that neighbourhood actually had a significant impact on the early childhood development of the children born in those families.

I know that the minister and the member for Vancouver-Burrard talked about this before. I'm just wondering whether or not B.C. Housing, when it goes forward with housing projects, does look at that with respect to avoiding the large housing projects over in one sector that isolate members of the community from the larger community to some extent and looks for some form of mix to ensure that, in fact, the integration for families in the larger community is as strong as it possibly can be to try and improve those outcomes for families.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's fair to say, in response to the member's questions, that we do look at balanced communities and at trying to achieve balanced communities. That part of the mix, both within buildings and within neighbourhoods, of non-market and market housing is important.

That having been said, that's just one of a range of factors we would look at in terms of a particular project proposal. We'd also look at the amenities in the neighbourhood — recreation centres, playgrounds and that kind of thing that might be there — as a complement to the proposed development. We'd look at the schools. Are there schools adjacent to the proposed area? Shopping? Transit? All of these things are important elements in the consideration.

Again, not to revisit the point particularly, but obviously, we're looking in the model of partnership for new developments. We're looking for commitment from the local government. We'd want to see that both in terms of their support for the proposal and also in some tangible evidence from them, perhaps in the form of a DCC waiver or perhaps in the form of land or an outright grant — whatever they felt was appropriate. But we do like to have those multilevel partnerships to ensure that every tax dollar we expend provincially gets the maximum benefit in communities.

J. Bray: I appreciate the minister's response and, really, recognition of the comprehensive analysis that goes into projects. I think we want to make sure the communities benefit, the families benefit and the local neighbourhoods benefit.

My final question is — others have alluded to it, and the debate this morning certainly was interesting — with respect to some of the partisan issues that get around housing and affordable housing. It does become a very emotional issue. Certainly, I have a sense that there has actually been a lot done in the Victoria area with respect to providing not just housing but some very progressive housing, meeting the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society to ensure their needs are met.

I'm wondering if the minister can just provide me an update as to what has been accomplished in Victoria since 2001 with respect to housing. Are there any particular client groups that have been identified, and how many units does that represent?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can provide the member with an answer to that question. This is post–June 2001. Since then, completed in greater Victoria, 222 units in eight projects; under construction, another 71 units in two projects; under development, 52 units in another two projects; and Independent Living B.C., 42 units in two projects. That's 387 units since June 2001. The overall breakdown of those 387 units: 213 of them are housing dedicated to seniors, particularly frail elderly; 101 dedicated to low-income families; and 73 units for special needs and homeless.

R. Stewart: I have some questions for HPO related to B.C. Housing and some other questions that aren't part of the housing side, on the safety system side. I assume we're skipping those today. But, specifically, I guess I'll deal with HPO and then B.C. Housing, in that order.

On HPO I'm concerned, again, about where we are with the owner-builder, with the homeowner protection office and the licensing of builders, and perhaps the way in which owner-builders are being dealt with in the regulation of the residential construction industry on the single-family side.

I wonder if the minister could tell me: where are we with owner-builders? What kinds of issues are we running into with the owner-builders, and are there actually barriers right now to the owner who wants to build his own home on his own property? Secondly, are the barriers sufficient enough for those who tend to try to circumvent the system?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of owner-builder is an important question and one that deserves some attention. We do support the right of individuals to build their own homes, and there's no question that should remain a right of individuals. However, the owner-builder exemption should not and cannot be used to avoid the licensing and warranty requirements of the act.

The vast majority of builders are those who build roughly five to ten homes per year. These smaller builders, the five-to-ten, can't compete with those who occasionally, at least, abuse the owner-builder exemption. The exemption is appropriate where it is applicable. Where it is being used incorrectly, it obviously presents a challenge to the homeowner protection office to ensure it is not being abused.

If we look at a comparison between 1999 and 2002 of single-detached homes with warranty insurance

versus owner-built homes, we see an increasing proportion every year of homes that are being built with warranty insurance by a licensed builder. The proportion of owner-builders has correspondingly been reduced.

For a little bit of detail around the owner-builder, there have been 2,680 owner-builder exemptions issued in the 2002 calendar year and 8,535 single-detached dwellings registered in the same period. This means that roughly 24 percent of all detached dwellings constructed in 2002 were built by owner-builders and are not covered by the 2-5-10 home warranty insurance.

P. Sahota: I want to thank my colleague, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, for yielding the floor to me.

I want to canvass the minister regarding multiculturalism and anti-racism policies, not just on behalf of me but also on behalf of a member who could not be here, Oak Bay–Gordon Head. She's in Treasury Board. Both of us have great interest in this issue. I know the minister appointed a steering committee; I believe it was last year. I was wondering if that committee had reported out.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. There was a task force appointed, and they have been working on a blueprint for change for some months now. That has now been embodied in a document on future directions in multiculturalism. Staff expect that I will be in receipt of the document in about two weeks. I'll be giving it due diligence and discussion with staff, and we expect to release the document about four weeks after that.

P. Sahota: Could the minister share with us his vision and his ministry's vision of multiculturalism and where he sees the policy in terms of what the ministry is doing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The principle shift, I would say, has been to try to enjoy a new synergy between the areas of multiculturalism, immigration and anti-racism policies and programs. Indeed, in the reorganization of ministries after the May 2001 elections, that was the important shift we made, and I think we are enjoying the benefits of the synergies of having those areas come into one area of focus.

In terms of the linkages, immigration settlement is obviously a very important element in ensuring that new Canadians or new immigrants to Canada feel comfortable in the communities in which they live. Obviously, multiculturalism is a part of having that comfort for the new residents.

We're also working in the ministry — in that consolidated immigration, multiculturalism and anti-racism area — on public education as a tool to ensure that multiculturalism is celebrated in all communities across the province. There's a good deal of work that has been done on anti-racism, and we have been partnering with different communities around the province to try to address where problems in that respect occur.

We're also pursing a new immigration agreement with the federal government. I think I'm meeting with Minister Coderre in the near future to talk about that. We have identified some issues in the current agreement, and we are hoping those will be reconciled. The issue of dollars is always a challenging one in this area, and we're hoping for the resolution of some of those issues in the new immigration agreement.

P. Sahota: In terms of federal funding, I understand we get about 47 percent from the federal government. Can the minister explain what is it being used for? Where does it go and how does it get allocated in terms of regions across the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: The federal government contributes about $37 million a year to immigration settlement funding. The great majority of those dollars go to community English-as-a-second-language training. A much smaller amount goes to community support programs.

P. Sahota: I'm sure the minister knows that issues such as anti-racism and multiculturalism are really cross-ministry. All aspects of government are in some ways responsible for this. I'm wondering if the minister has raised this particular issue with the Minister of Education, where it also affects young people, especially in schools, etc.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. This is an issue that is of concern both to the Minister of Education as well as to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. The Minister of Education and I have met with ESL providers and representatives of school boards and so on, and we are working on a strategic plan to ensure that we can, in fact, effectively meet the needs of both the new immigrant kids and the new immigrant adults to British Columbia.

P. Sahota: My final question has to do with funding. In terms of the security of funding for multiculturalism, could the minister explain if the funding is secure for the next few years?

Hon. G. Abbott: The funding is secure in the three-year plan. One of the advantages to being a part of a large ministry now — I guess around $650 to $660 million — is that we, through good management across the ministry, can protect funding in some of the smaller areas, expenditure-wise, in the ministry. We're certainly confident moving forward that we're going to have the resources that are needed to undertake the programs I described earlier to the member.

R. Stewart: So, back to the issue of owner-builders, if we could. What is the current restriction for owner-builders to be able to build a home under the regulations? What limits or restrictions are there on what qualifies them to do that?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, individuals are permitted under the Homeowner Protection Act to build a detached, self-contained dwelling unit for their personal use without being subject to licensing or warranty insurance requirements, but not more than one home every 18 months.

R. Stewart: I remember extensive discussions about the 18-month number. I wonder if there are plans or any discussions about the possibility of changing that to reflect perhaps the more realistic expectation that one's dream home need not change every 18 months.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of background to answering the member's question, if we look retrospectively at this particular issue, in the year 2000 about 40 percent of the single-detached homes built in British Columbia were owner-built homes and are exempt from the process. That is now about 24 percent. There has been a reduction in the proportion that is owner-built in relation to warranty and licence to build.

The issue, though, is an interesting and potentially thorny one, broadly speaking. I'm not sure that in any given group one would find a consensus around whether the regulations ought to be further tightened up. There will, in the fullness of time, be a new board appointed to lead the homeowner protection office, and it may well be that this, on request, might be one of the areas they would look at.

R. Stewart: This might not be fair without notice, but I wonder if there is an indication of the number of people who are repeat owner-builders using the 18 months or perhaps 24 months, given a period of construction. Is there some indication that HPO has as to how many people get around to building a second or third owner-built home under the regulations?

Hon. G. Abbott: We haven't been at this long enough to have firm statistics around it. Anecdotally, it would appear there is increasing regularity in those who are looking at the 18-month period as a kind of threshold for another request. It is likely going to continue to be an issue and is likely to be a thorny issue. I'm sure we will have to rely on the wisdom of the incoming board in establishing potentially new direction on this. It is a tough one. It is probably one of the most difficult aspects of the operation of the homeowner protection office.

R. Stewart: I raise the issue not only because of the ability of an unscrupulous builder or quasi-builder to circumvent the regulations that provide for a measure of consumer protection by doing the 18-month trick or by registering properties in various family-member names and getting around it that way. I raise it also because we know that the more residential construction we push to non-commercial, non-merchant builders, the more the underground economy thrives.

Therefore, purely from a mercenary point of view as we look at the kinds of government programs we can afford as a government and the tax dollars we get back from the residential construction industry, which are significant, some of that may well be lost, certainly the GST portion. There are also personal income taxes and various other taxes that can be lost if we have a system that tends to provide some incentive to be in the underground economy or disincentive to be a registered builder and if we permit that incentive or disincentive to be perpetuated. So I raise that concern.

I know there were discussions about the possibility that the owner-builder nature of the home, or rather the uninsured, unwarranted nature of the home, be registered on title and on various other measures in order to both protect the consumer and provide a measure of limiting the benefit of circumventing the regulations. I recognize that the minister has said, on a couple of these questions, "Let's wait for the board," so I won't pose that as a question but only as a comment that I'm concerned about this issue.

I recognize the value of the consumer protection to the extent that the regulations do provide consumer protection. I hope we can rationally look at this issue and make sure that the people who are building their own homes for their own use are people who indeed are building their own homes for their own use and that the regulations support that initiative and we don't end up with a system rewarding the lawbreaker by allowing them to circumvent a regulation that exists for everybody else.

I recognize that there is a divergent opinion on whether HPO is a good idea, on whether the regulation of the residential sector is a good idea in the way that it is done. Whether you support it or not, I suspect we ought to enforce it fully or not at all. At least, that would be my perspective on that.

Is HPO involved at all in the discussions related to the safety systems initiatives that are being pursued now, or were they involved in the development of the safety systems?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, let me say in respect to the member's observations around the owner-builder that I think the observations and concerns raised by the member are fair and legitimate. Certainly, they are the kind of observations that will probably will cry out increasingly for our attention as we move forward.

On the member's question re the involvement of HPO in the safety systems review, no, they weren't participants.

R. Stewart: Fair enough. Then I'll reserve my questions related to the safety system side of the ministry for a time when these folks aren't dragged in from Vancouver.

Dealing with social housing, then, I had a question that is background to some other questions I want to ask. I wonder if the minister could provide me with some numbers for the cost of housing subsidies for the

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, these numbers represent the provincial contribution. Typically, the lion's share is B.C. Housing subsidy agreements, but there are also contributions from other ministries to B.C. Housing — for example, the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health for special purpose housing. The numbers are: 2000-01, $112 million; '01-02, $140 million; '02-03, $142 million; '03-04, $153 million. Those numbers represent the provincial contribution to the operation of social housing. There are, of course, in addition to that, revenues generated from rents, etc., federal contributions, and so on.

R. Stewart: The increase from 2000-01 to 2001-02 is significant in percentage terms. Well, it's enormous in percentage terms. Were there similar increases in the years leading up to that? I don't need the exact numbers, but were they in the same scale of increase for perhaps the two or three years leading up to that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The trend line has certainly been upward across the board, but the increase the member alluded to is the most dramatic. I'll go back to '97-98, when it was $89 million; then '98-99, $96 million; 1999-2000, $98 million; and then 2000-01, $112 million.

R. Stewart: We've heard some discussions that the commitment to social housing subsidies is somehow weakened. To be blunt, I guess my concern is that the manner in which we were moving in 1999-2000, 2000-01 was unsustainable. There were some unsustainable increases. I wonder if the minister could comment on the sustainability of the increases in subsidization costs as we closed the decade of the nineties and moved into the new millennium.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a very good one. On my assuming responsibility for housing in the province, I had an expenditure line that would, over two or three years from the time we took office, have seen us move to $172 million in annual expenditure for social housing, non-market housing. That was clearly not a sustainable expenditure line in the fiscal context we were living in, nor in reality was it a manageable line in any fiscal context.

Clearly, the commitments that the former government made as they were on their way out of office were not sustainable. I had some difficult decisions to make. It was an unhappy convergence of time and place that I had to bring a lot of projects under review. Back in October and November of 2001, I recall the convergence of Affordable Housing Week and the release of that particular fact. It didn't necessarily make for a fun time, but it was pretty clear to me I had to get the budget line into a sustainable place, and we've done that.

As I indicated to the opposition leader in our debates earlier, our approach is one that focuses the dollars that we have available, and they are considerable. We focus those dollars. We leverage them. We partner with everybody we can. I think this came out in the discussion I had with the member for Vancouver-Burrard that, in fact, we're getting the units produced at least in the same number and in perhaps greater numbers than we did under the former government.

We do it by aggressively pursuing partnership agreements that bring down the upfront capital cost of projects, thereby reducing our downstream subsidy costs. That's a very important element in making these programs successful. Money is an object, for better or worse. I think we're pursuing a sustainable housing program that's yielding great results.

R. Stewart: I want to thank the minister. My questions actually came up because I had the opportunity and the pleasure of sitting through the debate earlier this afternoon where the member for Vancouver-Hastings was, I guess, very proud, expressing her pride to some degree over the level of expenditure increases we were seeing as the nineties turned into the year 2000-01.

As we look at these numbers, we see a 25 percent increase in housing subsidy costs in one year, an increase that some people were criticizing as having been one government trying to get re-elected, yet the member for Vancouver-Hastings is very clear that wasn't the case. She defends those expenditures levels — I have to say those completely unsustainable expenditure levels — as though that was government policy: to increase spending on social housing subsidies by 25 percent a year. I guess that would be government policy, then, for years to come.

That kind of stuff really concerns me, and I suspect from his comments that it concerned the minister, as well, that we would have inherited a completely unmanageable expenditure line like that. The minister should be applauded, because he has managed to manage it very well. I applaud the efforts that both B.C. Housing and the ministry have made in developing a response to the need for housing and the need for subsidized housing in a context that takes into account the taxpayers' challenges as we try to come to grips with the fiscal responsibility we have as a government.

Setting that aside for a moment, as we move forward into these partnerships, I recognize that the government, through agencies it partners with and through B.C. Housing, is perhaps one of the only organizations in British Columbia that builds purpose-built rentals new. I wonder if there has been discussion about using existing buildings, existing housing stock, as much as we can in some areas where perhaps there aren't enormous pressures on housing stock or in using conversions, which the market seems to do a little bit better than government does in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. I ask the minister that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's point is bang on. The use of conversions as opposed to new-build can be a very effective way of addressing housing needs. In the case of Independent Living B.C., we have 1,000 of those units being delivered through rent supplements. Just a couple of days ago in Victoria we announced 128 new units of rent supps for six communities on Vancouver Island. We'll be announcing rent supps in different locations across the province in the weeks and months ahead.

So 1,000 will be delivered through rent supps and 1,000 will be delivered through conversions, because that's a very effective way to proceed as well. We'll be looking at outmoded health facilities or buildings that are physically sound but which need to be renovated and restructured in order to be effective as either supportive-living or assisted-living kinds of facilities. This has come up for discussion as part of the broad core review discussion about how we could proceed in the future.

I think there are some opportunities, as I mentioned in the debate with the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, in assisting, potentially, non-profits or others in taking some of the old, outdated, failing rental stock and doing conversions. There are some opportunities there, and we're really just at the start of thinking about how we might pursue those opportunities with the federal government. I do think there are some opportunities there, and I think there's some experience in Ontario and perhaps other places that might encourage us to take a longer look at that.

R. Stewart: The minister mentioned the issue of housing subsidies. I remember a report that came out of B.C. Housing, commissioned out of Ontario — I think Ekos had done the actual research — related to the long-term financial implications of moving from purpose-built rental housing or social housing, subsidized housing, into housing subsidies that followed the client rather than the unit. I wonder how any move toward housing subsidies….

I had my own criticisms at the time of the report. In large measure a large number of people, including a few economists I spoke with, had some criticism of that particular analysis, not so much for its structure but because of the way in which it seemed not to have dealt adequately, perhaps, with some of the financial costs associated with the ownership of social housing. I wonder how that report plays into the issue before us today as to the financial viability of offering housing subsidies that follow the individual.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't disagree at all with the member's observations in respect to the relative merits of a rent supplement approach versus a rent subsidy approach. Certainly, it has been our experience in British Columbia that there can be advantages to either approach. What we need is a balanced approach that provides a government with the opportunity to invest most opportunistically in one or the other as circumstances, economic conditions and client needs dictate or support.

For example, it's difficult in the lower mainland to get good rent supp opportunities. It's much easier up in Vernon or Salmon Arm or Kamloops to get those, because the bridge between affordable rent and market rent is typically less than in Vancouver. It really varies with the circumstances. I don't think, at least in our conditions in B.C., and I don't know about Ontario…. In our conditions in B.C., it would probably be impossible to definitively say: "Rent supps are better, or rent subsidy is better." It will vary in different communities, in different circumstances and with different client bases.

R. Stewart: The remaining questions I have may well be moving far enough away from B.C. Housing, for example, to not require the attendance of the two gentlemen from Vancouver. I will start with one, and if it turns out that it's a direction in which we don't need them, then I will sit down and pose my questions after they've left.

The extent to which government is supporting market rental…. We haven't seen market rental development in British Columbia to the extent that we need it. We typically see the condominium market ending up providing de facto market rental, not by intent but just by accident in many cases. We also see the emergence of secondary suites and various other forms of rental accommodation that weren't intended. They accidentally appeared because of a shortage of market rental.

The gap between the required market rental and the market rental availability — essentially the vacancy rate problem we have in many communities — is enormous, yet we have not seen the market development even in times when the construction industry has been idle. We haven't seen the development of market rental.

My concern is: what effort is government trying to make to find the barriers to development of market rental, identify them and eliminate them? I recognize, as well, that some of the barriers are federal government taxation policies. I recognize, certainly, that the minister is undoubtedly talking with the federal government about those sorts of issues, but within the realm of the provincial government's responsibilities, what can we do to stimulate market rental?

Hon. G. Abbott: That is a very, very important question. Clearly, in my mind — and, I think, in the minds of most people who are involved in some way in the housing industry — government alone is never going to be able to resolve the affordability issue in British Columbia. We need to generate a market response if we are going to address, at all, the compelling need of British Columbians to have affordable housing.

The member is absolutely right. We have not been getting the investment in market rental housing that we need to, for probably decades now. A lot of the rental stock is getting old, and we talked earlier about

the retrofit of some of that. How are we going to get this turned around? Well, I had a meeting with a couple of dozen of the housing industry leaders in British Columbia and posed that question to them. Their answer, surprisingly, was unanimous: there's one thing that needs to be done — head and shoulders above anything else — and that's reform of the federal tax law around capital gains rollover. We have to address that. The federal government has to address that.

We can maybe smooth out some of the symptoms of this problem by expenditures provincially, but we're never going to get to really addressing the core of the problem, which is having some incentive to invest in market rental housing. It is, simply put, not a good investment in most locations in the province at this point in time to take the money and invest it in market rental housing. Yes, the return is better on condominiums. I think the member is right that a lot of the growth we are getting in terms of new market rental is, in fact, condominium construction that is, for a short period of time or perhaps for a longer period of time, going to be devoted to rental.

We absolutely have to hammer the table unrelentingly with the federal government to move on what they've been asked now to do for years, which is to address the capital gains rollover provision so that people can reinvest and invest in market-rental housing. We've got a federal-provincial-territorial housing ministers conference coming up on April 14 to 16. The number one priority that I'm taking in there, along with the governments of Alberta and Ontario, is to bang the table and try to convince the federal housing minister that they need to move on this one.

R. Stewart: I agree entirely with the minister that one provision is undoubtedly responsible for the bulk of our problem. I recognize, though, that sometimes when we have an enormous problem in front of us, we ignore the small fires that sometimes are out there, because we've got a large inferno to put out. I am concerned that we haven't addressed, perhaps, or may not be addressing — and I hope we are — or be trying to identify those provisions within provincial government realms of responsibility that might provide barriers both in the market-rental side and, also, in the purpose-built-for-purchase side.

Moving to that side of the industry, then, what kinds of things have we done to identify barriers both from the cost side and barriers to the development of market housing — period? We recognize, of course, that 95 percent of the housing in British Columbia, or whatever the number is, is intended for the market. It isn't intended as non-market housing. It is intended for the market.

My concern remains that to the extent to which we require subsidized housing, the extent to which we require non-market assistance within housing, is largely dependent on the extent to which we address housing affordability for those people who are drummed out of the housing market because of all kinds of barriers that exist, mostly cost-related barriers, and a great many of them, government costs.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to capture at least the large chunks here in terms of appropriate response from the province as well as other levels of government to the affordability crisis.

I think the provincial government undertook a very important step in securing the promise of affordable housing in making the substantial reductions in personal income tax, which we did shortly after taking office. That puts more money into the pockets of British Columbians to assist them, particularly in confluence with low-interest rates, to become homeowners. That's been an important piece.

We've certainly made the housing policy area part of the overall deregulation agenda of the government of British Columbia. Of course, the minister responsible for deregulation has achieved his target to date, and we fully expect that wherever we can in the housing area in British Columbia, appropriate deregulation is going to be a part of our focus as well.

I know it's more on the non-market side, but a good example of eliminating an onerous, cumbersome and clearly unfair piece of red tape was the elimination of the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act back in the summer of 2001. Wherever it is appropriate, we are certainly going to pursue that.

Again, it is my estimation — and not just because I'm a provincial minister — that the most significant gains can be achieved in reform of the federal tax structure. That's number one. I think there are also important areas where we can work with municipalities, given their control of land uses in their respective jurisdictions. We can work with them to identify ways in which we can move ahead in the interests of affordable housing.

Smart-growth grants are something that are aimed at this, and I've asked my municipal affairs staff to look at the overall conditional and unconditional grant structure to ensure that, in every instance, we have the goal of affordable housing in mind as we move forward into the future with transfers from the provincial to the municipal level of government.

R. Stewart: That's a great segue into another issue, which is the issue of municipal regulation and municipal taxation. I agree, though, that as we move forward in trying to address these issues, one of the main ones is the federal taxes rules. I suspect it's going to need a concerted effort, because it has been something that homebuilders associations, development institutes and various housing groups have beaten their heads against the wall over for many years. I don't know what kind of concerted effort can be brought, but this is something that must be done, and it must be done now. I agree with the minister on that point.

As we move to the cost of market housing other than rental housing, it really has three kinds of cost pressures that almost everyone in every jurisdiction

around the world agrees with. It's funny. I was in a meeting in Australia once, and he said his three main cost pressures were taxation, regulation and a supply of zoned land.

That was something that had been part of a speech I was there to deliver, because in British Columbia, our three cost pressures have traditionally been taxation, regulation and the supply of zoned land. The cost of lumber has typically not been significant in price increases in housing. The cost of materials and labour doesn't seem to measure in the same way as taxation, regulation and the supply of zoned land, which can have enormous effects.

I remember, as we dealt with one of the pieces of legislation that came before the House, one of the provisions in it — I think it was your miscellaneous amendment bill — dealt with the potential for an exemption of social housing or non-market housing from development cost charges at the local level.

I wanted to express my concern with the kind of a philosophy that would suggest that development cost charges have reached such a level that they are causing a burden on housing. We should perhaps shift the development cost pressure from housing in general into only market housing and have market housing theoretically, then, pay for all the development costs in a municipality.

That is of great concern to me, because in many municipalities we see that development cost charges bear no reflection on the cost of connecting a development to the grid. They include costs that are related to population growth. They include costs that are related to all sorts of improvements a city may well want to develop across its entire community rather than just the costs of connecting a particular new community to the grid. I believe the development cost charges should be intended only to pay for the off-site costs of connecting a municipal grid to a new development.

I wonder if the minister could comment, then, on any ability we might have in addressing the three costs of market housing: taxation, regulation and supply of zoned land. Primarily, for this first question, is the taxation issue. The main tax that is faced by most new home buyers is the upfront cost of all of the services in the form of a development cost charge.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's important question. Development cost charges are a significant cost of new housing in British Columbia, and it's good to give them some attention.

As a provincial government, we often struggle between the competing principles of municipal autonomy and provincial competitiveness. I think that sometimes, particularly in relation to those two occasionally competing and conflicting principles, we do struggle with this around the issue of development cost charges.

It's our view that development cost charges should always be fair. They should be appropriate. They should reflect the cost of servicing rather than being a profit centre for a municipality. We think we have made some gains in that regard with the generation of a best-practices guide around development cost charges, and we want to work further, as I indicated in my previous response, around the area of provincial transfers to municipalities and local governments.

We want to use those as another way of encouraging smart growth and the availability of affordable market rental housing in communities. We want to make sure our grant structure is one that encourages and reinforces the opportunities for municipalities to provide more affordable market and non-market housing.

R. Stewart: I recognize there are some other members who want to ask questions, and I'm due in another chamber. I've got two other questions that come out of a discussion that I had earlier today with the Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute. I'll ask those, and then I'll yield.

It's my understanding that factory-built housing has the potential to meet a wide range of the housing needs of British Columbians, including citizens of modest means, households in need, seniors, aboriginal people and people with physical disabilities. Of course, we all know that factory-built housing and the land-lease community model may offer an alternative to enable home ownership at a lower cost while holding potential for reductions in infrastructure costs and energy consumption.

I'd ask the minister if he could please advise on any actions the government might be able to take to support the factory-built housing industry and to make more widely available the knowledge of the option of manufactured housing, both to municipalities, who may not have accepted that option in their housing plans, and to consumers.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member is correct that factory-built manufactured homes can be a part of the bridging of the affordability gap. Certainly, in the part of the interior I'm from, the mobile home parks and manufactured home parks and so on are often places where people secure affordable housing. They can be an important part of addressing the concerns we have.

I guess when we get to the relative balance of the municipal autonomy and provincial concerns for affordable housing, we take the approach, basically, that we try to assist municipalities in reconciling any concerns they may have around manufactured home parks and the availability of them. We certainly share whatever information we have around that important issue. The issue is often a local one in terms of land use decisions that are made by the municipalities in relation to the presence of those manufactured home parks.

R. Stewart: I want to address your response. There are municipalities that embrace manufactured housing, and it's not just the old trailer park model by any means. Manufactured housing now takes a wide range of housing that we develop as a province, and as the

housing industry develops, almost all of it can be done as factory built as well as site built. Yet there are some regulations out there that municipalities have that restrict the type of manufactured housing that goes into place. For that matter, there are municipal regulations that restrict all forms of housing, and some of those regulations are outdated. In the city of Surrey, for example, there's an outdated regulation that would not allow for two-storey manufactured housing within a land-lease community.

Clearly, we must look at the kinds of municipal as well as provincial regulations that affect the way in which outdated perceptions of manufactured housing or factory-built housing get thrust upon the public policy of the day. I encourage the minister to perhaps explain how we might, as a province, encourage municipalities to understand how their regulatory situation affects the development of appropriate housing within their community, including manufactured housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's interesting for me to recall, back when I was the opposition Forests critic, talking with Peter Woodbridge about what he thought were some of the principal new opportunities that existed in British Columbia in the value-added forest sector. He identified that by far the biggest opportunity was the production of manufactured homes in British Columbia and the export of those homes to the United States.

Neither I nor my staff had heard about the instance of Surrey, nor some of the other bylaws that would prove to be impediments to that. Obviously, in the spirit of the community charter, we want to work collaboratively with municipalities. Certainly, as I indicated at the outset, the provision of manufactured home parks or the presence of manufactured homes…. The member is quite right. Some of the manufactured homes now are of a size and quality that they are virtually impossible to distinguish from a stick-built home. Quality-wise, they may well be superior in some instances.

As problems related to this emerge around municipal bylaws and so on, we haven't had a lot of interventions at the ministry level in respect of this, but as we are made aware of them, we will certainly work with municipalities to try to resolve them. I do think, as the member suggested, that manufactured homes can be a part of the solution to the affordable housing problem we have in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: Vancouver-Burrard is very blessed in that we are home to some of the largest arts organizations in British Columbia. I'm thinking of the Vancouver Opera, the symphony, the Arts Club Theatre, Ballet B.C. and others. The arts have become a really important part of my community and something that I have a particular passion for. I've travelled around the province. I have been to Sicamous. I have been to Vernon. I've been to Prince Rupert. They have a thriving artistic community that, I think, really enriches their individual communities. It enriches our province and really does an awful lot to create not just great entertainment but, in fact, a better quality of life, safer communities and better communities to live in.

My question is about funding with respect to the B.C. Arts Council. That was one of the key commitments that I, and many of us, made with respect to providing an increase of funding to that organization, which then disperses it to others within the various communities in British Columbia. Could I please get a sense from the minister of the budget for last year and this year? Are we allowed to ask about '03-04 in this estimate?

L. Mayencourt: I mean '04-05. I'm very sorry. Yes, I'd love to ask about '03-04 to start with.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is refreshing to move on to a new area of public policy here.

Membership, they say, has its rewards, and good management has its rewards as well. There is no question that as we developed our three-year budget plans to balance the budget in '04-05, there were pressures that we were going to be experiencing in relation to the budget for arts and culture, for sports and so on.

One of the priorities I've had as we've been moving forward is to live up to the new-era commitment to the funding of the Arts Council, and I'm pleased to advise the member we have been able to do that. We have protected the budget for the B.C. Arts Council at $11.1 million. We are hoping, perhaps in the next fiscal year or the year after that, to see at least a modest increase in the funding to the Arts Council. The important thing — and I think they are pretty darn delighted about this, actually — is that, again, across the context of a large ministry where we've enjoyed strong budgetary management in every area, we have been able to protect the budget for the B.C. Arts Council.

L. Mayencourt: I'm going to move on to yet another area of public policy, and that is the Vancouver agreement. What I'd like from the minister is whether I could get a sense from him of his vision for the Vancouver agreement. If it were to be wildly successful, what would it look like? Perhaps he could just begin with that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to articulate this in an articulate way, which may be difficult at this point, but I'll do my best.

Like so many other areas of my ministry, I think partnership is really central to the Vancouver agreement. The Vancouver agreement, at this point, is unique in Canada in that it brings together the federal government, the provincial government and the city of Vancouver government in this very unique partnership largely aimed at addressing some of the very compelling social and economic issues associated with the downtown east side of Vancouver.

We have enjoyed some excellent opportunities in moving forward with programs and initiatives that I

think will make a difference to people on the downtown east side. I suspect that in many ways we've just been scratching the surface, though, in terms of what we can do through the Vancouver agreement.

As the member probably knows, the provincial government has, in the context of the 2010 bid, committed to $10 million for initiatives associated with the Vancouver agreement and the downtown east side. We look forward in the near future to hearing some confirmation from the federal government that, in fact, they and the city of Vancouver are going to partner with us on that.

That's going to give us some opportunities to work on new initiatives around services to people, whether it's addiction services or housing services or employment services. There is no single aspect to the Vancouver agreement that's going to see lives turned around on the downtown east side. All of these things are vital if we're going to see substantive and measurable changes in people's lives.

We do need, in the first instance, to address the housing concern. In some cases, homelessness is associated with addictions. In some cases, it's associated with mental illnesses and sometimes disease issues. There is a whole range of problems, and there's no one answer to all of those problems. We need to be working in an integrated and sustained way with other levels of government and the social service agencies, the Salvation Army and so on, to move forward.

How would we measure being wildly successful? I guess we'd look at some of the outcomes on the downtown east side. We'd want to say that people have been offered a real ongoing and sustainable opportunity to overcome their addictions, where they want to do that; where people have had an opportunity to get stable, secure housing in their lives; where they've had an opportunity to get the training or education that's necessary for employment.

I think all of those are part of the broader solution to some of the very compelling issues we see evidenced on the downtown east side. I guess that's my answer to how we would know it's been successful. It will be successful if some of the people who are currently troubled on the downtown east side become successful.

L. Mayencourt: It's my recollection that the Vancouver agreement is about a five-year agreement, and I think we're just beginning year three. The money you just mentioned, the $10 million…. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me we never really attached a sum of money to deal with the Vancouver agreement. The $10 million you've just spoken of is actually probably the first allocation, I guess, that's specifically called the Vancouver agreement. There have been projects within that. I think that's a significant piece of this.

I was speaking with Stephen Owen, who tells me that the federal government will shortly meet your challenge of an additional $10 million, so there's $20 million that's going to be put towards the Vancouver agreement in the short term. You mentioned the city of Vancouver, and I'm curious. Are they prepared to put up a further $10 million or some figure? Assuming you've collected this pot of $30 million or some sum, what will those dollars be used to do? I think we're still moving forward with housing as a separate entity.

Hon. G. Abbott: The appropriate official is going to be here in a few minutes. I'll give you a tentative answer, and then I'll give you some more detail in just a few minutes.

There have always been dollars attached to the province's participation in the Vancouver agreement. The dollars that are part of our commitment around the 2010 bid are by far the most substantial provincial dollars that have ever come forward. Certainly, I think we are going to have partnership opportunities with the city of Vancouver and the federal government greater than we have had in the past, but there have always been dollars associated with the province's participation.

Obviously, the attempt will be, in a strategic and focused way, to address some of the issues around the drug scene in Vancouver, around the management and treatment of addictions and so on. Economic revitalization is a big element in the approach as well. I'll get you some more information on this in just a few moments, if you like, and then we can quickly get that onto the record.

L. Mayencourt: While we're awaiting that, I just would like to let you know I've been working around the issue of…. In my community we've been experiencing a little bit of a problem in terms of entrenched street youth being aggressive. There have been some safety concerns raised by the seniors community, the gay community, small business owners and such. I've been conducting a dialogue amongst youth service providers, street entrenched youth and small business owners.

A lot of what's coming up for people is that perhaps the Vancouver agreement needs to expand its boundaries, in that some of the issues we are experiencing today in Vancouver-Burrard are probably similar to the experience of the downtown east side perhaps five or seven years ago. If there is some success within the Vancouver agreement at trying to coordinate government activities across ministries, across different levels of government, perhaps that is something our neighbourhood would benefit from.

Have you considered the Vancouver agreement beyond the boundaries of the downtown east side, or does the Vancouver agreement already accommodate that possibility?

Hon. G. Abbott: While the focus in the Vancouver agreement is largely on the downtown east side, because that's where the most obvious evidence of some social and economic dislocation is found, I don't think

the provincial government believes that necessarily has to be the exclusive focus of the Vancouver agreement.

In response to concerns you may have or opportunities you perceive outside of the downtown east side, I certainly would be glad to share your views with our partners in the Vancouver agreement: the federal government and the city of Vancouver. It may well be that they would be persuaded that there could be initiatives that would be constructively undertaken. I would be very glad to work with the member to try to move forward in respect of that.

T. Christensen: I'm going to change tack a little bit here and shift to infrastructure. Can the minister give me a general idea of the dollars available in this round of the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program and, if possible, what applications have been received? I understand it's quite oversubscribed.

Hon. G. Abbott: For the dollars available on the green side, which we would call the water and sewer grants, basically there's $600 million available from the three-way partnership — federal, provincial, Union of B.C. Municipalities or local government. There is $200 million on the non-green, or community infrastructure, side. There's a total of $800 million there to date. Staff reckons we are now well over $2 billion in applications for that $800 million in funds.

The Chair: Members, this will be one last question. We're going to have to wrap it up to report to the big House.

Firstly, can the minister confirm whether that $2 billion is just the Canada and B.C. portion of the overall cost of the projects or whether that's the total cost, of which the municipalities would be responsible for a third? More importantly, can the minister provide a general outline of the assessment criteria by which those applications are, unfortunately, measured community versus community?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's first question is that the $2 billion-plus that has been project proposals is the total cost of those projects. The projects that are submitted to us by local governments — we ask the municipalities and the regional districts to give priority to the projects themselves. When they come in to us, they're rated 1, 2, 3, 4 typically, and we try as best we can to accommodate what they believe to be the priorities in their communities.

We then look at each of the project proposals, first, on the basis of health. For example, would an enhancement of the sewer system in municipality X have a measurable impact on the health of the people living in the community? Would a water system in municipality Y strengthen the environment? Health and the environment are by far the two most important issues we look at in terms of our projects. We do the best we can.

We still have some capacity left of the $600 million. We have still a considerable capacity. Of course, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is responsible for the community infrastructure side. I expect there's going to be a rollout of additional projects on both sides of the equation in the weeks and months ahead. We look forward to that being both something that'll strengthen the community and something which will contribute to community and economic development.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

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