Hansard — Wednesday, October 26, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 3, No. 7 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		1225

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1225
	First nations footsala team
	D. Routley
	MacMillan family philanthropy
	V. Roddick
	Vesta Douglas
	R. Austin
	On-line service for mineral exploration
	D. MacKay
	New civility in Legislature
	C. Evans
	Pandemic preparedness
	L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions		1227
	Government policy for child death reviews
	L. Krog
	Hon. S. Hagen
	M. Farnworth
	D. Thorne
	J. Kwan
	Compliance of Copeman clinic with federal and provincial legislation
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	K. Conroy
	S. Simpson
	Provincial health care legislation
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Services for gang-involved youth
	J. Brar
	Hon. W. Oppal

Petitions		1232
	D. Thorne
	C. Puchmayr

Tabling Documents		1232
	Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2003

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)		1232

Committee of Supply		1233
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	N. Simons
	D. Routley
	D. Thorne
	C. Wyse

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1268
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Thorne
	G. Coons
	G. Robertson
	R. Fleming
	M. Karagianis
	J. Horgan
	N. Simons

C. James: I'd like to introduce some very special guests with us in the Legislature today. As everyone on both sides of this House knows, when we're busy as MLAs working in the Legislature, there are people back in our communities who take care of things in our communities for us. Those are our constituency assistants. I'm pleased to say that our side of the Legislature has our constituency assistants here in the gallery today. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: Today I would like to introduce to the House three gentlemen from the World Trade University, which has recently located a campus in British Columbia. The World Trade University was established under the auspices of the United Nations in response to the 1999 World Trade Organization trade talks, at which the growing gap in knowledge and communication affecting economic progress globally was identified.

The university now has campuses in Asia, Africa and, most recently, here in British Columbia — more specifically, in the city of Chilliwack, which will be its Canadian campus. It is an applied learning agency that focuses on providing opportunities for growth and shared prosperity among all nations, especially in developing countries and those with emerging economies.

I would like the House to please make welcome three of its key members: its president and chief executive officer, Mr. Sujit Chowdhury; the chief operating officer, Mr. Craig Young; and a member of the board, Mr. Richard Gold. Would the House please make these gentlemen welcome.

R. Fleming: I rise in the House to introduce three guests who are with us today. Betty Turko resides in my constituency, and she was also an employee of the Legislature dining room for 22 years. She's joined today by two friends from Scotland, Jock and Sarah Gillie. Could the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the pleasure of introducing two friends of learned Clerk MacMinn, QC. They are from Vancouver: Audrey and Ron Castner. Please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased to welcome my partner Cate Jones, who is with us today. As all members in this House will know, it's our spouses who actually have some of the toughest jobs to do in terms of the work that we do. I'm really pleased to say that I have a great partner and friend in Cate, who does a fantastic job. I hope the House will make her welcome.

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure today to recognize our former colleague and MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, Wendy McMahon, who is here to check on the behaviour of the current member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and to look over his shoulder to make sure he's doing his job. Could the House please make Wendy welcome.

N. Simons: I would just like to draw attention of the House to three young New Democrats who are visiting today: Mark Woons, Erin Sikora and Ben Johnson. Will the House make them welcome.

V. Roddick: In the House today are two people whose school many of the women MLAs in this House have attended. Charlene Brisson and Audrey Paterson are co-founders of the Women Campaign School of Canada. Charlene, who lives in Vancouver, runs a public relations business called Dream Team. Audrey Paterson is an active Delta constituent and volunteer whose five sons are the great-grandsons of A.D. Patterson, the longest-serving reeve of Delta. Would the members of the House please make them feel very welcome.

H. Bloy: It is a privilege for me to introduce a group called MADD — Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They were in the precinct this morning and made a presentation to us. They're strong advocates. They had four very strong points that we'll be passing along to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It's a privilege to introduce Bob Rorison, president; Helen Hoeflicker, past president; Catherine Doré; and Phillipe Doré. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: For some time now Derek Rolstone has served the government and the people of B.C. with distinction in his capacity as a ministerial assistant. Today is his last day. I hope he knows that.

Suddenly I suspect the value of this piece of Hansard for future job prospects has been reduced.

But he is actually, with his wife and young daughter, going to pursue other opportunities. We have been privileged to have his services as a government — and the people of British Columbia to have his services as a ministerial assistant. I hope all members will thank him and wish him well.

D. Routley: I rise today with pleasure to speak about a group of young athletes from my community, Duncan, in my constituency of Cowichan-Ladysmith. This is a group of young first nations athletes who recently undertook a trek across this globe to play their

favourite sport, being footsala. Footsala is a contraction of the words "foot" for football and "sala" for indoor. This is indoor soccer played in a North American style. The people who play this sport are incredibly talented and have incredible ball skills. I'm sure that any soccer player would see that and admire them for it.

During this trip they took on teams from Poland, Germany, England, France and the Netherlands, and they came out champions of that tournament. We're all very proud of them in Cowichan-Ladysmith.

The members of this fine team are coach Bill Seymour, manager Fred George and players Chris Alphonse, Blake Baker, Craig George, Dwayne George, Howie George, Alec Johnnie, Chuck Seymour — a dear personal friend of mine — Keith Seymour, George Thomas, Brad Thorne and Francis Wilson. We're all very proud of their accomplishments in Cowichan-Ladysmith.

V. Roddick: British Columbia's growth and development is due not just to the hard work of early pioneers but to the vision and investment of certain pioneer families, such as the MacMillan family which, under H.R., built MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. into one of the world's largest and most powerful forestry corporations.

But there is another and often overlooked side to our pioneers, and that is their philanthropic legacy. H.R. MacMillan had two extremely talented daughters, one of whom is Jean Southam. Together with her father's estate, she and her family have contributed to and been involved with, to name a few, the Vancouver Planetarium, Vancouver Aquarium and Vancouver Opera; Salvation Army; UBC with its scholarship funds, academic programs and collections; the Museum of Anthropology; the Vancouver Foundation, which was a creation of H.R.'s partner, VanDusen, and which over the last 50 years has become Canada's largest community foundation.

The family's choices and decisions have had an enormous influence on the cultural and social development of B.C. in general and Vancouver in particular. H.R. MacMillan was one of the first in his position to recognize that local business should contribute to the civil society in B.C. His family is continuing that philanthropic principle.

I would ask that the House join with me today in recognizing the wonderful pioneering spirit of British Columbia and in wishing Mrs. Gordon Jean Southam a healthy, happy 90th birthday.

R. Austin: I rise today to recognize the many accomplishments of an extraordinary woman who resides in my riding of Skeena, someone whose values and actions are a shining example for all of us. Vesta Douglas is a 95-year-old Terrace woman who has been very generous with her time and money and has devoted her life to making a difference in the community of Terrace.

She has given thousands of dollars to more than 30 community groups, including the Heritage Park Museum, the beautification society, the child development centre, the public library, the fire department and the Dare to Dream foundation.

Mrs. Douglas moved to Terrace in 1950 and taught at Uplands Elementary School and was principal there as well. She and her late husband Doug did not have children, and they decided to spend their life savings while they were still around to see the benefits. Mrs. Douglas sat down, made a list of groups to which she would like to donate and then very quietly set about handing out cheques. "Money is only worth something when it is an action," she says.

The Terrace Child Development Centre has been one of the beneficiaries of Mrs. Douglas's generosity. The CDC helps children with special needs to reach their potential through therapy, education and family support. They've been using Mrs. Douglas's donations to purchase equipment to assist children with mobility problems. Without the Douglas's generosity, they simply would not have had the money to purchase this specialized equipment. Her money has also been used to subsidize the child development centre's preschool fees so that low-income families could access their services.

The Heritage Park Museum in Terrace was the recipient of several thousands of dollars. They plan to use that money to finance an archaeology excavation centre. This centre will be an educational tool for school children in grades four to seven, as it will simulate an archaeological dig.

Two years ago Vesta Douglas moved into Terrace View Lodge, now an intermediate and extended bed care facility in Terrace. Her generosity and community spirit should be an inspiration to us all. I ask that all members of this House join me in acknowledging Vesta Douglas's wonderful contributions to her community.

D. MacKay: Early in our mandate in 2001 we made a commitment to reduce red tape to make it easier for businesses to invest in B.C. It has paid off, particularly in the mining industry. In the northwest part of our province, exploration continues to climb. In 2003 they spent $21.2 million. A year later in 2004, that more than doubled to just under $60 million. As a matter of fact, without the numbers for 2005, it's expected that they will spend more money on exploration in the northwest part of our province than they spent throughout the entire province in 2001.

One of the key elements has been the introduction of Mineral Titles Online, a system that has been embraced by the mining sector. I'm pleased to say it's been honoured for its innovation. Mineral Titles Online has just won three awards for the state-of-the-art mapping software. With their software they have brought claim acquisition and maintenance into the digital world as

of January 12, 2005, after more than three years of intense development. MTO was awarded the Gold Distinction award at the GTEC Awards. The Environmental Systems Research Institute gave MTO the 2005 Award of Excellence for Innovation, and they shared the Innovative Collaboration Award for Public Service Delivery.

The software developed by Mineral Titles Online helps make the mining industry in British Columbia more efficient. It brings the claim acquisition and title maintenance system into the digital world, which can only help organizations and individuals affiliated with the industry. Our government is committed to help rebuild an industry that struggled through the '90s. We are working hard to put the industry back on track, and innovative modernizing systems like the one developed by Mineral Titles Online will help bring us to a more prosperous future in the mining industry and British Columbia.

C. Evans: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago you took pains to remind hon. members not to use these two-minute statements for partisan opportunism. So mindful of your instruction, I've decided to speak today on the tone of the new civility that we are attempting to impose on this Legislature and, more latterly, on the estimates process.

My first example of a happy outcome for my constituents at estimates took place in the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, as we canvassed the problems that surround the proposed changes to the processing and sale of meat. The minister kindly offered to have his staff and officials travel, with the Ministry of Health, to smaller producers to try to make the new regulations work for people. I thank the minister for his commitment, and my constituents await the visit of his officials.

My second happy experience came with the Minister of Forests. The citizens of Nakusp and Slocan City have long awaited a decision on a community forest licence, and this minister committed to provide the communities with a definitive answer in two weeks. I thank that minister too. My constituents await his decision.

I think we're on a roll here. Tomorrow I'm going to get the opportunity to participate in the estimates of the Minister of Transportation. We will be canvassing the future of the Needles bridge so kindly announced by the Premier and the minister in the time of the previous government. Following those estimates, I want to give another nice two-minute statement to express my appreciation to the Minister of Transportation for the long-awaited bridge.

Today I want to talk about pandemics. I know that in British Columbia, in my lifetime, we've only faced one potential pandemic, and that was the SARS virus. We in British Columbia really consider the preparation for a pandemic to be very, very important. Our government has put $11 million into making sure that British Columbia is ready. We're doing that by making sure we stock up on the antivirals that will help us in the event that avian flu makes it from a bird over to a human being and then somehow, maybe in the course of one flight from Europe, reaches our shores.

Right now we are working as a province to build capacity for cooperation and for communication networks with our federal, provincial and international partners. As we did in the Y2K situation, where we thought the world might stop when the clock turned to 2000, we're working with businesses, Crown corporations and many others that are going to be valuable in the event of a pandemic hitting British Columbia.

In 2003 we were introduced to the SARS virus. I can remember with great pride when our life sciences community mapped the gene that contained the SARS virus, and we were able to create a vaccine against that. Today our nervous world faces the possibility of avian flu transferring to human beings. If that were to happen, we would have a pandemic.

I think we should encourage — this House should encourage — the life sciences community in British Columbia to undertake an effort, starting right now, to map the gene that allows avian flu to transfer itself from bird to human. I believe we can do that. We can show leadership, and we can do a great job of it.

L. Krog: Yesterday the opposition asked the Attorney General a question concerning Harvey Charlie and his request that the ongoing review into his granddaughter's death also examined the decision to leave his three-year-old grandson in the very same home for five months following his sister's death. The Attorney General did not answer the question about expanding the review, but he did say: "During the course of the time the child was living there, the matter was still under investigation. The police were investigating at that time, and for that reason the child was there."

Can the Attorney General explain what possible reason there is to keep a child in the home of a suspected killer?

Hon. S. Hagen: Over the last month the members opposite have raised some relevant questions regarding this issue. Presently we have multiple processes underway to get to the bottom of what happened. One of those processes is the review by the child and youth officer, who wrote a letter yesterday to a lawyer in Victoria. I want to read a couple of sentences from the letter. She says — and she is the independent child and youth officer: "I have chosen to do a more wide-ranging special report under section 8 of the Office for

Children and Youth Act on the broader issues. All of these systemic issues relate to the brother as well. In addition, the coroner's child death review process will look at the circumstances of the brother immediately after the death of the young child."

L. Krog: It's clear that yesterday the Attorney General implied that the investigation was somehow related to the police investigation and that that was the reason. We've had an answer today, but not an answer one would have expected.

So I wish to simply ask the Minister of Children and Family Development: under what circumstances does the minister feel it is appropriate to keep a child in the home of a man who is suspected of killing that very child's own sister?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know what? We know on this side of the House what was in the severed report. I assume that's what the members on the other side know as well.

As I said earlier, we have several processes underway — the review of the specific case by the child and youth officer. We have a review by the coroner, we have a review by the Ombudsman, and we will have a review by a blue-ribbon panel soon to be announced.

L. Krog: I appreciate the gravity of this issue. I appreciate the minister responding, but I want an answer to the simple question: in general terms, does he think it appropriate that a child be kept in the same home as a suspected murderer for five months? Why would a police investigation have any bearing on that whatsoever?

Hon. S. Hagen: Indeed, this is a serious issue. That's why we are taking the steps that we are taking to get to the bottom of the issue. We're not afraid of asking the tough questions, because we want to make sure that we have the best system in place to protect children in British Columbia. That's what we want to achieve by the process that we're in. I would ask the members opposite to respect that process.

M. Farnworth: Yesterday the Attorney General admitted that the Ministry of Children and Family Development left a child in a dangerous home because of the police investigation. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does he stand by that decision to leave the brother of the victim in the home of his sister's killer for five months?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said several times now, we have processes in place. As a matter of fact, my critic, the member from the opposite side, is part of one of those reviews working with the child and youth officer. We do want to get to the bottom of this to see what happened. We will await the results of the reviews.

M. Farnworth: The minister has not answered the question. It's an important answer, because yesterday the Attorney General said one thing. The minister who's charged with the safety of children has not answered that question, which leaves us wondering: who is in charge there of the safety of children? Is it the Attorney General's ministry, because he was saying yesterday that there was a police investigation? Or is it the Minister of Children and Family Development, whose decision should be to ensure that the safety of the child is paramount at all times, regardless of an investigation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Indeed, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is responsible for these children. But let me remind the member opposite — because I know he's aware of this — that we now have two lawsuits involved in this particular case, which restricts me from answering any questions with regard to the specifics of the case.

D. Thorne: Mr. Speaker, the answers coming from this government are very worrisome. No one seems to know why a three-year-old boy was left in the home of a suspected killer. That is the information that Harvey Charlie is looking for. Why is the Attorney General refusing to expand the child and youth officer's investigation to include a specific examination of why the brother was left in this home for so long?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I have said repeatedly, there are now two lawsuits involved in this particular case. That prevents me from speaking to these particular cases, and I'm sure the members know that.

I also want to read the statements in the letter from the independent child and youth officer who has, on her own, decided to choose to do a more wide-ranging special report under section 8 of the Office for Children and Youth Act. Together with that, the coroner's child death review process will look at the circumstances involving the brother immediately after the death of the young child.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General and the minister should know that the systemic review will not examine the specific experience of Harvey Charlie's grandson.

Mr. Charlie has a specific concern. He wants to know why the government left his grandson in the home of a suspected killer for five months. To date, he has not received any specific answer, any specific confirmation that that will happen.

There are several overlapping reviews going on right now. Are any of them specifically tasked with

finding out why the brother was left in the home of a suspected killer for five months?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member who just posed that question is an experienced member of this House and knows — or should know — that first of all, the coroner is reviewing the child's death and has said that he will review the circumstances involving the brother immediately after the death.

What I'm asking the members opposite for is to do what your leader has said you want to do, and that is to do the right thing. We await these reviews to be completed, and then the government will address the results of those reviews.

J. Kwan: The coroner's office is doing a review. Jane Morley is doing a review. The Ombudsman's office is doing a review. There is a special panel that is doing a review. But none of them have said that they will specifically examine the question of why the brother was left in this home.

The question that the government needs to answer is to ensure that the family of the children involved gets satisfaction. We just received correspondence from their lawyers, saying they have no comfort from the answers from the government to date.

The family wants to know — and they deserve to have the answers — why the government is not expanding the inquiry. What possible reason can the minister or any party have for the limitation of the inquiry into these tragic events?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said previously, we have multiple processes underway to get to the bottom of this. One is carried out by the independent child and youth officer, who has asked my critic to participate in this. One is by the coroner, one is by the Ombudsman, and one is by a blue-ribbon panel.

The member knows very well that there is an ongoing custody case before the courts. The letter she refers to was written by the counsel to one of those parties. Therefore, it's totally inappropriate for me to comment.

D. Cubberley: Can the Minister of Health inform this House whether he has determined that the Copeman clinic does or does not breach the Canada Health Act or the Medicare Protection Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm really gratified to get a question from the Health critic, and I'm particularly gratified, given that so many of the architects and pioneers of private care are over there on the other side of the House with them.

We've been working with Mr. Copeman around his clinic. It's our view that as it was originally structured, it would be in contravention of both the Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act. However, Mr. Copeman has indicated to us that he wishes to operate in compliance with those acts, so our staff continues to consult with him and work with him in respect of what he proposes to do.

D. Cubberley: Despite the compliment that the member just paid us, I think we could hardly compete with your government's efforts on behalf of private care. Just last week the minister broke his long silence, and he admitted that the Copeman clinic would appear to violate the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act. These laws exist because British Columbians and Canadians agree that equal access to health care is worth protecting. It's the job of this government to protect public health care. What specific steps is the minister taking to ensure the billing practices of the Copeman clinic do not violate provincial or federal law prior to its opening?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly didn't pay that compliment idly. In fact, it was under the NDP in the 1990s that some 30 clinics — private clinics — were created in B.C. The NDP of that decade doubled the number of private clinics that existed in B.C. They made it possible for the first time for ICBC and WCB and RCMP to actually use those clinics. I wasn't being at all facetious in offering up that particular compliment to the other side.

I can tell the member opposite…. I guess he missed the press conference on September 6, when we were talking about the Copeman clinic. I guess he maybe saw Vaughn Palmer the other night. That's good if he did, because we did talk about it there as well.

The answer is very clear. Mr. Copeman wants to work within the law. We are going to ensure as best we can that he does operate within the law. Without knowing better, I will assume that he will operate in compliance, but we will certainly be monitoring what he does. If he is out of compliance, we will take appropriate steps.

K. Conroy: This minister keeps talking about history, but what people in this province want to know about is what's happening right now in 2005. At the Copeland clinic, those who pay the $1,700 sign-up fee and the $2,300 annual fee will get to see a doctor before someone who does not pay the fee. Does the minister believe that preferential access to doctors for a fee falls within the guidelines of the Medicare Protection Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of my favourite movies of all time, and it may be one of yours as well, is Blazing Saddles — a very complex plot but, apart from that, just an exceptional movie. I understand they're going to do a remake of that based on the NDP's health policies and call it "Blazing Hypocrisy," which I think would be entirely appropriate.

Of course we don't believe that people should have to pay an access fee for service. Of course we don't be-

lieve that. We will take every appropriate step to ensure that every British Columbian has full access to medicare protection plan services and Canada Health Act services.

K. Conroy: That's an interesting answer, because Mr. Copeman claims that the clinic will be open to the public but that patients who do not pay the membership fee "can't expect the same level of service." Does the minister understand that he has a responsibility to ensure that people aren't securing access to doctors for insured services based on their ability to pay a fee?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's interesting that the opposition seems to attach such nefarious motives to anyone involved in the provision of private health care when they're in opposition, yet are completely unconcerned about it when they're in government. It's really a remarkable thing that we should hear such a gap between when they were in government and now that they're in opposition. But maybe that's one of those old NDP–new NDP things that is a continuing puzzle to me.

Hon. G. Abbott: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Copeman has indicated to us as recently as a couple of days ago that he still intends to operate within compliance, within the Medicare Protection Act, which is a provincial statute, and the Canada Health Act, which is a federal statute. I'm taking him at his word. He isn't open yet. We are going to follow this situation very closely, and we will ensure that if we see activities that are out of compliance, we will take appropriate steps to resolve it.

S. Simpson: The difference here with the minister is that we weren't being facetious when we said the architects of privatization were on that side — unlike the minister, who is being glib. The minister might remember one of his past colleagues…

S. Simpson: …who looked forward to being here, Dr. Gur Singh. I remember when he, a past Liberal candidate, held up and said that people are going to have to pay for health care with their credit cards in this province. That's what his side believes.

If this minister believes that an annual facility fee and sign-up fee that clearly confers privileged access to a doctor doesn't violate provincial and federal laws, can he tell us what stops any primary care physician from charging patients an annual fee?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the member wasn't listening to my earlier responses. In fact, we have advised Mr. Copeman on a couple of occasions now, and by letter, that we believe the way that he originally proposed the Copeman clinic, the structure of it — based on the advertisements in the Vancouver Sun among other places, on the website and some correspondence in respect of what he proposed to do — suggested that at least a portion of what Mr. Copeman was proposing to do would be out of compliance with the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act. We advised him of that very clearly. In response, Mr. Copeman has written back and said: "No, I wish to operate within compliance of those statutes."

So again, I intend, and my ministry intends, to continue to work with Mr. Copeman to see if we can develop something innovative but yet within the scope of the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act.

S. Simpson: Well, the minister will know that his government — and he voted for this — brought in Bill 92, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, which was passed by this Legislature. The purpose of that bill, as we will all know, was to clarify the government's ability to review and audit private clinic billing practices. Of course, the bill was never proclaimed. Is the reason the minister hasn't proclaimed this act because he's happy to make it easier to ignore the creeping privatization of primary care in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm somewhat disappointed by the opposition attitude in respect of that matter. At the federal-provincial-territorial meeting that we had in Toronto on the weekend, the NDP government in Manitoba — their Health Minister — and the Saskatchewan NDP Health Minister both indicated that we should not have such a narrow view as is articulated by the NDP folks in British Columbia. I think they're genuinely troubled by the kinds of attitudes that are taken here, quite at odds with the way in which these things were managed when you were in government. I mean, that's the astonishing thing.

I know sometimes people refer to the gap between what they actually did in government and what they say in opposition as hypocrisy, but I don't like to think of it that way. I think you just haven't thought these things through yet, and I look forward to the time when you do.

C. James: Well, we've heard anything but answers from the Health Minister. He stated that he in fact thought that the Copeman clinic was in compliance. Well, I'm sorry, but paying $4,000 for preferred access to a doctor certainly sounds like for-profit medicine to this side of the House.

Health care is worth protecting. Public health care is worth protecting, and it is the job of government to protect public health care. But instead of bringing in

So I would like to ask the minister again: can he explain why cabinet has rejected changes to the B.C. Medicare Protection Act and why they haven't proclaimed Bill 92?

Hon. G. Abbott: I truly am grateful for the amount of attention I'm getting today. It is gratifying, because one of the things I kept hearing in the summer months was that the health system was in chaos and that this opposition was going to be holding the government to account.

The fact of the matter is that this is a great health system that we have in the province of British Columbia, and every day that system gets better. But it doesn't get better because we try to keep everything exactly the same as it was the day before. What we have tried to do as a government, I think with great success, is build some innovation, some energy, some commitment into making it a stronger health system based on continuous improvement.

The opposition, led by the opposition leader, have a kind of traditional hidebound attitude that simply is not in accord with making progress within our health care system.

C. James: I'd like to tell the Health Minister what else he heard this summer. He heard the opposition asking him to proclaim the act, and he didn't respond. He heard our Health critic writing him a letter, in fact, asking him to look at the clinic and investigate it. He didn't respond. He was asked by the media in July whether he was going to deal with this issue, and he said: "The time is not right."

But I've asked the minister to listen, perhaps, to his former colleague, the former minister, when he introduced Bill 92 and talked in support of that bill and stated: "I am pleased to introduce Bill 92, which amends the Medicare Protection Act…. These amendments will bring greater clarity to both patients and private clinic operators about billing practices." Without Bill 92, government essentially has to take the word of private operators that their practices fall within the guidelines of the Medicare Protection Act.

I would like to again ask the minister: if he won't listen to the public, will he listen to his former colleague and actually bring in protections for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always good to hear the views of those who are opposed to virtually everything in this province, and we hear that view again here today.

We make appropriate decisions at appropriate times with respect to legislation. I've already said on a number of occasions to the member that, in fact, we have been all over the Copeman clinic issue. Mr. Copeman has had some discussions with the ministry. He has indicated that he wishes to operate within compliance of the Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act. I think that, again, the members can bounce up and down and pound their chests and say this is a terrible thing, but it is completely at odds with the attitude they took when they were in government — a doubling of the number of private clinics; 30 clinics or more created under the NDP; access for WCB and ICBC and other organizations to the private clinics. Again…

J. Brar: I hear from people outside sometimes about what question period is. People say question period is only for questions, not for the answers. Every day when I come here, this House kind of confirms that.

But let's try a new question. This is a serious question, and I hope to get the right answer for this one. Over 70 young people, mainly from the South Asian community, have been murdered during the last ten years due to gang-related activities. Young people who get involved in gang activities have a very hard time getting out, even if they want to.

So my question is to the Solicitor General. Is he aware of the challenges faced by young people trying to get out of gang activities, and what specific support is available to help them?

Hon. W. Oppal: This issue first arose a number of years ago. As the member knows, during the last ten to 12 years, some 95 young men of the Indo-Canadian community have been victims of murder. Approximately three years ago a number of us got together and established some proactive committees in order to determine what the root causes of this aberrant conduct are.

We know there are a number of people we can't save, unfortunately, because they're so firmly entrenched in the underworld. But there are many, many other dysfunctional kids, many other kids who need help, many kids who are wanting assistance.

There are a number of committees that have been formed, fundraisers…. I would invite the hon. member to give his time and come and join some of the committees and take part in the community so that we can accommodate the children and we can assist those children in the schools who need our help. We need the help; we need all the help that we can get. I would invite you to come forward and help.

J. Brar: Actually, I'm pleased to see that the Attorney General stood up for this one and to respond to the question. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have

met with the chief of the task force. I have been to those committees not one time but more than one time. I know there are a number of committees. I know there are committees in the community working with this government, and I know there are committees in the process of being established by the federal government.

But my question is different. My question is simple. That's what I want to ask the minister responsible for this one. You know, the gang war has a unique culture. When you are into it, it's very hard for someone to come out of it, even if somebody wants to do that. So my question is pretty simple. Those committees are working on the awareness side, and I appreciate that work. But my question is very simple.

Again, to the Attorney General: what specific strategy can he point to, to give young people the help they need to get out of those gang wars or those gangs if they wish to do that? At this point in time, there is nothing. I want to specifically ask the Attorney General.

Hon. W. Oppal: This government has addressed those issues on two fronts. On the enforcement front, there has been an integrated gang task force. That's resulted in a number of arrests that have taken place — some trials and some convictions.

The area where I think we need the greatest assistance and the greatest resources is the area of prevention — the proactive work. There, a number of us have done an immense amount of work. I don't take credit for it. I've been a part of some of the committees. But there are a number of volunteers who are doing mentoring programs involving young children. The RCMP in Richmond and Surrey have been involved in basketball leagues, setting up youth camps and matters of that nature. That's what we need the community to do.

I would invite the member, who is a member of the Indo-Canadian community, to give some of his time to come forward and assist those people who are helping the kids and volunteering their own time.

D. Thorne: I have a petition to submit on behalf of Karin E. Williams, a senior citizen and grandmother from school district 43, Coquitlam, and 305 B.C. residents from the lower mainland indicating that they support the efforts of B.C. teachers to fight for improvements to our public education system. The petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House repeal Bill 12.

C. Puchmayr: I also have a petition to submit, and the petition is to all levels of Canadian government. It's for immediate intervention into the Telus dispute.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the honour to present the 2003 annual report for the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, following question period on Monday, October 24, 2005, the hon. member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca rose and reserved his right to raise a matter of privilege relating to statements made in the House by the Minister of Labour. On Tuesday morning, prior to entering on orders of the day, the member raised his matter of privilege and presented the statement of matter together with supporting documentation and a motion that the member would propose to move if the Chair found that he had established a prima facie case of privilege.

The member has complied with the technical requirements upon raising the matter of privilege and also provided the Chair with a notice of his intention in this regard. On Tuesday afternoon, following question period, the hon. Minister of Labour and Government House Leader responded to the matter of privilege and tabled with the House his statement and supporting documentation.

Both members ably argued their position, and I have had an opportunity to examine the material filed, the Hansard report and the relevant authorities. I wish first to deal with the "earliest opportunity" rule, which was raised by the Minister of Labour and is canvassed in some detail at pages 48 and 49 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition. In the decision, Speaker Schroeder, after canvassing the facts in the case, observes as follows:

In that case, the alleged offence occurred on Monday the 23rd, and the matter was raised in the House on Wednesday the 25th. By way of explanation for the delay, the member observed that it was not until the 25th that he learned the identity of the person complained of, and therefore the matter had not been raised earlier.

Hon. members will well be aware that the standing order of the House states clearly that whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

A reading of the statement submitted by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca clearly identified October 19 as the date on which the alleged offence occurred.

Yet it was not till the afternoon of Monday, October 24 that the same member rose to reserve his right to raise the matter of privilege. Notwithstanding that the member may not have all the facts in his hand on October 19, it seems to the Chair that this was the date upon which he should have reserved his right to raise the matter of privilege to be in conformity with the standing orders and the decision of this House quoted above.

Finally, on this particular point, let me quote again from the final paragraph of the decision referred to:

Having made that finding, I also wish to touch on the substantive portion of this matter. I not only have examined with great care the written submissions of the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca but have examined the Hansard reports of both members' submissions. I should mention as an aside that the speedy and accurate transcript by Hansard staff of the remarks made by members in cases like the one before me are of enormous assistance to the Chair in coming to a decision.

The member's submission alleges that the minister's replies to questions posed by the opposition on October 19 conveyed misleading information to the House. The minister says the information conveyed on that occasion was accurate in all aspects and tabled again the notice of appointment of the industrial inquiry commission appointing Vince Ready as the industrial inquiry commissioner. The document in question was dated October 6, 2005, apparently in conformity with the minister's answers given in the House on October 19.

The member then quotes from Mr. Ready's report identifying October 10, 2005, as the date of his appointment as the industrial inquiry commissioner. No explanation has been given as to the divergence of these two dates, but certainly, the appointment document would tend to confirm the minister's version of the events. In any events, these quotes failed to provide the foundation for an assertion that the minister misled the House.

I commend both members upon orderly presentations. Bearing in mind the stringent guidelines relating to such matters, I am unable to find a prima facie case has been established, and the member will not be permitted to move the tendered motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued estimates debate, Committee of Supply, of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister of Housing, and in Committee A, for the information of members, continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Transportation.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

B. Simpson: For the minister's benefit, particularly with relation to staff, we're going to try and wrap up the Forests estimates around five o'clock and then want to switch to Housing at that time, so the minister can arrange appropriate staff to be in here. Housing would then go through the evening session, with the hope of wrapping that up at the end of this evening. With that in mind, then, and with the minister's forbearance, I'd like to try and move rapidly through some critical items. I'll try and curtail my questions so that they're specific.

There are some things that are very definitively stated in the platform and in the throne speech. This government pointed to the platform as a document that needed to be referenced, so I'd like to go through the points in the platform and make sure that I understand where they are in the process.

The first, and the minister has mentioned this in question period, is: "Our government will work with the B.C. Competition Council to recommend a long-term strategy for reviving and securing B.C.'s pulp and paper industry." That's been called for by a number of agencies. If the minister could give an update on where that is, because again, it's not one that I can find explicitly in the service plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: The service plan is about the operation of the ministry. The Competition Council is about the group of people that are looking at the competition side and recommendations with regards to forestry and issues that it faces. The Competition Council is continuing to do its work. The last I heard, it's expected that they may be able to be completed and reported out by November 30. I look forward to that report.

I did, early on in the cycle of the Competition Council, have some conversation with some members

to see if they could perhaps, if they were in a position to, provide an interim pulp report with regards to some of the competition issues on pulp. Because of some of the matters that were facing us, I wanted, basically, some input on them. They haven't been able to do that as yet. I don't know whether they will be able to prior to their full report, which will be up to them to do. I think they felt that there was still a body of work to do, with some of the suppliers and looking at international markets and that sort of thing, with regards to getting to that point.

B. Simpson: What entity will the B.C. Competition Council actually report out to?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the report will come to government.

B. Simpson: I want to talk about community forests in general a little bit later on, but there's an explicit statement in the platform that states that new stumpage arrangements will help existing community forests, particularly in the expansion. Would the minister please report out on where we're at with those discussions?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. I met with a number of communities that have requests in or, actually, expressions of interest with regards to community forests at the UBCM. We're finalizing a lot of the documentation to it. Like I said to the member for Nelson-Creston yesterday, we expect that a number of those we would probably be able to release to communities in the next two weeks.

The second part of the member's question, though, really deals with the crux of community forests. I met with the community forest groups in Prince George in September. I met with some others again at UBCM later in September and some others more recently. I have given the commitment that we will try and find a better formula and a more streamlined operation for community forests to make them actually sustainable for communities.

That work is ongoing now. I don't have a definitive time line when it will be completed, because we've certainly asked our folks to think outside the box with regards to how we do it with community forests. They have a number of options in front of them that they will bring back to me for recommendation.

B. Simpson: Again, to the minister: is there a time line associated with that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we were hoping that they can have it done and back and a decision made by the end of November. If it's possible to do it earlier, we're going to do it earlier, because we would like to get some certainty on those issues.

B. Simpson: As I said, I'd like to come back a little bit on community forests when I look at some issues under small tenures. The expansion of the small-scale salvage program is also pointed to in the platform. Could the minister report out on where that is at?

Hon. R. Coleman: In '03-04 there were about 500,000 cubic metres that went out in small-scale salvaging. It went up to 2.1 million cubic metres in '04-05, and it's expected to be higher this year.

B. Simpson: I'd like to explore small-scale salvage a little bit further. As the minister may or may not know, the southern part of my riding has a very active small-scale salvage operation that has put a number of proposals in front of the district manager.

I was made aware today that there are now some issues with small-scale salvage in the Kamloops region, where permits are not being issued and there's a delay. In both cases, the small-scale salvage operators have put proposals to the district managers, and in those proposals their business cases for increasing the number of FTEs who are managing small-scale salvage programs…. Both organizations, and I've heard this from other districts, are pointing to the lack of FTEs within the Ministry of Forests and Range offices for getting permits out the door, for getting permits in a timely fashion, and it's quite a hindrance.

I think it's important to note that the operators themselves have put a business case together showing that if they can do their work, not only are they employing significant numbers of people and contributing to the local economy, but they're also supplying sufficient stumpage such that the FTEs are more than covered by the government's revenue stream. Is the minister aware of those concerns, and if so, what does he expect the districts will do to address those concerns around FTEs and permitting process?

Hon. R. Coleman: The small-scale salvage program is experiencing some growing pains, particularly in the southern area of the Cariboo and to a lesser degree in Kamloops. There are also some other concerns that have come out of the increase in small-scale salvage. We've asked for and there is some work being done to do a review of all the programs with regard to small-scale salvage to report out no later than December 31.

The reason for that is that we're finding a number of the patches are starting to join together, because people are actually forming what I guess you would call consortiums, and that was never the intent of the small-scale salvage. Obviously, in addition to that, it brings along other pressures on silviculture programs. We will continue to process as best we can and do the review to make sure that this program meets the long-term goals and objectives that it was originally set out to do.

B. Simpson: I think that will be helpful. It's a helpful review and a necessary review. Will that review encompass some of the things that the small-scale salvage operators are asking for? They have limitations on

the amount of NSR. They have limitations on the size that they can open up, etc. The small-scale salvage operators themselves have some workarounds in those areas. Will they be engaged in that? Will it be a comprehensive review that also looks at some of their requests for both policy changes and additional staffing?

Hon. R. Coleman: The short answer to that is yes, but at the same time I think the small-scale salvagers have to recognize a couple of things. One is that this is a small-scale salvage program. It's called "small-scale salvage" for a reason, and the reason it worked initially was because it was kept at that level.

Secondly, because of some of the sort of consortiums that are coming together, we don't want people who are unqualified working in the bush with the wrong safety equipment and the wrong equipment. We have made a commitment that where our tenures are involved — licences like B.C. Timber Sales and small-scale salvaging — we're going to raise the bar where the qualification to work in the bush…. One of the things will be the safety requirements.

As we go through this, some of the operators are going to have to probably raise their safety standards for the protection of worker safety, and I think that's very critical to the aspect as we go through this. We will consult with them, but the folks out there must understand that the ministry is going to be giving direction on the whole safety issue, which we think is a critical part of this package and the other packages of small tenures.

B. Simpson: I don't think you would have any resistance on the part of the small-scale salvage operators that I've spoken with. They recognize that they need to do some work around standards, etc. I don't think anybody would push back around the safety.

Since the minister has raised safety, I do have one follow-up on last night's discussion that got truncated. The minister's response around applying a safety lens to the operations of B.C. Timber Sales and the Ministry of Forests operations, etc., was heartening. However, the question I asked was quite explicit, and it comes from a number of sources, including the TLA and others, who are asking if the ministry will also do a policy review — the policy changes, the legislative changes. It's not just the operations of BCTS and Ministry of Forests and Range but where, for example, policy allows different utilization standards, where policy allows different road standards and where policy in terms of changing cut control has exacerbated stumpage bingo — or cuts to the ministry staff, which have exacerbated the permitting cycle.

Will the ministry undertake to review those with a safety lens on? Not the operational side — that's not what I had meant to do yesterday, because I understand that those discussions are going on. The call is for a review of the policy side for implications on safe working conditions for people who are working in our forests.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working with the B.C. Forest Safety Council. If they identify that as one of their top priorities, then we would do that with them. The B.C. Forest Safety Council is a cross-sectoral council. It's made up of a number of the major companies, independent loggers, fallers, major labour organizations that are involved in the forest sector, B.C. Timber Sales, the Ministry of Forests and WCB.

On one side of the equation, the companies that are operating within that are more sophisticated and are dealing with the WCB-type standards. They're inspected and monitored, as well, by WCB. They have an organized labour structure that basically flows into safety councils on work sites and that sort of thing. So there's that relationship that takes place.

To date, the B.C. Forest Safety Council has basically identified four major initiatives. One is TruckSafe, which is roads standards and maintenance. The second is silvi-safe, which is safety and employment standards for people in the silviculture side. Faller certification — they want training and registering of fallers. All fallers need to be accredited by July 31, 2005. Then there's qualified companies, which means companies will need to demonstrate a safety program for all their workers. That is going to flow from the B.C. Safety Council through to the smaller companies that do small tenures with the government, because we're going to put that in as a standard.

We're going to work together with this council, because that's the commitment we made: to make these things a priority and to follow through on them both in the ministry…. We also had the expectation — and the agreement, frankly — with the majors, organized labour, the loggers and the fallers that they will also follow through on these initiatives and support them so that they can be cross-industry, because obviously, we're not necessarily on every work site. We need that cooperation building safe work sites.

That's why I think that this safety council…. They're a pretty focused bunch, actually. I met with them, and they're pretty focused on doing these things, and they're pretty committed to working with us. We've made the commitment to implement the initiatives that they think they need to have to improve safety in the forests.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that update. I look forward to tracking what those changes are. I will say again that the reason for raising this one more time is that in my little three-wishes exercise of what questions they would ask, that was a primary question, and it was explicitly the issue of reviewing the policy changes.

To finish off on the platform, there's one other one that I'm interested in an update on, and that is a statement: "Work with independent power producers and forest companies to produces clean, reliable, competitively priced electricity supply…for B.C.'s lumber and pulp mills." As we all know, energy costs are becoming an increasing factor in competitiveness. What is the nature of that? Is it underway? How will that proceed?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, a number of companies actually do very good jobs with biomass — how they produce heat and what have you, particularly in plants. I think one of the impressive ones is probably Ainsworth's operation at 100 Mile House at their OSB plant. We also recognize that there may be an opportunity on the land base with regards to this resource — particularly the massive amount of wood we're going to have coming out of beetle — for other biodiversity with regards to power and energy.

I've already had conversations with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and asked that they start to do some work with us on energy opportunities and producing from biomass for government. Basically, that would go back to discussions with Hydro and capital costs and opportunities and what we see.

I found the presentation that I received from CH Anderson and its partners from Scandinavia to be very instructive on what may be opportunities on the land base, considering that they're going to build pellet plants — four of them in the interior of British Columbia — to make pellets that they're going to ship to Scandinavia, which are going to be burnt with coal to reduce the amount of coal being used in coal-burning power plants over there. They'll get Kyoto credits. They figured all this business plan out, and they have a patented process that they do with these pellets.

At the same time, we participate and do work with an organization called BIOCAP, which is out of Queen's University. It's a research body on energy, basically to do research on bioenergy and that sort of thing. That work's ongoing.

I've actually spoken to a number of my colleagues in conversation to let them know that we're going to be looking at these options with the Minister of Energy and Mines. A member of our staff went to Finland recently to see their 260-megawatt power plant and is going to be part of that process, coming back to me with what we think might be options in biomass.

B. Simpson: As the minister knows, the perfect-storm group, when they went to Ottawa, was asking Ottawa to assist them in looking at the tax regime — looking at possible different write-down strategies, etc. — to accelerate capital investment in these kinds of ventures. As the minister's rightly pointed out, we do have a potential for a large amount of biomass there, but it's one of those things that will degenerate over time if we're not dealing with it quickly.

To the minister: which agency on the part of the provincial government will be working with the Kyoto group, with the federal government, to get us on a faster track in this province to get on the leading edge of biomass conversion, biofuel conversion? It strikes me that the Kyoto group there has a lot of money. I don't think they know quite what to do with it, and it would be nice if we were on the front end of that.

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, in the provincial government, Kyoto is with the Ministry of Environment, and energy is with Energy and Mines. We're working with both of those groups, but particularly with Energy and Mines, to push an initiative to look at this thing a bit aggressively.

The reason for that is because it really hasn't been, in fairness to our Ministry of Environment more than anything else…. I don't think the federal government has nailed down their end of what's going to happen with Kyoto and the credits and what have you. I don't think that we should wait for that process to drag us along slowly if there are opportunities we can see in British Columbia today.

My conversations with the minister are that we are going to put some…. He's actually already, as I understand it, put some people on it. We are going to be much more proactive than waiting for the Kyoto side to actually drive the agenda.

B. Simpson: The minister actually makes my point, and I couldn't agree with him more on this. I don't think the federal government knows what they're doing. I've been in touch with some of the NDP MPs who have been tracking this — in particular, Nathan Cullen from Skeena, who seems to be quite on top of it. He's indicated — and it could be just part of the province's strategy — that they're looking for how to deal with this.

If we are going to them with, "Here's a way of dealing with it," I guess I would make a pitch for communities that are on the leading edge of the mountain pine beetle, like Quesnel. We are very good pilot communities, where we have the opportunity to play around with some of these things on both a micro and macro scale. My sense is that if the province takes the lead and goes with a comprehensive suggestion…. What I'm being told is that the federal government is kind of looking for that. In rolling up what the province is already doing with some innovative strategies at a local level, working with the communities that are trying to restructure themselves, it seems like it's a real win, but it's a matter of us putting some horsepower to it and getting on the front end before Ontario and some of the others start getting their hands up.

Hon. R. Coleman: We do anticipate that happening. That's why, as part of the movement in the last number of months, I've met with C.H. Innes and others. We're saying: "Start setting some resources to this thing. Let's set some priorities around it. Let's see what's available to British Columbia."

I don't have a concern about Ontario waking up to biomass and figuring this thing out tomorrow. They're talking about expanding their nuclear energy these days. I think that if we have a resource in British Columbia that's clean, that makes sense environmentally and we can make it work for the people we supply power to, who are citizens short-term and long-term, we have a responsibility to get on that and see if it's possible. That's what we've asked our people to do.

B. Simpson: Lots of money is a big alarm clock. So while Ontario may be looking at other things, if they start to recognize there's a lot of money there…. If they shift away, it's possible that we get caught behind the eight ball, but I'll take the minister at his word.

One of the things, and I'm not sure the minister is aware of it…. Prince George, for example, is looking at an independent power corporation. They're trying to get started on that. I've also had discussions with people on the coast around hemlock pulp because, as the minister is aware — and we've raised that in the House during question period — we have a chip oversupply situation and a hemlock pulp problem. Getting really moving on this rapidly, I think, deals with a lot of issues that are out there. I look forward to what the province does and the leadership role it will play in that area.

I'd like to move off the platform, then, and into some other substantive matters. One of the things I do want to look at under small tenures is…. It seems as if the staffing levels within district offices are not sufficient for a lot of the smaller programs. It is a constant refrain wherever I have gone. In the service plan…. This has been sent to me by someone else. I can't find it in the update, but apparently, it's in the previous service plan. There was a bullet reference that stated that there will be a client service strategy within the Ministry of Forests. If the minister or his staff isn't aware of that, my question is still pertinent.

Does the ministry track that sort of sense of client complaints — the frustrations, submissions around staffing issues? How does the ministry in the district office level or at the provincial level look at all of that with respect to how it resources various programs and how it addresses, as one would say, client-centred concerns about service level delivery?

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, we're trying to…. That's the work that's going on, on things like community forests and particularly woodlots, which I've met on extensively and which I find have as many and as varied issues by region and by community almost as some other groups that I've dealt with in the past. I've gone into meetings with these groups and said, "Okay, now maybe we can look at this or that as a solution," had some sort of agreement and received e-mails back through my ministry within hours, saying: "Well, actually, not me too." So there are really….

The small licensees are very high administration to the ministry. Probably at least 10 percent of our time is spent for a very minuscule part of the revenue. We give them a lot of attention and a lot of service, and in so doing, there's always someone, because there are so many, I think, that you're going to get…. And sometimes the level of sophistication is different.

You're going to get complaints. We're aware of those complaints, but we do attend their AGMs. We have staff at their AGMs. We meet with their executives. We meet with their regional groups. This is all "we." I'm talking collectively about the staff of the ministry. That feeds back. We have one person who's completely dedicated to the woodlot file to look at opportunities to streamline that so it works better for them and for community forests.

One experience I've had as a minister is that this group is not necessarily always on the same page. At the same time, they do want some…. There are some basic, simple principles they'd like. They'd like to have a better way to understand their stumpage and fibre so it's not so complex for them, because they are small operators, and it costs them time and money.

They would like to be able to know what the process would be going for and any additional discussions on future tenures, and we've put that in place with them. I met with them recently, as did my staff. I received a report back from my staff on the most recent meeting, where we put a number of things on the table and received back that this group is very positive with the direction we're going in and the work we're doing with them. I believe that's correct, because in the most recent discussion I had with one of their executive, it was that exactly.

We'll get there for them. There is some more work to be done, but I think we've got some pretty good direction going that's going to reach a lot of their goals they've asked us to reach.

B. Simpson: I'm glad the minister brought up woodlots and community forests. It seems like we're in a flow here, because each time you finish something off, it leads into my next question, so that's great. It makes it very efficient.

B. Simpson: Yes, must be. It's the years of being a police officer and reading people's minds — which is a scary thought, by the way.

Anyway, coming to the small tenures. Again, I know that the minister doesn't mean to use words that could be perceived as a putdown, but when these groups are referred to as a miniscule part of our revenue stream, it immediately, I know, gets their back up, because they don't look at it as their job to be revenue stream to the province. What they have is a very high percentage of return to communities, and that's how they look at things.

When you look at small-scale salvage operators, if…. I was told that in the Williams Lake area, there's a substantial number. If you just multiply by a factor of three, it's equivalent, if that program goes down, to two fully functional mills. Then you look at the capital they put into their equipment, which is predominantly purchased locally — gas, etc. Same with woodlot and so on.

They don't look at themselves with respect to revenue stream to the Crown. They look at themselves with respect to percentage that stays in the local community and in the local economy — okay?

One of the aspects of that, with the small-tenure program the minister's fully apprised of, is the woodlot program, the promised doubling. I was at the woodlot federation annual general meeting. It's still an issue and concern. For the record, what is the status of that, and when might we see some new woodlots under the revitalization strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was actually the woodlot folks that told me that there's a small amount of our revenue and a large amount of administration. They told me that because they were making the case that they needed to have their system streamlined so that the amount of work they had to go through and our staff had to go through in order to service them should be streamlined and made more flexible. So it wasn't questioning whether they were a revenue source or not or where they bought their capital; it was really about that particular aspect.

They actually identified that to me in one of the early meetings I had with them, and I said: "Well, you're right." Now, let's see if we can find a way to work through some of the discussion papers we've had with them. Their concern when I talked to them was: "Okay, we've been through these discussions before with ministries" — in their case I think it's probably for 20 years or so — "and somebody's always working on something." I said: "Look, I'm going to set a tight time frame on this. We're going to make some decisions. You will find out not too long from now what those decisions are that you've put before us that we think we can accommodate you on so you can move on with your business."

I think that's the relationship they want to have with the ministry. Having said that, though, we should also remember that that's part of us giving a service to a client base that could be streamlined so that they can have a better operating network and we can better service them, which obviously puts additional resources, if we can streamline their processes, back onto other things that our staff might want to concentrate on. So it's good for both parties that we get there. I've made that commitment to them, and I've made the same commitment to the community forest folks, and we're going to get there.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that clarification. My question, however, was: when will the first woodlot be issued under the revitalization strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: In honesty, not in the near term. In discussions with the woodlot federation, they felt that was appropriate, because they feel that the business structure and the streamlining needs to get straightened out first before we pile more woodlots onto the program. My commitment to them was that, first, we would get this piece of work done, and then we would look at what fibre supply was available for the expansion of the woodlot program.

B. Simpson: This may be one of those where we would agree to disagree on the interpretation of what's being asked for, because when I was at the AGM, there was a high level of anxiety, where people wanted to see when there would be awards. I would agree that different districts feel different levels of readiness for it.

One of the concerns — and I'm going to spend a little bit of time around BCTS momentarily — is what B.C. Timber Sales is doing in locking up portions of the AAC and not making them available. I'd like to raise a case in point that the minister is aware of, and that's Quesnel, where B.C. Timber Sales has basically told everybody that the land base is essentially locked up and, to a certain extent, has created a bit of infighting in the community, because they've layered potential woodlots over top of the area that was targeted for community forest.

The relationship — and I've got the documentation here; I'm sure the minister has it himself — and the discussions there are becoming a little bit animated. That is beginning to become a concern as BCTS kind of further puts its stamp over things. Then there's a feeling that the possibilities and potentials for areas for woodlots or community forests are shrinking.

So I'm hearing a different story, and I'm wondering if the minister can comment on the role that B.C. Timber Sales will play in making woodlots and community forests available in the future.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am aware of some of the conflicts. When I was in Quesnel…. The city of Quesnel wants a community forest where some woodlot operators also see an expansion opportunity for their operation to go. Of course, the member knows that not only BCTS has a competing interest on the land base. We run into forest and range agreements. We run into major licensees. When you have the issues about…. If you put it in a place where they can't economically mill it, then they say that you've made a bad choice where the woodlot goes or where whatever tenure it is goes.

I guess you can best describe it as "welcome to our world." We have some issues that we have to deal with in the next number of months with regard to all these competing interests on the land base. We're going to work through them. I don't have a pat answer for the member today, and I don't think I could find one, frankly. I think this is where the skills of our — I'm going to say this — very competent staff are going to find the solutions.

I just wanted to start off…. I'll speak specifically about Sechelt and the community forest application. Can the minister tell me the status of that application, in case there's confusion?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually had a list yesterday when one of the members, I think it was the member for Nelson-Creston, was taking us through some issues around his community forests. I said, "In two weeks," on his, because I had enough information to be able to

say that in two weeks, he'll have an answer. I don't have that same information in front of me on this one. However, any community I met with at UBCM that had the expression in, and we had identified a block…. I said that we would be trying to get those done as soon as possible, as the first wave came out, and then there would be a second wave that would come out.

The challenge as I do that is I want to make sure that however we're going to have them pay for their timber is economically viable short term, medium term and long term, because one of the biggest complaints of the community forest side has been that they get a community forest award and then it doesn't make any money because of how we calculate our stumpage or how much administration we put on it. We're trying to do that body of work and to have that ready to go at the same time as those licences come out so that they'll know the actual bottom line for their economic opportunity. I don't have it with me at the moment, but I will get that information to the member.

N. Simons: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that. It's not essential specifically. I just wondered if there were some problems with the first application — if you happen to know if there's been a resubmission of an original application.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think that's the case. I think what it probably is…. There was one call that sort of went out that some people had done a lot of work prior to. Then there was a call that said: "If you're interested, let us know by letter." One doesn't shut off the other. If they're in the system with regards to a community forest, it would be treated the same as everybody else in the same manner. It is an objective to get a number of these out the door within the next number of weeks and some others out the door by the end of the year. I think we can get specific about yours by looking it up when I get the information to the member. It's the same as the member from south Cariboo yesterday. He had some questions about something. When he wants the information, I have that information to provide him with — to his questions. We'll get it to him — to his office is probably the easiest.

N. Simons: Thank you. I respect the fact that there's a lot to cover in the ministry, and I understand that. Specifically, my concern is…. Well, I know that there's an application before the ministry for community forests. Is there any ministry oversight in terms of assessing the degree of community consultation — oversight by the ministry itself?

Hon. R. Coleman: We traditionally check that either one or two ways. We either go to the community or ask the community to convene a public meeting, or whatever, that shows the support for the application. Just so the member knows, Sechelt was given an invitation to apply, so that means they're one of the communities that obviously had expressed some interest. The status of the application, though…. It was just an invitation to apply for a probationary community forest agreement that was made, and that's where it sits today.

N. Simons: I just wanted to ensure…. I'm certainly in favour of the concept of community forest. I would like that to be on record. I'm just concerned that there have been some divisions that have arisen in the community over the issue and whether or not certain areas have been included in that proposed area. I'm just hoping that eventually we'll get to the point where these kinds of conflicts are addressed before they arise.

Maybe I can turn to an issue facing both the upper coast and the lower coast, and it has to do with B.C. Timber Sales. What mechanism is in place, if any, to address community concerns over B.C. Timber Sales — sale of….

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll just deal with the community forest side first, because the staff member that deals with B.C. Timber Sales is on his way. He should be here shortly, and then I can address that.

We've actually been known to turn down community forests if there's huge opposition in communities, because we do feel that if they're going to be called a community forest, it's something the community wants. There are oftentimes, when you establish an area for community forests, certain areas of it that some people have a particular concern about that might be part of the annual cut. In those cases, we often will adjust the blocks to meet the concerns of the community on those discussions. The reason that it's sort of like, "Do you want to make an expression of interest to the community?" is that we're not going to even go out and put the call on top of people that don't want the community forests. So that's why when we do an invitation, it's strictly that. It's an invitation to communities around the province that are interested in community forests to make that expression to us.

In the member's area there are a number of competing interests. There was a meeting recently with my ministry that I, unfortunately, was out of town for — it's being rescheduled — with the Sechelt Indian band. Chief Dixon and I will be meeting, I think sometime in November, on some of these issues too. It's an ongoing process in each one of these areas.

I'll just see if I can get the answer to your Timber Sales question. Joining me is Grant Parnell, director of B.C. Timber Sales. The other people in the House have been introduced as they revolved through in the last two or three days.

Basically, what we do with B.C. Timber Sales is we have registrant meetings, which are people that are interested in bidding. They are open to the public, so any member of the public can attend any of those meetings. When we have specific issues in any area, we'll have what we refer to as an ad hoc meeting, but a better description is a public meeting. There was one at Roberts Creek — there was a public hearing recently, I

think — and that's in the member's riding. There are some issues, and they're now reviewing the outcome of that meeting and looking at how it would affect what they think they can or cannot do up there. That has not been finalized.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for his response. You addressed, again, your training as a law enforcement official and anticipated the next question. I'm doing my hon. friend imitation here. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

My question is about consultation process for BCTS. Is there any way…? Can the minister commit to allowing the people of the Sunshine Coast — and Powell River area as well — a significant and actual role in the management of forests, especially in areas where there's residential interface?

I'm talking about right now. The current situation is there's almost…. Maybe the minister even said it — that it is an ad hoc meeting. There's no involvement in the planning, no consideration of water licence holders, recreational interests. Even the type of forestry being conducted is not always to the benefit of the community and all the values that exist in those communities. So will the ministry and BCTS undertake thorough, meaningful consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are processes, but I should caution the member that we're dealing with Crown lands and forest development. We're not in the development business, which means we're not doing public hearings for subdivisions and that sort of thing. There are local processes that follow that.

But we do forest development plans. They're created sometimes long before ever issuing a tender, usually long before ever issuing a tenure to anybody. B.C. Timber Sales develops plans. So do licensees. Those plans are then advertised to the public for input, and all resources are basically put together to try to integrate the concerns and the issues of the people that are in the area and the use of the land base.

Some of the areas that we're talking about have both sides of forestry. It has the concern over where…. Some people feel they're concerned about the integration of the forestry close to their homes that they've chosen to build on the Sunshine Coast, and it doesn't take very long, further up the Sunshine Coast, to see the importance of forestry to a community like Powell River, where if they don't have timber supply, they have difficulties for their pulp mill and other jobs that may be in a community.

Our job is to try and strike the balance, and B.C. Timber Sales is acutely aware of some of the unique issues on the Sunshine Coast. That's why they did have the public hearing, for instance, in Roberts Creek — I think it was. Yeah. As they do their resources now on all of this, it's looking down the road to possible tenures, and they're integrating all those pieces of information as they move forward. I think that's the role that they have on the land base with regard to that type of public input and professional forest management.

B. Simpson: To the minister: I've suggested that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and I actually try to arrange a meeting with the minister to brief him on some of the complexities of the issues there, because it is quite a complex array of concerns.

Since the minister has brought in the staffing for B.C. Timber Sales, I'll deal with that issue now. It strikes me that if the revitalization strategy and the clawback…. The public perception of the revitalization strategy and clawback was to get more small tenures out and to have more variety in the tenure system. The public perception now — and I'm sure this is no surprise to the minister or his staff — is that B.C. Timber Sales has made the Crown the largest licensee. It seems as though the key objective now is maximizing revenue to the Crown.

I would point out, on page 25 of the service plan, it is actually an explicit metric in the service plan: "Optimize B.C. timber sales net revenue to the province." However, there are two other metrics at play here that people are expressing concerns about that may be juxtapositioned in a way that is self-defeating.

The first is: "Provide a credible reference point for timber costs and pricing." How can you provide a credible reference point for timber costs and pricing while at the same time being driven to maximize revenue to the Crown? That's a question particularly on the coast, where the market pricing system has been put in place, and I've heard expressions of concern that those seem to be conflicting metrics. An explanation from the minister on why those aren't conflicting would be helpful.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, the service plan says "optimize," not "maximize." I don't know whether I heard the member say maximize or optimize, but optimize is, obviously, to try to get value for pricing.

Does it work? Boy, I would think the guys on the coast would say so. Market-based pricing on the coast…. Frankly, the price we're getting for stumpage today based on market-based pricing by B.C. Timber Sales is two-thirds of what we were getting two years ago. So the price of fibre is down. Now, it's still not probably down with regards to some species, because we're not getting sales on things like hemlock and what have you — and we're looking at all of that now. But if we don't have some sort of pricing system…. The coast is actually a good example because then you go back into this very complex system. I don't want to go back to a complex stumpage system and then back into a waterbed issue. This was the whole goal — to sort of get out of that.

We do about 600 total sales a year. I walked this through with, I think, one of your colleagues yesterday on the sizes and the amount, but it was…. About a third of them are small, and the next third are medium-sized tenders, and the next one, larger tenures. The

reason for that is to get an opportunity for those that wouldn't want to necessarily bid on, let's say, 100,000 cubic metres to be able to bid on 15,000 cubic metres, if that's what their needs were.

They've increased sales each year at B.C. Timber Sales since 2001, moving from nine million to over 15 million cubic metres this fiscal year. This volume is being sold in about 600 different sales ranging from 2,500 cubic metres to over 100,000 cubic metres. Of the 600 total sales, 225 are planned to be under 15,000 cubic metres, and over 100 are under 10,000 cubic metres.

B. Simpson: I know the word is optimize. That's what I read, because I read it into the record. But if you look at the actual performance measures used, one is Crown net revenue from B.C. Timber Sales, and the other is average cost per cubic metre. Those are standard business measures. So in standard business measures, what happens, whether intended or not, is you maximize revenue, and you get costs down. While the word "optimize" might be there, you get what you measure.

The generalized concern among folks is that over time what will happen with B.C. Timber Sales — because of the control that the Crown has, independent of other licensees, over stumpage, over when they put the bids out, over what they do with zero-bid situations — is that they can float the available timber out when they want to. The Crown has a lot more control over the conditions under which they float these licences out than other operators do, and what I'm hearing on the coast is a generalized concern that this could trend away from the intent, particularly when you have two business metrics which people are measured to — one to maximize revenue, and one to reduce costs.

Again to the minister: one of the things I have heard — and I'm just conscious of time, so I'll fast-track this to get to the point…. The service plan indicates that we're going to look at carrying this into the interior, which was always the intent — to move from the coast to the interior. Prior to doing that, will the Minister of Forests commit to an independent review outside his ministry? Bring somebody in, and go around and get some data on how this is really working and what the generalized concerns are from a wide range of people, so that the program, if it's intended to continue and to go into the interior, can be fine-tuned, the concerns can be dealt with, and it can go into the interior without these concerns then being realized there.

Hon. R. Coleman: I've got two explanations for the member on the two subjects. I'll get back to the service plan side here in a second.

We have a Timber Sales Advisory Council. The Timber Sales Advisory Council receives input from both the forest sector and its customer needs. B.C. Timber Sales struck an advisory council to provide a formal forum for key industry stakeholders to jointly consider issues and emerging opportunities as well as the efficacy of current operational policies and procedures or practices.

The members are drawn widely from the forest sector, including independent loggers, which includes the interior loggers association; the truck loggers; the Northwest Loggers Association; the Central Interior Logging Association; log brokers, which is the independent log marketing association; independent sawmillers, which is Coastland Wood; value-adders, which is in the interior; the Value-Added Wood Association of Vancouver Island; wood processors; Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products; and major licensees, including COFI and the CFLA. So basically, they do that now.

With regards to pricing in the interior, we have met, and I have talked to the industry in the interior. We're a long ways from the next level of that market-based pricing. We're looking at some adjustments to the pricing manual. We're just consulting with industry now for April of 2006, but that's not going to the coast model because they have some concerns that they may not be ready.

With regards to the service plan, when we're talking B.C. Timber Sales, there are actually nine points. I'll just deal with the last seven, because I think it might deal with the concerns of the member. Basically, the intent of B.C. Timber Sales is to provide a credible reference point for timber costs and pricing, then to optimize BCTS's net revenue to the province and then to provide an open and competitive timber market.

Now, my understanding, as described by my folks here, is…. On point eight, that isn't about optimizing the price, because the market determines the price. The bids determine the price. When they refer to optimizing their net revenue, that's getting their costs in line, keeping them in line and making sure they're increasing their efficiencies as to how they package their product and get it out the door for bid. When they're referring to optimizing the net revenue to government, they're saying: "We've got to keep our costs in line, because when we sell it, we have to make sure we're not overcosting on our end as to what it costs government to deliver the product for sale."

B. Simpson: I take the minister's last point, but I don't agree with the appraisal of that. I think his staff do know that our upset-bid pricing system does not always reflect the true revenue generation to the Crown, the control that B.C. Timber Sales has over what it does with the zero-bid scenario and whether or not it gets entered into the system, the control they have whenever they can issue these things. If they don't like the conditions or the bids, they can retract them.

There's a lot more going on there than just simply that they're another player in the field. I think that's the generalized concern. Given that, just a very straightforward question on the review panel that the minister talks about: are those documents public? If so, where can I see minutes or whatever from that discussion?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, they take minutes, and they're more than happy to make them available to the member.

The member's description of the last part. I don't necessarily disagree with all of that. That's why, frankly, when I referred the other day to there being some issues that had been brought to us by the coast forest association and companies and people that I said we were going to go to work with to do the deal with what we think might be short-term, medium-term and long-term things we could do to assist the coast in its fix…. Certainly, what he describes is going to be part of that discussion. That's the direction that's been given to see how we can deal with that. It also goes broader than that, because it's also how we're dealing with certain types of fibre and that sort of thing. I've taken all that into account, and I've asked the ministry to take it into account as they come back to me with some recommendations.

What the member described is some of the concerns people have with how it prices out. The challenge I think the ministry will have and government may have is that at the end of the day, if you can't get anything for it, you just let it grow. Or do you actually allow the market to determine that it's worth so little that…? Then how do you cover your cost to deliver the product to the market?

Those are going to be questions we're going to have to ask as we go through that. I'm pretty confident, though, that we have collected enough input in the last three, four months from the folks at the coast to have what I think will formulate the basis of a going-forward opportunity for us in the next little while, once we get it sort of crystallized into a number of points and can sit down with the players and have a chat.

B. Simpson: Again, just a comment on the minister's reflections. One of the struggles people have — and I have it myself — is that when we talk about what the market will…. To a certain extent, BCTS is creating the market with its ability to manipulate some things, so there's a bit of fuzziness there about what the true market is, given some of the things that BCTS has. But the minister has indicated that he already recognizes those things, is in discussion around those things, and I look forward to what's coming out there.

I still maintain that I think, though, that people outside of the ministry need to look at B.C. Timber Sales in toto throughout the province. I've heard concerns. You've heard it here from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. You heard it the other day from other members. There's the sense that B.C. Timber Sales has become the major licensee, without maybe some of the constraints and restrictions we've put on other licensees. So I think it requires that. I've heard that the minister is looking into that, and I'm satisfied with that.

I'd like to switch to FRPA. However, I note that one of the staff members who may be able to answer some range questions has stepped out, so I'll talk about a couple of other things under FRPA, but I'd like to come back to range.

The Forest and Range Practices Act. One of the things I'd like to raise again just now…. Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I really don't understand the relationship between the Forest Practices Board and the ministry when it comes to questions about ministry practices or concerns or whatever the case may be — explicitly, the Forest Practices Board's concerns about biodiversity. There have been a number of concerns expressed around biodiversity, and those concerns go directly to how the Forest and Range Practices Act does not necessarily support biodiversity values on the ground.

I'd like clarification on what the government's obligations are, if any, to hear the Forest Practices Board findings and incorporate them and, in particular, what the government is going to do around the Forest Practices Board's concerns about biodiversity.

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the chamber now, in addition to the other folks, is Ian Miller. Ian is the legislation and policy forester with the forest practices branch.

I just want everybody to understand what the Forest Practices Board is. It is an independent watchdog — independent of the government, independent of the ministry. They investigate complaints. They are not told what complaints to investigate. They make that choice. They can conduct audits, and then they can make determinations out of those audits. They're not told who to audit.

They can also conduct special investigations, which they can do from time to time. They then report out. Usually what happens is that the ministry then sits down and meets with the Forest Practices Board and discusses their findings and, wherever possible, makes changes or puts in place controls that might deal with some of the audit concerns.

The ministry and government are not bound in any legislative way by the decisions of the Forest Practices Board. I think we should be clear about that so that people don't think that the Forest Practices Board does something that immediately means that the response has to be that we have to pass a piece of legislation or come up with a regulation. What happens is the board makes their determinations and then we sit down and work through it. We actually then, once we've done the report, sit down with them. The ministry does a public response with regards to whatever audit or investigation it is.

B. Simpson: I hear what the minister is saying. Let me couch it within the terms of what I understand the results-based code, as we move towards that, allows. First off, how many FSPs have been submitted to date — forest stewardship plans?

B. Simpson: This is where I may show my ignorance. If the staff can help me with this. My under-

standing under the results-based code is that we're going to move towards FSPs as our mechanism for understanding what's going on, on the land base, where we're going with it and what the intended outcomes are. It's my understanding that there are three ways to do the FSPs. One is that they can choose to adhere to the default guidelines which were under the Forest Practices Code. That's one.

The second is that they can specify deliberately, outside of those default guidelines, what results they intend to achieve. Effectively, if they think there are things outside the default guidelines they want to achieve, they state what they're going to do.

The third is that they can write a strategy without the results defined. So they don't reference the default results; they don't reference new results. They simply give a strategy independent of articulated results, and therefore, they just are measured against their accountability to the strategy. They actually engage and enact the strategy as they indicated they would.

I'd like to know if I understand correctly — if those are the three alternatives for filing an FSP.

Hon. R. Coleman: Generally speaking, the description the member puts forward is fine.

B. Simpson: Given that, it's my understanding that the majority of the FSPs submitted fall into the third category, where they're not defining results, not going to the code. They're giving accountable strategies, and that's the preferred method. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually seeing a mix. Early on we were seeing more defaults as far as the submissions were concerned. Now we're seeing more of a mix. There's no single movement one way or the other, it seems, at this point in time.

I should just tell the member, though, that senior people from the ministry are meeting with the professional foresters and groups today — on this very subject, actually — and going through their recommendations and concerns, like I mentioned yesterday. They're doing that because this is sort of a work-in-progress. They want to be able to make sure that we have the interpretations down, the industry standards down and how we group these so that we all get more efficient as we come through.

That also helps, I think, the RPFs build their professional capacity into something new that they…. I think, down the line, they really want to be able to have that higher level of professional approval process, from an RPF standpoint, as far as making submissions.

Just on that note, I did have my office contact the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals and the author of the letter that he brought up in the House yesterday. They did acknowledge they received the letter and did not acknowledge that they said they didn't.

Given that under the FSPs…. Again, my understanding is that professional reliance is the main oversight mechanism. We're depending on professional foresters and their stamp on these FSPs — that they are going to act as good stewards, effectively removing the responsibility of the Crown to act as good stewards and putting it onto this professional reliance model. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not entirely. We provide the context. We control the framework. We have 50 years of excellent performance on the land base that comes into the whole management of forest stewardship plans. We set the objectives. We then approve the plan before it's done. We monitor the results. Then we have the independent audit body, which is the Forest Practices Board, which also plays a role in this package.

I'll never forget…. I think it was the first time when I was deputy Forests critic — just for editorial sort of thinking here about how we can improve our operation on the land base for our companies and for professional foresters and what have you. I was the deputy Forests critic back in about 1997. I went on a tour. I went to an operation in the interior of B.C.

They had registered professional foresters on staff who wrote forest plans that would then go to the ministry and be edited and sent back. They would then make changes and send them back, and then they would make changes and send them back.

They walked me through one that had taken 29 months, I think. The last three months, it had been delayed because of inconsistent language. The inconsistent language, they pointed out to me in the response, was that one area of the report had said it could be logged spring, summer, winter and fall, and the other area said it could be logged year-round.

When I looked at that way back then, I thought that there must be a more efficient way to do this and rely on some professional reliance. Knowing a number of registered professional foresters, they've always said to me: "We can take the next step in a cooperative relationship with government. We can be held accountable, and we want to get there." I think this is actually a good evolution in forest management for the professional…. It's not just the RPFs, by the way. It's also all kinds of professionals who would be on the land base that would be sign-offs, whether it be hydrologists or whatever the case may be.

I think that the work we're doing with those organizations — like today, sitting down with them to build through to see how we're going to see these evolve — is important work, because at the end of the day, I think we all have one objective. We want professional reliance on the land base. We want to know that we have standards that are defendable worldwide, and I think we have the best forest practices, probably, of any jurisdiction in the world today. We need to allow

the people that are in the profession the capacity to be able to do their work — in conjunction with, obviously, having the monitoring of the results, somebody setting the framework and control, and the audit so that we can make sure they're performing on the land base.

I think you'll find that as this evolves, RPFs and those types of professionals will get their professional reliance to a level where they will be, as they always have been, very proud of the forest plans they write and very diligent to make sure they're meeting the standards in the context and the control of the framework and the results being looked for under the act by government.

B. Simpson: As the minister well knows from the discussion we had around the amendment to FRPA, I don't share the minister's optimism. There are a number of people who don't share that optimism. There's a generalized concern that FRPA, if not given sufficient oversight, becomes a minimum-standards code and that we'll lose our place in the global market as good stewards of the forest. We don't have the luxury of time to debate that. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, and my role as opposition critic will be monitoring that.

There are two points I want to make here before I get into the Range thing. One example of that, which I've experienced myself by getting out on the land base and which seems to be a conflicting set of objectives, is the relaxation of utilization standards. What we're seeing in cut-to-length programs is contractors penalized for bringing in any substandard logs, which means significant debris being left behind on the land base, to the point…. I'm working with one of my own constituents on this, in which his range is no longer available to his cattle. They have to graze the roads.

That strikes me as a significant problem, because you've undermined multiple use, and you have also gone counter to what we're spending a lot of money on, and that's fuel management strategy. I can show the minister pictures of this if he's not had the ability to go out and experience it himself. It is mind-boggling, what is going on. I've been told by the Ministry of Forests and Range staff that that is perfectly acceptable practice under FRPA and that there's nothing they can do about it.

I think there is the potential here for minimum standards, and I wonder if the minister, with the assistance of his staff, can let me know if they are tracking the relaxation of utilization standards, both in terms of multiple use and in terms of potential fuel management issues.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, FRPA was designed to be government's published objectives for forest practices per the May 2002 discussion paper. That included maintaining the highest environmental standards. On the slash issue, there are obviously more logs coming out and more reforestation allowed to take place, as the member knows. Research shows that some residual coarse debris is actually good when we're reforesting. The member also knows that.

On the particular issue the member brought up, we've actually had the district manager look into those practices. They are being adjusted. Issues like this will exist from time to time, but we like to hear about them from the MLAs, because if we hear from them on the ground, we can usually get out there and adjust. There has been some understanding on the adjustment of those practices, as I understand it, with the rancher also involved. I think that's important, because as the member knows, this is a big province.

So there are times when we need to adjust practices and remind people about adjusting practices. It happened in this situation and would continue to happen if we became aware of that situation.

B. Simpson: I'm glad that the minister didn't stop at "some debris," because there's coarse, woody debris, and then there's a whole chunk of the forest left on the ground, and that's what that individual was experiencing. It's not restricted to that area, and I understand from what the minister's saying that it's on the ministry's watch list. It is associated with the overwhelming amount of logging that's going on and the cut-to-length program. I'm glad to hear that's being looked at.

Let me close off this section. I want to go to a little bit of Range. The forest and range evaluation program, or FRPA — has it started? How much funding is it getting? What are the terms of reference or workplan, and will those things be public? Will the proceedings of FRPA be public?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so I can clarify what it is, it's the forest resource evaluation program. It includes range, but it's not exclusive to range. It also includes other forest resources. It has a public website that gives updates on its information. In addition to that, it started out with a certain number of protocols and goals. It is now setting up more protocols, and they're also doing some field testing to deal with the protocols so they can advance the work.

It started out with a fairly modest budget, which has been increased around tenfold for this year. It's enough resources for what they want to do this year. Obviously, I'm not in a position to comment on what we may be doing with the budget next year, because we're in a budget process.

Given some of our discussion around oversight and so on and the role of the Forest Practices Board, will the Forest Practices Board also be considered for a budget increase and more resources to it, as it may end up having a greater role in this?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because that board is independent and it's not part of an entity, it actually makes its own budgetary submissions as well. I'm not in a position to comment on what they may or may not be ask-

ing about because, again, we're in the budget process. I wouldn't want to either foreshadow anything that somebody might be asking for or pass opinion on what they should or should not get. That would be inappropriate in the budget process.

B. Simpson: On Range. We started off this process a few days ago. It feels like months or weeks ago, whatever it was. I had asked the minister if there were any structural changes to the ministry as a result of the cabinet change. It's come to my attention that there is something in the works that I need some clarity on.

On page 5 of the service plan it does indicate that "changes include the responsibility for grazing leases coming to the Ministry of Forests and Range and the range stewardship and grazing function being established as a stand-alone core business area." It's been brought to my attention that that may require legislative change — a change to an act to allow that to be administered — and that it has staffing and budget implications.

I know that some federal dollars are going into range issues, but is that correct? If so, what is the process by which these changes will come? I know the BCCA and others are expecting the changes to come this fall, and there's been an expression to me of some concern that it's not happening fast enough. Is there a legislative change requirement? If so, what is it? Secondly, are there staffing and budgetary considerations here? If so, what are those? Thirdly, when will those occur?

Hon. R. Coleman: The ministry is proposing some changes that will place an increased emphasis on accountability for a healthy and efficient livestock industry, some legislation that will go through that process. I explained to the member that it goes through to requests for legislation. Then it goes to legislation drafting, and then it goes to the leg. review council. Being that time, it probably goes back and forth through a number of legal lenses and eventually ends up here. But we are, yes. We think there are some things we can do legislatively that will increase the emphasis and focus, frankly, for livestock, which we think is a big part of Range.

We're also working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to consolidate grazing administration functions, including grazing leases, to the Ministry of Forests and Range. Range functions in the ministry are being consolidated within the ministry under the direction of the assistant deputy minister of operations and led by a newly created range director and range branch. So we have somebody we're actually putting on the file who will have the focus, which wasn't necessarily the case in the past.

This will also allow the ministry to focus its efforts and resources to address range and cattle industry issues. We have worked with the B.C. cattle association with regards to that as we've walked through it. They are familiar with the people we are bringing on board because, I think, one of them actually worked for them or with them at one time. At a recent meeting in Kamloops we also agreed to structure a committee of the B.C. cattle association and senior government officials — between my ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands — to address key issues to the industry. Also, we're going to work with the industry — government is — to develop a B.C. cattle industry strategy, which will guide policy.

So all of those are on the table. All of those things are being worked on. My understanding, the last time I had the discussion within the ministry, was that our stakeholders are pretty happy about the direction we're going.

B. Simpson: I think that categorization is correct. It's maybe a matter of timing, because they've been waiting for a while. They've felt like they have fallen through the cracks for a while. So to have to wait again until the spring cycle, or whatever…. It's not an expression of concern around the direction; it's an expression of concern around the timing.

With that in mind, I did ask an explicit question: did this have budget implications? This update is midstream. The ministry's budget was effectively set before. So will this portion and will this additional responsibility be resourced with additional dollars, because I'm hearing the minister say there will be more FTEs added into this particular core business area. Are there more dollars in there from an operational perspective as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: Resources did come with the transfer. Some financial resources came from the transfer for us to manage the file. We're in the budget process now, as I said earlier to the member. That's all part of a process, and I can't say what I'm asking for or what we may not be asking for. We do recognize that there are additional resources required. That's why we brought on the individual and are starting to build a team around that particular part of our ministry.

There are some synergies within, though, that we may be able to share some operational issues to, that will give us synergies within the management of the ministry. It's not always necessarily adding FTEs. Sometimes it's how you structure the operation in and around the file. We'll be looking at all of that as we come through the budget process into the next fiscal year.

B. Simpson: I have a few more minutes, so it will be about quarter after. I'm getting the rest of the crew teed up. Again, for the sake of brevity so that we can get through these, I'll make my comments pointed.

I'm sure the minister is aware of this. In fact, I know he is, because he's been briefed by many of the groups that I have been briefed by. There is a generalized concern out there about the degree of corporate concentration that has occurred over the last couple of years. That generalized concern has actually been presented

to the previous minister, and I'm sure this minister has been briefed on it. What we're doing is effectively undermining the future of the industry because, as we allow the corporate concentration to occur, we go from a very mixed, robust industry with lots of layers and lots of players to a few key players who then start to squeeze all of the others.

Just for the record — and again, it's not an intent to read all of the naysayers into the record — the B.C. independent sawmills put a policy proposal to government on April 8 of 2005. These represent about two dozen mills, just under a thousand employees, spread throughout the interior. They say quite explicitly: "At present we can claim to represent the views of about two dozen independent sawmills throughout British Columbia." They've received support from others that have long-term licences. "The message we have invariably heard is as follows: the Liberal administration has crippled the non-tenured forest sector in British Columbia." The policy document goes on to suggest ways of fixing that.

With that in mind — and it's a pretty dramatic statement that is being made — the cattlemen, on February 24 of this year, made a similar statement: "The Ministry of Forests has focused its efforts on the needs of large timber companies, and in the process the interests of more than 1,700 range tenure holders have been left behind." I hear it on the coast. I hear it in the interior in the north. I hear it in the interior in the south.

Is the minister aware of the concern? And what, if any, steps is the ministry going to take to address this concern and to keep these smaller players, who are — and I agree with the assessment — the entrepreneurs in the forest industry in the truest sense of that word, afloat? Because I believe that fundamentally — and the deputy minister knows; I've made this pitch to him — these are the folks who we're going to turn to as our allowable cut starts to decrease.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we're aware of the problem. As a matter of fact, that's why we made some adjustments to the category two program, which is basically geared to more small sawmillers. We're looking at that to see what else we can do with that.

Basically, we did introduce these changes, where a minimum 50-percent processing cost for all interior category two TSLs and a minor volume increase…. It's a protected pool based on volume allocated to BCTS under mountain beetle AAC uplifts.

There are a number of other challenges that go with this, as the member knows. One is that we have an oversupply of logs, and so some of the folks that could even get fibre can't trade it for the fibre they actually want — that they want to run through their mill, in some cases. They actually have a different type of wood they want to run through. So that's one of the challenges.

I don't want to leave anybody with the thought that consolidation is all bad, though, because it has increased capitalization and modernization for mills in the interior. It has given us more market power with the major lumber chains in the United States to sell lumber into them, because we have the supply to meet the demand and that sort of thing. It's a balance we need to strike. I do recognize it as a concern. I do recognize it as an issue. So does the ministry, and that's why we're looking at category two now to see if there's a way. I've talked to a number of those small sawmillers since I've become the minister.

Even as we go through all of this, I should just also point out that when a consolidation takes place, it also has to go through the competition bureau federally, and that's the reason the one mill in Fort St. James was…. When the Slocan merger took place, Canfor was required to divest itself of one of its mills under the competition bureau. That mill has now been sold to Pope and Talbot, which brings a new competitor into the Prince George area that wasn't there before.

In the West Fraser-Wellwood merger, West Fraser was required to divest its interest in two mills in Burns Lake and in the Cariboo and was required to contribute AAC to a new competitor. Some of that balances out to some degree, but there's a mixture fix here.

As you go through these adjustments to industry, government has to be aware of it, and that's why we're aware of it. I'll undertake to the member that we'll keep him apprised as we move down more cat two–type ideas to try and deal with some of those issues.

B. Simpson: As the minister may be aware, I was involved in helping engineer one of those situations and was involved in it, so I'm very aware of how to work with the competition council and all of those other things. But the point that I do want to make, and it's something that the minister has said on a number of occasions in the House to correct my Chicken Little status, where, when we look at capital investment…. I would caution the minister and staff. If they're not involved in this…. I have built mills. I have been involved in capital projects around North America.

The normative rate of return on a capital investment in a major organization is two years. It's not a sign of long-term health in any industry or any sector, and if we take it as that, we are kidding ourselves. It's not a valid point of reference for us.

I do want to suggest that I agree wholeheartedly with the minister. I'm heartened by his words. We need a heterogeneous industry. Peter Woodbridge, whom I'm sure the minister and his staff are aware of, is saying that we have a structural issue there that we need to deal with. I would suggest that as the competition

council wraps up some of its stuff around pulp and paper, maybe it's an avenue for us to also look at some of the structural issues around competitiveness, R and D and various other factors with that independent group of mills.

Again, conscious of the time, I do want to turn to the minister's and my favourite topic to agree to disagree on, and that's the mountain pine beetle. Just three lines of question on this very quickly.

First off, the chief forester is going to be hosting a forum in December. It's my understanding, and I've had that confirmed, that that is going to proceed. In the initial document I saw for that, the chief forester is outlining two options coming out of that. As the minister is aware, I believe the mountain pine beetle is the canary in the coalmine of a whole range of forest health issues related to climate change, our management practices and everything else. In that document the chief forester indicates that we have two options as an outcome: (1) a proceedings document or (2) to use the symposium as the beginning of the development of a comprehensive strategic plan for forest health.

Has the minister given any feedback to the chief forester on what outcome he prefers, and what is the nature of that direction?

Hon. R. Coleman: I agree with the member. I think there are some unique opportunities as a result of the mountain pine beetle. What we're doing, and we will be doing — and I think he and I will have other conversations about it — is challenging the imagination and creativity of British Columbia and the industry and, frankly, maybe in some cases, internationally on this whole file. We have challenges on the fact that today we're doing what is the interim to move onto the land base, and that's to increase your annual allowable cut and get onto it, but there are so many other things that need to be done.

The chief forester is basically doing "The Future Forest Ecosystem of B.C: Are We on the Right Track?" That's a symposium he's putting together that will come back to us. He's a statutory authority, so actually, on the AAC and that sort of thing, the ministry doesn't tell nor does the minister tell the chief forester what to do. We respect his authority with regards to that.

On the other side of it, though, we do give input on a symposium like this so that we can make sure, coming out of it, that we get information that's going to be valuable to all of us. Certainly, we will work with him on strategies for forest health and forest design and that sort of thing, going forward.

There is also another one. The University of British Columbia and the University of Northern British Columbia are doing two symposiums, as well, which basically are geared to the same thing. This one is the mountain pine beetle epidemic in future communities and ecosystems. We've challenged the academic side of this thing to say: "Look, you're part of the solution here." It's like we do with foreign tech at UBC or whatever. We will fund into these and say, "We really want minds getting on top of this," because I think some of our solutions, frankly, are going to be science-based. Some of them are going to be production-based. Some of them are going to be an innovation like the pellets and power plants that we may be able to do as well.

I think there's a plethora of opportunity here for all of us on this particular file, and I think it's our responsibility, along with the community action groups we've got, to look at all of those. But once we look at them, we have to make some decisions. I think we're going to make some decisions short term pretty soon and then some longer-term decisions as well. But when we make those, I've said to members in the ministry — and I've said it to any professional groups I've talked to — that we can't be afraid to make a mistake, because we have to find…. We need to allow people to think outside a box that we've put them into for so many years.

The old spaghetti mill situation, as the member knows, is there. It's cutting pine; it's doing high volume. Does it exist in that form — or how does it look — ten years from now is a big question. The one thing I don't want to do as minister, and I don't think we should do as legislators as we go through the mountain pine beetle thing, is actually get to where people are afraid to make a decision. We need to actually encourage decisions, and then if something doesn't quite work, well, we'll adjust it and fix it, but at least we're trying. It's better to try and take action rather than to sit back and be afraid to take any action.

I think that's going to be the challenge for all of us, particularly in government on both sides of this House, to encourage that innovation and that ability to make those decisions and move forward. Sometimes they'll work, and actually, I would like to have the thought that they would all work 100 percent of the time for great outcome. Sometimes we might get halfway through something and say: "If we just tweak it this way, we'll get way better results." That's the challenge we've got to give each other going forward on this whole forestry file.

B. Simpson: I hope the minister is right. As human beings, we seem to respond to crisis often better than we respond to status quo. We roll up our sleeves, and we get at it.

Two very pointed questions to close this off. Before I do that, I want to really thank the staff for assisting in this process. The first question is: given what has happened with the northern development initiative and the bills that came forward and put accountability mechanisms into the NDI, as the minister proceeds with the beetle action coalitions, is there any thought or need to look at accountability mechanisms for them as well?

There's a concern in the communities about board membership. There's concern about the kinds of levels that they're working on, community participation, etc. I've expressed those concerns both to the minister and the deputy minister. Given the experience with the northern development initiative, will there be any

move to put some accountability mechanism or framework around those beetle action coalitions as they roll out?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, on the northern development fund. Those were put into legislation, but the money was actually sent…. That's sort of like another discussion. The reason we've done beetle action committees the way we have is we wouldn't fund the first year until we had a business plan, and we won't fund the next year until we start to see what they've done with the first year's funding. We intend to put additional rigour on that as we go through it. As they start to come up with projects, we'll want measurables attached to those too.

I actually think that people on those committees welcome that because they want to be able to be accountable to their communities. Most of them represent a number of communities in the areas and want to be accountable back to their communities for what they've done and put in place.

I assume we're going to move on shortly, so I'd like to thank the member for his time on estimates. We look forward to moving forward on the forestry file with some interesting twists and turns as we try and make massive adjustments and changes — maybe. Maybe it's just some good thought as to how we help our industries on the coast and interior adapt to the future, and how we move fibre around. We're going to have challenges, and we'll work through those.

I must admit that I'm an optimist. I've often been accused of being an optimist, and I love being accused of being an optimist. The glass is always half-full for me; that's why I like to get out of bed in the morning, and I feel the same way about B.C.'s forest sector.

B. Simpson: Thank you again to the minister and the staff. I appreciate it. It was a good learning process for me. I'm sure that we'll have lots of opportunities over the next little while to pursue this further, and I'll turn the discussion over to the minister's other portfolio of housing.

D. Routley: As I embark on my first estimates process, I'll ask the Chair to remind me when I step out of line and to expect that to occur maybe more frequently than he's used to.

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe just before we start, because we're moving into the housing portfolio…. My officials that are in the Legislature now haven't been introduced as yet because we've been introducing forestry folks. To my left is Lori Wanamaker. Lori is the associate deputy minister responsible for housing, and has more stuck in her head about housing than any person probably in government — with the exception of, and probably on the same plane and level as, the CEO of B.C. Housing, Shayne Ramsay. I am well-served by these two folks in the House today, and we look forward to the member's questions.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for that. I also look forward to this being a learning experience.

My first question to the minister is: can the minister tell me what the rationale was behind putting housing in the same ministry as forestry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know that it was so much put in the same ministry as that housing is actually a ministry within a ministry. What I think happened was that I was a critic for housing in 1997 and always had an interest in the field. As I explained to somebody as best I could, when you express your opinion a number of times over, sooner or later somebody decides: "Well, maybe I'll just give him that file." The Premier made the call, made the decision. I'm not sure what his whole rationale was, but he did add housing to this portfolio, probably because of the interest that I had expressed in the file.

D. Routley: The total budget in 2005-2006 for housing and homelessness is about $208 million. This is $18 million more than it was last year. Can the minister explain where the additional $18 million is being spent?

Hon. R. Coleman: Of the two primary components to that is the increase to SAFER, which is the amount of money to increase it for the balance of the fiscal year from the time it was announced. The other part is the transfer from the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance of the portion for the shelters: homeless shelters and cold-wet weather strategy — that sort of thing. The reason for that is because one of the strategies of the ministry is to bring in and consolidate all aspects of housing into one place so that the conflicting agendas that may have existed between ministries before are all now in one place. There are not going to be conflicting agendas. That should give us a more seamless presentation of the options and delivery of the options in housing in B.C., going forward.

D. Routley: Could the minister break down how much of that $18 million is going into SAFER and how much is going to the shelter program?

Hon. R. Coleman: These numbers aren't going to match up exactly with your $18 million, because some of the costs were prepaid or paid by the previous ministry before transfer. The basic budget has been increased for expansion of the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program to increase the rent ceilings for the balance of this year and to extend eligibility to seniors who own manufactured home parks.

Also, just so we're clear on that, it's not just mobile home parks that were caught in the increase for SAFER. By raising the ceiling, a number of other seniors became eligible who would be in rental units, like

apartments and basement suites and that sort of thing. That's where that goes — in effect from its effective day, which I believe was October 1, through to the end of this fiscal year. The total cost of that program next year will see an additional increase for a whole annual cost of somewhere in excess of $15 million for that program.

The transfer of the emergency shelters from the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance…. There was some money moved over there. This is part-year funding as the program was transferred mid-year, so that number will change in next year's budget to reflect a whole year.

There's also been some capital funding that isn't in the same number the member had, but I might as well let him know what it is. There's some capital funding for provincial homeless initiatives, about $9.5 million. Then there are some additional subsidies for independent living to the total of about $5.8 million for 2,100 households and then the funding for additional modernization improvement projects for our aging public housing portfolio. We're looking at our public housing portfolio as well.

Then there's funding to restore some of the replacement reserves under the provincial housing program. We had some organizations or operations where the housing reserves weren't at the level for capital reserves that we felt they should be. That's to replace things like fridges, stoves, roofs, siding and that sort of stuff, usually based on cycles where they're amortized over a certain number of years.

D. Routley: Could the minister perhaps give me an idea of how much will be spent on the renovation and repair of public housing units, which was just referred to?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I should just describe the portfolio for the member so he understands why certain numbers can't come at certain times. Within British Columbia there are about 28,000 units of housing that are actually owned in many cases…. The properties are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corp., but they're into long-term agreements with non-profit societies who get an operating envelope of funding based on the differential in the rent they collect from the tenant to the operating cost of the facility.

Within that, they actually put aside capital funding. They set that aside. They do that maintenance. They actually do the tracking and keeping of that. So we do the global funding for them. They do the minutiae of the operation. Those numbers could be quantified if the member really wanted us to go out and ask the societies to go back to their budgets and do that. It would be a tremendous amount of work to do it for that purpose.

On the other side of the coin, there are 7,700 units that are actually owned and operated by B.C. Housing in addition to that 28,000. The expenditures on that are about $61 million a year. But the member should be aware that that includes not just some capital improvements but also management, property taxes and utilities for those facilities. That's all put into a similar matrix as we would with the non-profits as far as what their subsidy is to do that.

I think I'm close on that number, but I may be a little bit out. As things transition here, because we're working on a devolution of housing with CMHC, those numbers are going to become way more fluid and much larger. We also have a rent supplement program where we have about 14,200 folks that get a supplement somewhere in the marketplace but aren't actually living in housing that we own as government or that a non-profit owns and operates or that we have an agreement of operation on with a non-profit.

So the delivery of housing is really quite expensive. I'm just looking at the numbers. I'm a little low on the non-profit sector. The numbers are 7,800 units of public housing that are owned and managed by the province; 35,500 units that are non-profits that we have a management and funding relationship with; and then 14,200 rent supplements for a total of 57,500 people that are being assisted in housing in one form or another in those three categories.

D. Routley: At a briefing I attended recently, I was told that about $187 million of the $208 million of this funding went to B.C. Housing. Could the minister provide a brief outline of where the remainder, the $21 million difference, goes?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I'm happy to. Basically, about a million was spent on housing policy and work. About $950,000 was spent on building policy, which is working towards Building Code adjustments and that sort of thing. Safety and policy liaison was $600,000, which we put into, basically, some of the stuff to do with safety. Residential tenancy was a little over $6 million of that. Associate deputy minister and support staff, the executive support to the ministry, was about $1.7 million. Then there's the Homeowner Protection Office, which has close to a $5 million budget, and then the Safety Standards Appeal Board.

That's where the balance of those funds go that don't go to B.C. Housing. The moneys that go to B.C. Housing are to operate the stock that I described earlier with regards to the rent supps, the non-profit housing and the public housing projects.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister about the budget for B.C. Housing. I see that the total budget has increased by almost $50 million. Can the minister explain where these increases have been directed?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's the expansion of the shelter aid, the SAFER program. It's the transfer of emergency shelters to the ministry — their operating costs; the capital funding for the provincial homelessness initiative, which is $9.5 million; subsidies for an additional 2,198 housing units within the provincial housing program, Independent Living B.C., which is $5.8 million; funding for additional modernization and im-

provement projects in our aging public housing stock, which is $2.5 million; and funding to restore the replacement reserves, which I mentioned earlier under the provincial housing program, to their full level. That's costing us $2.8 million.

D. Routley: Could the minister describe Independent Living B.C., the $5.8 million he referred to? What specific areas of that program are being funded by that $5.8 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's for the 2,198 units of Independent Living B.C. as they come on stream in this fiscal year. When they come on stream, we have to provide operating subsidies when they're completed and occupied. We have a subsidy program in place for Independent Living B.C. units so that they can be subsidized and kept affordable for the people who live in them.

D. Routley: The minister describes those both as supplement and subsidy. Which form do they take?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's basically the same thing. When we refer to a rent supplement, we're usually referring to a supplement we're giving to the private marketplace. If somebody has an independent living unit, we subsidize the tenant living in that particular unit. That would be called a supplement. That's just our language.

Subsidies, which are basically the same thing, would be what we give to the non-profit sector. You'll find that in this portfolio we have a few acronyms and a few pieces of language that are probably language we get used to and the non-profit sector and the private sector get more used to. It's almost like a language unto itself sometimes, I think.

D. Routley: I read in the service plan that $7.6 million is being provided to B.C. Housing through other ministries. Can the minister please tell me which ministries fund B.C. Housing and what this funding is being used for?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's for three ministries, mainly: the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Health and the Attorney General. We provide the operating management for the group home stock and, also, put together the upgrades and the redevelopment — or the development of. They transfer funds to us for our operating arrangements.

D. Routley: Could the minister break down the $7.6 million by ministry? That would be the question.

Hon. R. Coleman: I can't right now, but I'm happy to provide it to the member. We have 300-plus group homes that we provide management to cross-ministerially. We would be able to get that information and break it out for the member if he wants it, but we can't provide it right now. If he wants it, we can provide it to him.

D. Routley: I'm particularly interested in that breakdown and the programs that this money is directed towards, so I would appreciate it if I could receive that at a later date.

The Attorney General provides some funding for group homes, but there is a separate column designated for group homes in the "Expenditures and Revenue by Program" of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. Is this the same funding, or is this the same category that that funding would be directed towards?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's what that is. They provide a transfer of funds for us to operate and manage their group homes. They attract the budget. We also provide, in some cases, additional subsidies from our budget to offset some other costs with regards to the group homes. They are a pretty fluid operation because of the uses. We find that the best management for this housing stock is in one place, so what we do is ledger out the money to this ministry, and we manage the stock.

D. Routley: I see, also, that B.C. Housing receives almost $105 million from the federal government. Could the minister please inform me as to which funding agreements this money flows from?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's information, there are over 40 federal-provincial agreements on funding that have evolved over probably the last 30 or 40 years in housing. Those funds flow through based on the funding agreements of those 40-plus agreements. We're hoping — once we get to a position where we can devolve the CMHC stock at the next portion of some negotiations that are taking place, which we hope to get to shortly — that we would be able to then harmonize the agreements so that we can get it down to where we don't have 40 different funding formulas.

That work won't take place until we've finished negotiations on the devolution discussions with CMHC, because CMHC has a large amount of stock that they want to devolve to the province under agreement. That work is being done now. Every time there's been a program come out over the years, somebody puts a different little wrinkle into it. That's why there are so many different programs. They're all funding arrangements that come in on cost-sharing for subsidies mainly for social housing in B.C.

D. Routley: It appears to me that federal dollars for building new housing stopped in 1993 and that there was basically no more funding of new construction from the federal government. There was a restart of federal funding in 2002, if I'm not mistaken, so most of this funding that has flowed in the past two years

would be affected by all 40 of those agreements. Or would that be a limited number of agreements, and if so, which ones have funded this funding in the last two years?

Hon. R. Coleman: Completely different dollars. The $100-some-odd million that the member mentioned is subsidies that are ongoing under agreements. The money that's flowed since 2001 and through to 2004…. There was $8.7 million in 2001 and $42.4 million in 2004. They were under the Canada-B.C. Affordable Housing Agreement, and they were one-time capital. In some cases they were used to buy down the overall cost of the project, so our ongoing operating cost was lower, because we're trying to keep our ongoing operating costs affordable.

The challenge we have — and we just went through a recent meeting with the federal government in a federal-provincial ministers conference — is that the federal government has to recognize that we don't want capital coming into our jurisdiction on a unilateral basis where they pick a project and they fund it and they capitalize it without attaching operating dollars to it. What invariably happens in some circumstances like that is that they will put the capital up, and then the province ends up with the operating costs for the next 30 years. They cut a ribbon, and then they disappear.

We have actually made it very clear that any ongoing arrangement with us has to be bilateral so that there's an agreement we would reach that said that for a particular project, they can put capital in. We'd probably put capital into it as well, and then we would negotiate the operating agreement. In some cases it would be us; in some cases it could be joint-ventured with them.

We're very cognizant on this side. I know it wasn't part of the member's issue, but I'm very cognizant as a minister that I don't want to get into one-time capital agreements paying long-term costs without sustainability for the taxpayer.

D. Routley: It also appeared, from what I read, that the federal capital funding for social housing, their term, started 02/07 and that the plan is for $89 million to be funded into the province. Is that money that has been agreed upon for capital funding and with ongoing agreement on continuing operating expenses in funding?

Hon. R. Coleman: The $88.7 million in 2001 went to one-time capital. That was good for us, because we had agreed, because of provincial priorities, to the ongoing subsidy to the units. We invested the ongoing subsidy into provincial housing — social housing, some of that stock — and Independent Living B.C. Those worked great for us. It was a good arrangement, because the capital allowed us to build and to take care of the operating cost, which in many cases is a 30-year commitment on behalf of the provincial government. The operating budget of the ministry went up, but the capital requirement was lower because of the capital.

There was another program the federal government did where they put capital for projects directly to non-profits and didn't back it up with the operating agreement and operating funding. We ended up assuming a liability, because we thought that in the end, they were basically shelter projects that we felt needed to be continued for operating funding.

That's where we had our sort of drawing of the lines as far as the discussion with the federal government. We didn't want that to continue. We wanted to be able to be part of this with them on a bilateral basis to make these happen, because at the end of the day, we end up managing and operating and overseeing these things and making sure they're sustainable. We want to be in on the design and what the capital costs are and agreeing to what the operating costs are before we go forward.

D. Routley: How much of that capital was spent in seniors assisted-living units? Would they be categorized under Independent Living B.C., and to streamline this, what strings were attached to that funding?

Hon. R. Coleman: Out of the $88.7 million in 2001, all of it went into the provincial housing program and ILBC exclusively. We haven't got that breakout, but we'll get that for the member. The $42.4 million in 2004 went 100 percent into the homeless initiative, which is for shelters. We increased the number of homeless shelters and the cold-wet weather strategy quite dramatically in 2004-2005.

The basic tenet on the $88.7 million was modest, in ensuring affordability in housing and modest affordable housing. The easiest for me there is that the agreement is actually posted on the B.C. Housing website, if the member wants to just have a read of it. That will give you the parameters as to what the agreements were that we signed.

D. Routley: Probably the minister won't have this information, but if he's going to break out those numbers for me, I would ask him how many of those units are non-market units, if that could be added to that question.

Hon. R. Coleman: All of the money, all the $88.7 million, went to non-profits for core-need housing. It didn't go to any of the private market. The only place that sometimes operating funds that we have might go to someone would be…. We do have some units under Independent Living B.C. with the private sector in mixed projects — mainly, probably, in smaller communities where we subsidize some of those units directly to the individual or to the operator.

D. Routley: Thank you, minister. Now, I've a couple of questions about the number of units that B.C.

Housing funds or administers. The first question: what is the total number of those units?

Hon. R. Coleman: In public housing that is owned and operated by B.C. Housing, 7,800 units; in non-profit and cooperative housing, 35,500 units; and for tenants living in the private rental market, 14,200.

D. Routley: Could the minister indicate how many of the units are non-market?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the first two categories, which were the public housing owned and operated by the commission and the non-profit cooperative housing, all of those are non-market. The 14,200 units, which are tenants living in the private rental market, are owned by the private sector, in most cases, or by some organization.

Now, of those 14,000 units, a lot of those are SAFER, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, so that they can age in place and stay in their apartment rather than having to move out of there. That's what that subsidy does to make it better for them to live there. Next year you'll see that increase from 14,200 to 19,400, because we anticipate there'll be 7,200 more people receiving subsidies under SAFER in that particular area.

To follow up to that, the number that was indicated as 100 percent non-market, the 35,500 — does the minister anticipate those will remain non-market? Does the minister anticipate that units devolved from CMHC will be non-market, or will there be private partners involved?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's actually an impossible question to answer, simply because some of the housing stock that we have is old, and in some cases that stock is not serving a client base that it needs to serve anymore. There is housing in the portfolios, particularly CMHC stuff that we're going to see, which was built for families after the Second World War. The density on the site is nowhere near what the density should be to serve the people. The units aren't the size…. Sometimes we have the size of units too large for the client group.

What we do is assess those over time. That's the intention here — to see where we can actually increase and improve our stock over time. Sometimes you'll find a site that, for argument's sake, has 20 units on it, and you can actually add another 40 or 50 units on it by redeveloping it. Sometimes you do that in partnerships. There are a number of projects that I'm sure the member is aware of across the province that have done that very successfully on both CMHC lands and on B.C. Housing and non-profit lands.

A number of the non-profits are also engaged in this process. There are non-profits that have old stock in lands — lower mainland, the interior — where they have old housing that they have owned and have been managing for a long, long period of time, and now they see their client group change and want to serve more people by remortgaging and redeveloping.

It's impossible to say how that stock…. It will never be stagnant. Housing stock isn't stagnant. The mistake anybody makes that you keep stagnant stock means you'll forget about…. You won't be ready to serve the next group of people you need to serve.

For example, in the late 1980s and into the '90s there was a big push into family housing. With the aging population today, we're recognizing that we have a higher pressure on seniors housing, independent living–type housing, which is going to have to be addressed going forward. You can't sort of panacea housing and say, "We'll keep the stock exactly the way it is," because if you do that, you will fail your client base long-term. What you need to do is be adaptable to the changing markets and the services that your tenants and residents need.

D. Routley: Before I start, having just returned from a dinner break and realizing how late it is, I want to thank the staff on the opposite side here for their indulgence of their time and their obvious dedication. I thank them for being here.

When we broke, we were talking about the total number of units that B.C. Housing administers, and I would like to ask how these units are distributed through the province — if there is a breakdown that would be available.

Hon. R. Coleman: They're everywhere. We have units in Prince Rupert, Prince George, through the Cariboo, the Okanagan, the Kootenays, the lower mainland, Vancouver Island. The units are distributed throughout communities across B.C.

Over the years the evolution has been…. Depending on the program, the communities that wanted them would actually identify need within their communities and justify that through a proposal-call process. Usually it would be a non-profit that would do that proposal call and then get funding for the construction and the operational costs of them.

When you've got that many thousands — ten of thousands — of them, they basically touch every community in B.C. We could generate a list for the member. I remember asking for the same list one time many years ago, and I remember being surprised how many there were and where they were and then realizing that the different varieties and sizes and numbers of units

and the sizes of projects were quite interesting. So if the member wants that list, we can arrange it for him.

The total funding in housing in B.C. appears to be $333 million, federal and provincial. I'd like to go through that carefully so that I can fully understand how the money is being spent. In particular, I want to talk about the eligibility criteria for each program that B.C. Housing administers. I'd like to have a good sense of who's being served by B.C. Housing programs.

On page 43 and 44 of last year's B.C. Housing annual report, I see the programs are divided into three broad categories, those being "Federal-Provincial Cost-Shared," "Wholly Provincial Cost" and "Other." Within these main categories there are then subcategories for each specific program. Is the funding for 2005-2006 organized in a similar manner? Does the minister see that organizational chart remaining over the coming years?

Hon. R. Coleman: They are split out in a number of categories, I guess. You've got group homes. In some cases you've got seniors housing. You have family housing. Within the family housing you have some disabled units, as you do within the seniors housing, for people with physical disabilities and that sort of thing. There are some fundamental tenets, though, that apply to that housing. As far as changing the line numbers — no. That will remain. Those are the subsidies that have been committed either to the societies or to our own units over a long period of time.

But I'll give the member an example, and maybe this will help to understand how the system works. Let's say we have, for lack of a better description, a 40-unit townhouse project in Langley, and the society's put that together where basically the housing commission has funded the capital in a cost-share with the federal government for, for argument's sake, a hundred-and-some-odd thousand dollars a unit for two-, three- and four-bedroom townhouses.

So what happens is the society does a budget. The budget includes all operating costs. It includes mortgage and interest, grounds maintenance, all the management sides of the project. They prepare that budget in cooperation with a representative. We have housing service providers that work for the commission and work with those societies.

The budget gets presented, and in that budget they take into account…. Every year they basically take in the annual income of all their tenants, and the way it's packaged, their tenants pay 30 percent of their income for rent. So for argument's sake, you could have a $1,200-a-month cost that would pay all your mortgage, utilities, all the costs, taxes, everything to run the townhouse unit. The tenant may be making $1,000 a month, so they would pay $300 a month. The society collects that $300, and the commission provides the difference monthly in a global budget. So that society operates basically at break-even, including capital reserve and everything else in a year.

Now, the 30 percent in those projects is called a CNIT, even though there's no "S" in there. It's C-N-I-T, which is the core need income threshold. The core need income threshold in social housing is set at 30 percent, so 30 percent of your income is what you pay in rent. That's how that works. If the income is lower, the tenant pays less. If the income is higher, the tenant pays more, but they don't pay more than 30 percent when they live in that project.

If a tenant's income goes down during the year that they're in the facility…. Let's say they lost their job, and they were making $2,000 a month. And now they are living on social assistance at, let's say for argument's sake, $1,000 a month. Then they can apply to have their rent lowered according to their income, because that affects them. But if their income goes up in the same year, they're not required to come in and adjust their rent, so they actually get a bit of a bonus on their income through to when they have to report their income on an annual basis.

The way we collect the information on income is through T4s, employment slips and through…. If they're on social assistance, that's pretty straightforward because we get the information from the ministry. That's how they operate.

The projects of social housing projects, which are seniors and family housing projects in B.C. — that's the basic formula on how they operate. That's what they do. They build the budget. We fund those budgets. That's the subsidy the member sees in the operating costs. That's most of the money that B.C. Housing deals with. Basically, they're the manager of the money and the manager of the program, and they provide those payments to the societies. Then every year the society is required to provide an audited financial statement to prove to us that they're handling the money correctly. It's signed off by an auditor that isn't affiliated with anybody that's on the board of directors. There are some pretty good controls in there, too, but that's the best description.

If you look at the programs…. Even in most of the 40 programs, that formula applies, for the most part, to how we calculate the rent and how we cover the costs.

D. Routley: I'll thank the minister. He gives me a lesson often. That one I've already encountered, but I appreciate the information.

What I'd like to ask, though, is: is the expenditures and revenue by program chart that's provided in the plan…? The B.C. Housing annual report, page 43 and 44, identifies three broad categories: federal-provincial cost-shared, wholly provincial cost and other. The groupings that are identified under those main categories…. What I would like to know is: will this structure of reporting remain over the next one to two years?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, they're going to remain. There may be some movement from the other over to

wholly provincial cost programs, because as they're completed and they become just subsidy rather than any capital cost, they could move into wholly provincial cost under our programs for subsidy. So those could move around a bit. But under the package, yeah, that's not going to change.

D. Routley: I would ask the minister: what percentage of funding is directed to assist people who are not classified as senior, do not have a health care need and do not suffer from a disability? In other words, how much will be directed to people who qualify on income thresholds alone?

Hon. R. Coleman: Everybody in social housing has an income problem. That's pretty well standard for everybody. Our goal and objective is, then, to target to the percentage of our tenants belonging to priority groups. When we talk about priority groups, we're talking about people who have multiple barriers or barriers to their ability to, let's say, live within a range of whether it might a rent supplement in the private marketplace that they could live in….

We set goals for ourselves. Our target for 2005-2006 is 82 percent for the percentage of our tenants who belong to priority groups. That's pretty important, because we're shifting to target our housing to the more vulnerable — the frail senior, a person who has some issues with mental illness or health issues that are barriers for them to get into market housing. We've shifted our focus, as one of our measurements, to try and target tenants that belong to those priority groups.

D. Routley: What I'd like to do is identify those who do not have these multiple barriers to employment or increased income, who are not frail seniors, who do not have health care issues, who do not suffer from disabilities — in other words, individuals or families who have a lower-than-average income, individuals or families who are struggling to have enough income to live in the shelter that they ought to be in and whose core needs are not being met because of income.

I'd like to identify what percentage of the funding is directed to the non-targeted groups. I note that in the plan there is a goal to increase the targeted groups from 80 percent to, I believe, either 84 or 86 percent. The remaining 14 or 16 percent of funding — what groups will be benefiting from that funding?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and answer the member's question. I'm not quite sure what he's looking for.

Social housing is there for people. The reason social housing exists in the first place is because of the people he describes, who are paying too much of their income to live. Or they live in housing circumstances…. When we score our points, for instance, if you have a family of three living in a bachelor suite, they would score higher in points as far as their need for housing than somebody who's paying 40 percent of their income but has a three-bedroom unit with that size of family. There's a scoring system on the application when somebody applies for housing.

The target groups is to try and get to where we focus on our scoring system for selection for frail seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities and individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Now, included in the risk of homelessness are people who are paying so much for rent that they may not be able to stay there because they can't afford it. They're actually in the group of people that would be targeted within what we would consider to be those priority groups. Also included in that are people who are fleeing abusive relationships, which I think is a key priority of how that's done.

In addition to that and in addition to that aspect, which takes care of some of the member's concerns on costs, there are rent supplements. We believe there's a real value in the marketplace for those. That's why we increased the SAFER grant so that now there are 7,200 seniors who will get supplements to their income so they can stay in the marketplace and age in place where they are rather than having to move into social housing and look for another type of housing for them.

It is pretty critical that the member understands that when we say people that are at risk of homelessness, that includes people whose income level is such that they can't afford to rent in the private marketplace, to the point where they could end up homeless or they could end up underhoused. If they're underhoused, then that could also be an application to the numbers that would be taken into account as a priority group.

It's a pretty broad brush that we try and do, but it's targeted to the people that are most at risk, and that's the people on affordability and on other multiple barriers that really need assistance in housing as a priority first.

D. Routley: I would like to clarify the line between health care spending and housing spending. Many of these identified groups and the services they receive are broadly defined as health care needs. The minister could perhaps provide an answer to the breakdown later if it's not available now. Just how many of the people benefit from the $65 million that is federal and provincial cost-shared? And what percentage of those people and how many units outside of those target groups — outside of the frail elderly, the disabled and those with particular health care needs — qualify not because of those targeted identifiers?

Hon. R. Coleman: I want to make this really clear. We only spend our money on housing. We don't provide anything else but safe, secure, affordable housing for people. If they require other assistance — whether it be for children with disabilities or whether it be health care issues — those are provided separately from other ministries to them. If it's home care, that's provided through health care.

We provide housing, and that's what we provide. We're not the deliverers of the other programs of government. So we only deliver housing. There is no breakout that says this many people are getting assistance because they have mental illness or because somebody has an issue with drug and alcohol addiction or whatever the case may be. That is not within the purview of the Housing Ministry. The ministry just delivers the housing component.

D. Routley: I appreciate that reminder, but then I look to the housing plan, and I see Independent Living B.C. and several programs that could be interpreted as fulfilling some of the objectives of other ministries.

I would ask the minister: of the 86 percent that are intended to be targeted, are those at risk of homelessness included in that 86 percent?

Hon. R. Coleman: I answered that already. When I read it out, I said that they were included.

D. Routley: In that case, I would ask again: what percentage of the funding is available to people who are not seniors, who do not have particular health needs and are not disabled?

Hon. R. Coleman: The breakdown in detail that the member is asking for needs some work. It can't be provided here tonight. It's impossible to say, out of a housing stock of 30-some thousand-plus units in B.C., how many are frail seniors, how many might be disabled, how many might have mental illness, how many of them would be people that were at risk of housing because of the fact that they're paying too much of their income for rent and, therefore, are considered to be a vulnerable household.

Each one of these people actually fills out an application. Each one of them is scored. Each one of them is inputted onto a list by scoring for when there's availability of housing, and a database is kept on that. That level of detail isn't something that we would have available in an estimate process.

We're more than happy to try and break that out for the member in global numbers. If I could caution, I'm not going to break it out to ten in Kelowna and five in Vancouver that have certain types of barriers. That really is information I don't think is fair to our residents to deal with. But I'm happy to break it out into the larger numbers — how many frail seniors, how many this, how many that. We'll get that information for you.

D. Routley: I appreciate that. I would like to see those numbers in that breakdown because it's clear that the ministry is aiming at increasing that target group that's being addressed from 80 percent currently to 86 percent. I think it's important for me to know how those subcategories will be affected by that percentage change. It's clear that the 86 percent is directed towards those identified groups — frail seniors, the disabled, people with particular health needs. So I would very much appreciate the minister providing a breakdown of the remaining categories.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's going to be an increase. All that anybody who looks at the global aspects of housing in British Columbia has to look at is the price of housing and the increase in rents to know that more people in the 82 to 86 percent are going to be at risk of being homeless just because of price by itself — without disabilities, without mental illness increasing that category. We've always targeted our housing based on income thresholds and need. So that's where the 86 percent will come to. I think we're just actually predicting a bit of the market. But we'll break that out for the member as best we can so we can give him the breakout.

D. Thorne: I guess another way to ask the question that my fellow member was asking a few minutes ago might be to look at the waiting lists and the growth in the waiting lists for B.C. Housing and other non-profit providers throughout the province, which in the last four years have grown from approximately 10,000 to over 13,000. Proportionately, there's a large number of families on that waiting list. Perhaps another way to ask that question would be: what new units, new subsidies, new ways of dealing with the growing problem of lack of non-market and affordable housing for families have B.C. Housing and the government been involved in that would be new in the last two or three years?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member's right. There is an increase of people on the waiting list at B.C. Housing, and I'll break it out for her. Of the family applicants, there are about 7,700. Of the seniors, there are about 2,400 — almost 2,500; of special needs, about 2,500. That comes up to around the 13,000 mark. It's probably a little less, because there is one other category in there that's called market housing, which is measured a bit differently.

The member wants to know what we're going to do about this. Well, let me tell you, member. I'm working on a provincial housing strategy that is going to be as dynamic, I think, by any stretch, as any change in housing that has taken place in probably the last 15 or 20 years.

I believe we need to retarget our resources and start thinking about what the member just brought up. For instance, there are 7,749 families that need some form of affordable housing. If anybody believes that government can spend their way out of that — find it and put it in the marketplace, find the land, build it, operate it — they'd best find a few billion dollars to do that.

However, would it be wiser for those folks that are on a list? Most of them are housed somewhere, but

they're underhoused or overhoused. Usually, the case is that they're at risk because of cost.

Is it better to look at that body of people and say can we come up with something similar to SAFER? We've just done that for seniors, and on the seniors' side we've added 7,200 people now who will get some form of subsidy for housing.

Can we find the same formula for families? We believe that you can. We believe that you can find that formula, target the dollars to assist people that are at risk, living in existing housing and help them where they live so they don't feel that they just have to wait on a list to find a social housing unit to live in. If they're adequately housed now — and the factor is cost, which is giving pressure to the family and all the rest of it as far as the homeless strategy is concerned — then let's help them where they live.

That's something governments have done, sort of hesitantly, over the years. Both our government, the previous government and the previous government before that tinkered with rent supplements in the marketplace. They would put a few out, maybe 200 to 300, and then they would build maybe 500 or 600 units of housing. If they'd looked at their real-dollar cost, they would have taken the 500 units they built, owned and operated, looked at the capital and operating costs and looked at what they could have done for people living in existing housing as far as making it affordable to them so they could stay and live in the communities where they are, and they probably would have had a better outcome.

Those are the types of outcomes we're looking at as we develop the provincial housing strategy, as it evolves over the next couple of months. We started the work on it back in August. Part of it was the review of the devolution of CMHC stock, which we don't have yet. When we have that, it changes the dynamics of what we can deliver and it also gives us the opportunity to look at how we can deliver differently. We intend to do that.

I think it's critical we recognize that the affordability of housing isn't always government building the structure. Sometimes it's a case of somebody living in a very nice apartment in a community where the cost is just hard on the family. They're paying rent, and it's way over 30 percent of income — like 50, 60, 70 percent of their income. It may be more affordable to all of us to just say we'll provide a rent supp to lower the pressure on that family right where they are. That way they don't have to wait for us to find land, they don't have to wait for us to develop a project, and they don't have to wait for us to have a piece that somebody else vacates within social housing so that they can move into it and all of that. We can actually have a huge impact on affordability of housing for a lot more people by targeting our funds a lot better that way.

Frankly, there's been a lot of work done to date on this, and we are taking it through our own work now to get to where we think we will develop a housing strategy that can deal with some of the issues the member's identified. We will be, once we've done that, consulting with the non-profit partners, with the people in the private sector, with the House itself as we bring the strategy through so people have an understanding of what it is we're trying to do.

What we will be trying to do, if there's a goal, is help more people — maximize how many people we can help in affordability as possible. We'll do that by thinking a little bit outside the box and thinking how we can use our existing resources better and make that work for people.

The list is always a concern, and that list has always evolved. It's been larger, and it's been smaller over the years. The challenge for B.C. Housing is that they can't go out and build 7,000 units of housing. But they've got 7,000 people who are living somewhere. In many cases they're living in inadequate housing. It's just too expensive. So it's better to help those folks where they are so they don't have to build it and try and develop it and do all the other costs and time constraints that they have to help people. If we can help more people quicker, I think that should be our goal.

D. Thorne: With all due respect, I think we all understand the difference between subsidies and supplements. Certainly, you're right. Supplements have been talked about over the years and used over the years as well as subsidies. I did assume that the talks with CMHC, which I was apprised of when I was working through the GVRD Housing Corporation….

I understand the rationale for the province taking over some of those units. I don't understand what the rationale is, though, knowing about all of the problems that we're having with those units around maintenance, particularly water ingress, and the huge costs of repairing these buildings from now and into the future, as one by one they're causing great financial difficulties. I don't really understand how the province is going to rationalize taking on that cost, which is, at the moment, a federal government cost. That would be one question that I have.

A couple of comments on the supplements. Of course, some of the problems — and I'm quite sure you've thought of them — are that when you're doing supplements, rather than working with partners, whether they be non-profit or non-profit and private, as most non-profit partners are working…. With municipal partners and non-profit partners, the partnerships often lower the cost of the housing and provide new stock. You don't get new stock when you're doing mainly a rent supplement program or for any other program. So those are two issues or questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it's not necessarily true that those types of arrangements always lower the costs. Sometimes there isn't anything brought to the table. Sometimes non-profits bring something to the table like land or capital, and then we enter into those partnerships. I'm not saying we're precluding still doing those forms of housing. I'm saying we better be looking at all options, and one of the options should be

that we also look at a supplement for people who are waiting for housing and need a leg up and some help. I think we should do that.

I don't make any apologies for the fact that I think there has to be a continuum of housing in British Columbia that goes from the homeless strategy through to what may be owned and operated by government or non-profits in a subsidized marketplace for people who need other forms of housing within it. Then move them through, for some people we can actually move through, to some form of home ownership. I think you can't look at this as just saying: "We're going to cut out the societies and not do that, but we shouldn't look over here because that's a supplement to the private marketplace." The goal has to be helping people.

One of the tendencies for governments has always been: "Let's build and cut a ribbon." Sometimes it's better to help the people, and sometimes you have to do a different package with it. So I'm not ruling out the non-profit societies at all. I think they're huge partners of ours in this, and they have been, and they will continue to be. I mean, I used to work in this sector, so I know. But at the same time, you don't rule out other options, because sometimes some of the other options are more immediate and could be of assistance to people.

On the devolution discussion, I'm happy to discuss the devolution of the CMHC stock. I can tell the member this. Devolution was first offered to the government about nine years ago. The negotiations have been going on for nine years. I remember debating with the now member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain when he was a minister responsible and saying to him: "I think the devolution is a good idea. Make sure you get the titles and the redevelopment costs, if you do it, because you may be able to find opportunities in that land base to build and operate more housing."

As we came through this thing, and we're just finishing the negotiations, I can tell the member this. There isn't a concern about water ingress because the agreement has money in it for water ingress. There isn't a concern about long-term or short-term capital and maintenance because it covers it for 30 years. All of those items have been negotiated into the package. So when we do devolution, it doesn't just come with the properties. It comes with all the operating costs, all the capital costs, all the identified risks that go with them — things like where there hasn't been enough capital invested to keep them up to date. We've done an assessment of the entire portfolio. To also worry about redevelopment costs and long-term issues with concerns about water ingress — we've identified those. We put the money into the package.

I can assure the member that it's not just the properties. These guys have been very good at their due diligence. I know that you referenced that you know the CEO of B.C. Housing. Then you would know that between him and the associate deputy minister in this portfolio, they would drive a very good deal for the province at the cost of the guys at CMHC. We think they've driven a very good outline of a deal on devolution. If we can get it done, it will help us drive the provincial housing strategy I described because it would bring together all the management, all the administration, all the savings just by having the critical mass that goes with it for the operation of housing in B.C.

We think it's a very good opportunity for British Columbia, but we're not making the deal without making sure we cover those operating costs and capital costs.

D. Thorne: I thank the minister for that. Just to close, then, for my questions. So then I can — oh, that man is back again…. I can assume, then, that we'll be seeing some new family housing, some new units coming on track for some of those 13,000 families?

Hon. R. Coleman: You can assume that we're going to come with a housing strategy that starts to address the needs of those people. Whether it's necessarily new units or whether, in some cases, it's rent supplements where they live, that will be by need, by property available, by opportunities in the marketplace to help those folks.

I know when I did social housing projects and you were able to select the 50 happy families on a project where you had 300 people on the waiting list, you felt if you could give those other 250 people $200 to $300 a month so that they could afford to live where they were, you would have liked to have done that too. So I think there's a combination of both.

D. Routley: The minister has referred to the goal being to serve as many people as possible, and he refers to the SAFER grant and its increase serving 7,200 additional seniors. But in estimates in Community Services it was acknowledged by that minister that in fact the increase would only serve 2,400 people. So I would question the numbers that are being presented. Perhaps the minister isn't aware of the distinction that was made.

He also refers to the difference between subsidizing, creating housing and giving supplements to individuals where they live. While it's noble and it's our goal to help people where they live, supplements do not continue to help people on an ongoing basis. Creating more non-market housing does. I would suggest that that should be our goal, or at least a major part of our goal.

It appears that the minister is focusing on rental supplements, and I would suggest also that that will not present the opportunities that are provided through creating housing in partnership with local governments and the federal government by leveraging the investment of B.C. Housing into new stock. Supplements do none of that leveraging, and supplements in a market where there is basically zero vacancy really don't help the issue of availability of stock.

So I would ask the minister what his plans are for increasing the non-market stock of social housing available to families.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, at the risk of a debate, philosophically, about housing and a lecture on housing in British Columbia, I will hold back. But I am going to clarify a couple of things. In the estimates of Community Services the member brought up SAFER, and the number given to him by the minister was 2,400 in manufactured home parks.

I hate to break the news to the member. There are 7,200 seniors that are going to be helped by the increase in SAFER, because it didn't just cover manufactured home parks. We raised the ceiling on all rentals that affect seniors, so people living in apartments are eligible for SAFER where they weren't before. The manufactured home part was just an aspect of the SAFER increase. It wasn't all the SAFER increase.

The SAFER increase had two or three components in it: a larger increase for people in the areas that the member identified, where there are zero vacancies and rents have gone up; an increase for seniors across the province — 12,000-and-some-hundred people in total that are presently getting SAFER all got an increase. We identified as part of the SAFER package that there are areas of the province where people pay an extraordinary amount of manufactured home park rent that would, under normal circumstances — if that was an apartment unit — make them eligible for SAFER, but they weren't eligible. So we made that eligibility available to them.

The reason we did that was because of this. I've been around this housing file a long time. I can tell you there are seniors who thought their affordable form of housing would be to buy a manufactured home on retirement and move into a park, and that's where they would retire and stay. Inflation has continued to creep on them in the manufactured home park, and there was no way to help them. In areas of the lower mainland and the Okanagan, particularly, pad rents are becoming extremely high.

We said we're going to make SAFER eligible for those folks. We think that's about 2,400 seniors that will actually get the benefit of that adjustment to SAFER. But we also made another 4,800 people who live in rental properties around the province eligible for SAFER, as well, in that same package.

Now, the reason I might sound frustrated is because the opposition keeps saying it's only going to help 2,400 people. Why don't you be honest with the seniors of the province? Your own people have got up in this House and said SAFER is a good thing. There are 7,200 more seniors in British Columbia who are going to get a subsidy so they can stay where they are and live in place. It's not 2,400; it's 7,200, and that's the number.

There are communities in British Columbia today where we have zero vacancy. Sometimes we have to enjoin ourselves on that market and build social housing to complement the market. We have always done that. We have always looked at doing that and will continue to do that.

We also have areas of the province where we have 5-percent and 10-percent vacancy in communities. I can't see why somebody would say to go into a community that has a 5-percent vacancy in the private marketplace and build a bunch of housing, when you've already got vacant housing. Why not subsidize somebody to live in the vacant housing?

The member says there's no long-term benefit to doing some form of a supplement for a person living in a rental unit within a community. I can tell you, hon. member, that if you were having trouble buying clothes for your kids to go to school, putting food on the table, paying your car insurance or getting to work because your rental cost in the unit you live in is at 60 percent or 70 percent of your income…. You tell me that it's not a benefit to take you down to 30 percent of your income so you can put $300, $400, $500 more into the pockets of your family. There's no short-term and long-term benefit to that?

The short-term and long-term benefit for supplementing people in housing, whether it be in social housing or in market housing is this, and this alone: it gives people the opportunity to make choices for their family. They can buy their kids new clothes. They can put different food on the table. Sometimes — and you'll find it's absolutely remarkable; I've seen it in both aspects of this housing — you give someone some financial assistance so they can stay in an affordability form of housing, and you watch the education opportunities that they open up for themselves. You watch how they look at themselves as far as job opportunities are concerned.

You cannot say one form of supplement is better than another. It's about helping people. If the member doesn't want to help more people, that's fine. I'm prepared to have that philosophical discussion. If people want to….

If the House believes that government should build, own and operate every piece of housing that might help a family person in B.C…. That may be a philosophy of that side of the House. If the people of B.C. believe that a single mother living in a townhouse, in a community where there's no vacancy in a social housing project, should continue to pay 70 percent of her income in rent when there might be a supplement program to reduce the amount of money that she has to put out every month for housing costs, then I'm prepared to say I go with this side of the House.

I believe that you have to have a housing strategy that doesn't just stop at one form of housing. I believe in a housing strategy that includes a homeless strategy, a housing strategy that includes building and operating some social housing with non-profit groups. I believe there's one that should include some opportunities in co-ops. I also believe there should be opportunities to subsidize people in the marketplace so they can

live where they are, raise their family and afford to do so because we give them a leg up.

That's the strategy that people have to start thinking about — thinking outside the box. To say we should build it all…. What we will do then is fail the very people that are on the waiting list for housing in British Columbia because we can't produce it fast enough to help those people today.

D. Routley: I would ask that the minister withdraw his comments that indicate that the opposition is not being honest with the people of B.C.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member stood up in this House and said that SAFER was helping 2,400 people and that I should stop saying 7,200. Well, it's 7,200, so I don't think I should apologize for that. If the member had finished his sentence and said, "It's 2,400 people in manufactured home parks only," or if he had another end to that sentence that he didn't complete that I misunderstood, I apologize.

D. Routley: In fact, this government's plans, this government's throne speech, indicated that 7,200 seniors would benefit from the extension of SAFER to mobile home pad rentals.

In any case, I assume that that minister and those members are here in good faith and that what they present to this House is honest. I extend that benefit of the doubt to this minister. No matter what contention he has with the numbers that I've mentioned here, he has, I believe, no right to insinuate that this opposition or this member is being less than honest with the people of B.C. Could you rule on that, Madam Chair?

The minister has indicated that supplements are the way that we would help more people. He has indicated that he believes I stated that supplements do not have a long-term benefit. Indeed, I believe that supplements may have a long-term benefit to those individuals who receive them, but I believe that supplements do not present a continuing benefit to the community for provincial investments in housing and that non-market social housing which survives generations of tenants does, indeed, continue to benefit this province. Supplements are tenuous.

The minister has indicated that he does not enjoy continuing costs, continuing funding, and that capital funding hog-ties the government into continued funding. My contention and the question I'm asking is…. Most of those people — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — on that waiting list reside in communities of very low vacancy rates, so supplements are of much less benefit to them than subsidized non-market social housing would be.

I would ask the minister for a breakdown of that 13,000 number — where they live. And could he respond to my assertion that indeed, subsidized non-market social housing will benefit this province on a continuing basis?

Hon. R. Coleman: I articulated a mixed approach, which means sometimes you build and sometimes you supplement. You know, there's a low vacancy rate in the lower mainland. There's a high cost of land, and little available. There's a hot real estate market. We have people sitting on a waiting list. I would guess, for the member's information, that the larger number of people — because the larger population is on the lower mainland — who are on the list of B.C. Housing because they're paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent live on the lower mainland.

You have a hot real estate market. Development is oversubscribed. There's not a lot of land available. The member's contention is, as I understand it, that those people who are sitting on waiting lists at B.C. Housing would be better served if we found a way to find land and build units and get them out the door so that they can move into those units and have affordable housing. That's a laudable goal, hon. Chair. However, let's talk about the reality.

In Surrey it takes between 18 and 24 months to zone a piece of land to multifamily. Then there's the cost of the DCCs and the setup cost to get through the next stage. Then you have to build it. You're building it in an environment where there's a shortage of trades and a shortage of construction, so your buildup time is going to be anywhere between 12 and 18 months.

If we got a piece of land tomorrow for 50 or 100 units of social housing in Surrey, we might have it completed and available for those folks to move in, in three years. But they're living somewhere now. For three years, would we rather help those folks live in a manner — because they're being pressured by their cost of rent to the point that it's affecting their family unit and what they've got available for their family…? Do we help those folks with some sort of rent supplement where they are today, or hope that we can find land and develop units in three years in Surrey so that those people can move in there? That's why it's a mixed opportunity. You might do some of that, but if you really care about housing and you're really looking long-term, you do both.

In Independent Living British Columbia when we made long-term commitments to the private marketplace for rent supplements, they went out and built new units, as required, because they had something now that was bankable that they could make work on their land. They went out and helped their densities and whatever the case may be so that that could happen.

I think it's important — and I know that's not the debate here, because we're talking about the estimates of the ministry — that when we look at a housing strategy, we put the first thing first at the very front of the equation — and that is the people who are paying too much of their income for accommodation — and see if we can maximize the number we can help. If we can maximize that in the shorter term versus the longer term, all the better, because it may take a while for some social housing units to even get constructed and into the marketplace while those people languish on a waiting list paying too much of their income for housing.

D. Routley: Indeed, it is a laudable goal to provide increased non-market social housing, and I would think it should be one of the goals of the ministry. But the plans of the ministry indicate that the goals of the ministry are to switch more and more towards supplements versus subsidies.

The minister did criticize my questioning by indicating that supplements do take care of the long-term picture. He questioned whether or not I should be questioning that fact. But now we're talking about the immediate. The immediate needs must be addressed through supplements, and two and three years are too long to think about a plan to present housing for British Columbians.

Well, if I'm right, as the minister indicates, then I would ask: what has been happening for the last three and four years? I would ask: why are there not those units in Surrey that the minister has indicated? I would contest his description of the barriers that face us when dealing with local governments. In fact, local governments are crying out for a province that will invest in non-market housing and are offering solutions to the minister — partnerships, reduced development costs that the minister referred to, streamlined zoning adjustments. All of those things have been offered to the ministry.

I would ask him whether or not his plan, ultimately, since he indicates that supplements take care of the one- and two- and three-year picture and that we ought to put the supplements at the head of the list…. When exactly does the rebuilding of B.C.'s non-market social housing stock begin? How far into the long-range picture is the minister placing that investment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, it certainly didn't happen in the ten years that you were government, hon. member, and I will address that. I can also tell you that I didn't say that we wouldn't build any social housing. I said a mixed model — a mixed model. Mixed model means you do a number of things. For instance, the government has been proactive in addressing the need for affordable housing in B.C. Since 2001 the government has matched every federal housing dollar.

We have increased provincial funding — wait for the number, hon. member — from $111 million a year in 2000-2001 to $194 million a year in 2005-2006 for subsidized housing and emergency shelters. I didn't say rent supplements. I said subsidized housing and emergency shelters. We've allocated funding for more than 9,100 new units of subsidized housing since June of 2001; over 2,100 units to support people at risk of homelessness across the province, including $53 million in provincial funding for 533 units in nine communities through the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness; and 3,500 independent living spaces which will be provided by 2008-2009. Some 3,200 units have already been allocated to date.

The SAFER budget has almost doubled to $34.1 million a year. Let's be clear about this. That was the first increase in SAFER and the first expansion of the program since 1990. Ten years the previous government had to address the cost of subsidizing seniors living in rental housing in B.C., and they did absolutely zero for those people — zero. Ten years they had to address SAFER.

So what have we done? We've doubled it, which means that the average payment eligible for recipients will rise from $105 a month to $169 a month. The number of recipients is expected to grow from 12,200 to 19,000. The emergency shelter program has been increased by more than $6 million last year alone for a total of about $20 million. That has increased the capacity by 157 beds to a total of 868 beds.

Let's put those numbers out there again: 157 beds to 868 beds and an additional 208 cold-weather beds for a total of 391 beds. Why is that? Because this government recognizes that there is no one piece of housing. There isn't just build-own-and-operate social housing. There isn't just having Independent Living B.C. What about the people in the homeless situation? What about having beds for them? What about having that continuum of a package of housing for B.C.? Why not build a vision around this? I mean, I would welcome the vision to be participated in by members of the opposition, because I think it's time we actually looked at how we do housing and how we can benefit more people.

I don't know why the argument is: "Well, we just want to own and build social housing." There are people today paying up to 70 percent of their income in rent that can't get into a social housing unit. If there were a way to create a program similar to SAFER for families, wouldn't we want to do it? Wouldn't we want to keep those families whole? I believe we would.

The ironic thing about all this is that the member also says that this is in the plan. Well, it's not in the plan yet. It's not anywhere in here, because that strategy is being worked on now. It's pretty clear in here that we actually build and get involved in social housing. It's pretty clear we've done Independent Living B.C. It's pretty clear we've expanded the shelter program for people that are homeless. We did all that because there's a package in housing that doesn't actually fit into a round hole. There are lots of places in housing where you'd better learn to be adaptable for people's needs versus thinking you can design a physical structure that is going to meet their needs.

There are forms of housing that need to be put into group home sectors so that we can assist people with significant mental illness. There's a project in Vancouver that's a quad for quadriplegics. It's four housing units with a central kitchen with all the technical aids for people with physical disability that are quadriplegics. To me, that's adapting your housing strategy for the needs of people. They wouldn't fit into a social housing project. Even if you put a disabled unit in there, the way they're designed, it wouldn't meet their needs. They need nurse call. They need to make sure there's backup if they have a ventilator. Those aspects of housing have to be adaptable.

All I'm saying is: let's build a housing strategy in B.C. that's adaptable to our citizens and that serves as many of them as possible. I welcome an open mind to that from people rather than thinking we can only sit in one pigeonhole.

D. Routley: The minister has mischaracterized my comments. Nowhere did I say that we should only invest in non-market housing and social housing. But the minister's own comments indicate that his ministry is intent upon transferring more towards rent supplements than rent subsidies, and I question that. I question that.

The minister has also talked about the history of the previous NDP administration. From 1992 on, the NDP government received no federal funding for social housing but was one of only two provinces to continue building social-housing, non-market stock — Quebec and British Columbia. That was a proud achievement of the New Democratic government, which did not pigeonhole itself into ideological approaches. I would question the ministry's priorities when it comes to supplements, but I've already done that. So we'll move on, please, to the "Wholly Provincial Cost" items. Under that, we see three columns: "Group Homes," "Homes B.C." and "Other Programs." I'm interested in these other programs and what that designation represents.

Hon. R. Coleman: The miscellaneous category is mainly SAFER, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. Also in there is an old program that still has money flowing out of it, called the B.C. rental supply program, which were some subsidies in relationship with some capital investment, I believe, if I remember correctly. It may have been Vancouver, but there was a period of time where there was a rental supply program put in place to encourage rental supply by offering up subsidies. For people that may have mental illness, they have semi-independent living. My staff tells me we're more than happy to provide the program breakdown and miscellaneous for the member if he wants it.

D. Routley: I would appreciate that breakdown, but it's listed in this not as miscellaneous, but "Other Programs" under "Wholly Provincial Cost," and I would ask the minister: is SAFER reported under any other category in this list? If not, what other programs are designated under "Other" as a main category? We see "Federal-Provincial Cost-Shared," we see "Wholly Provincial Cost," and we see "Other" as a general, broad category. What programs are represented under "Other"?

Hon. R. Coleman: Okay, we'll try this again. "Other" is miscellaneous programs, including SAFER, so SAFER is the largest portion of the "Other" — that's Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. There's an old B.C. rental supply program that has money still flowing out of it; it's in "Other." There are some other semi-independent living units — for people with mental illness and maybe some other multiple barriers — which are supplemented in the marketplace through "Other."

We're prepared to give the member the list of what that is. I didn't refer to "Other" as miscellaneous. I said under "Other" is "miscellaneous."

D. Routley: Units represented under the wholly provincial cost range from group homes, Homes B.C. and other programs. Will the eligibility criteria for any of these programs be changing?

D. Routley: Can the minister, then, please provide for me what the eligibility requirements are under those three categories?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under Homes B.C. there are non-profit social housing units that receive the type of subsidy that I described earlier with their annual budget, where their people are under core need income threshold, and they pay 30 percent of their rent. Those projects are run and operated by non-profits. Usually the titles are held through the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation which, for all lack of better description, is a subsidiary of B.C. Housing. So we own the land and the projects, and we have long-term operating agreements with the societies.

Under the group homes — that is special needs, most of it mental illness — we just provide the housing stock. The Ministry of Children and Family Development provides the tenants and the selection for the group homes, and we work with them whenever they need to provide another one in the community where they may want to have a group home for those folks.

Independent Living British Columbia, which is ILBC, is frail seniors. The provincial homeless initiative is, basically, people that are homeless, but it also takes into account people with mental illness and medical and other addictions as well, because that is a very vulnerable portion of society and requires availability for the beds to be available for folks we work with. Mainly in that we would probably work with the non-profit sector — people like the Union Gospel Mission, the Salvation Army, groups like that — who would be

providing the housing opportunity to communities, and we would be funding the beds.

D. Routley: Could the minister please tell me what happens with the funding for Independent Living B.C. and how eligibility is determined for this program? Would the criteria for that eligibility be changing in the coming years? I note that the budget for the last year was $8.2 million. I would like also to know whether the minister knows what that funding will be for next year.

Hon. R. Coleman: For Independent Living British Columbia, the case is managed through the health authority. So the eligibility requirements are basically established by the health authority. They case manage because this is geared to frail seniors whose income average is below $15,000 a year for the most part. The average age of the people in this housing stock is over 80 years. They're frail seniors with income difficulties that are case managed by the health authorities. We provide the management and the impetus for the units to be developed.

The budget will be increased in the next fiscal year as we're bringing on new units. Since we're in the budget process now before Finance, I'm not in a position to divulge what might be in next year's budget until such time as we get it through the process and the confidentiality that is obviously protected.

C. Wyse: I have three very brief scenarios I would like to present in front of you, and then from there my questions will flow. So I put them in front of you in that fashion.

I've chosen situations from three communities around the province. The first one is Vancouver. It is a years-long wait for the non-market housing for the mentally ill: five years for someone with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar.

I would also draw to attention a recent forum on homelessness at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Vancouver. It focused mostly on community fears about homelessness and drug addiction, the barriers, civic leaders said, to establishing affordable housing in many communities. "The plight of the mentally ill homeless was barely mentioned, though they aren't being forgotten, insists the B.C. Minister Responsible for Housing." The quote attributed to you: "I think we are focused as much on the mental health side as much as we are on the addiction side." There are a couple of other quotes that are attributed to you, but I believe they would be more applicable in the area of health, so I haven't included them here in my scenario.

The second case would be Williams Lake, where there are presently 13 individuals on the waiting list for supportive housing. The individual with a disability 2 receives $850, with rent for $490. When inquiries were made on this particular issue, they were told to contact B.C. Housing. Upon contacting B.C. Housing, they were advised to approach the Interior Health Authority to release more funds to Williams Lake for this type of housing.

The third scenario I give you is from Kamloops, where an individual with a bipolar diagnosis was laid off recently from his job. The money received did not cover his rent — in actual fact, it fell $2 short — never mind dealing with the food and the other utilities. The individual went on a hunger strike to draw attention to the plight of the mentally ill. To qualify for more funds, they required a note from the doctor, and this individual has waited several months in order to get a doctor to visit.

So having laid out those three scenarios for you, I would like to pose to you some questions around the housing component that is contained in here. My first question is: what plan exists to increase the number of available units of non-market housing for the mentally ill?

Hon. R. Coleman: Earlier I had at my fingertips the information for you on your forestry question, and then I left the House, and I don't have it with me now. So I've asked the staff to forward that to you so that you could have it. If you don't receive it in a few days, if you would give me a call, I'll make sure I could follow up on that for you.

On this particular question, first of all, I think I've long recognized that there has to be a better working relationship, a bit more seamless, with the delivery of the health services that come into forms of housing. I personally have always thought that safe, secure housing and affordable housing for people is actually a health benefit to folks in many cases, because it gives them the first step to getting into a healthier lifestyle and a healthy life.

On the individual issues, I don't think I'm really in a position to comment on those, but I will tell the member this. First of all, I welcome the fact that he was one of the few members from the opposition that attended the homeless task force meetings. I think that they were worthwhile. I found them worthwhile. I think the creation of the Premier's homelessness task force was an important step because, first of all, it did a number of things. I think it gave credibility to the fact that we could talk about homelessness. It gave us the opportunity to feel comfortable as a society knowing that the Premier was going to have a task force and members of the government and members of the opposition were prepared to step up to the plate and talk about this issue. Along with that came a number of mayors of major communities, and we would actually get to some discussions on how we would tackle this issue.

The task force is working on an integrated program to tackle the challenges of homelessness, mental illness and addictions in B.C. communities. The goal is to provide a continuum of housing for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness with supports and services, including counselling, drug and alcohol treat-

ment and specialized job training, and to help them break out of that cycle of poverty and despair.

That's the goal of the homeless strategy, and a laudable goal. If it was as simple as that, I'm sure we would be very happy, but it isn't going to be. It is going to take all of us having the temerity to stand up and change how we think, to stand up and explain to our communities what it means to be homeless — to let them know they do not have to fear it, that they should actually help it.

So far, the task force has announced funding for 533 new units for homelessness in 12 housing developments in Fort St. John, Kelowna, Nanaimo, New Westminster, Prince George, Surrey, Terrace, Vancouver and Victoria. That's the first step. I think two valuable steps came out of the task force meeting that day. One of the quotes was probably attributed to me and the other was a concern made by one of the mayors of the major communities that they didn't want the criminal homeless living in their homeless shelters. So they now wanted to somehow differentiate between the person that had a mental illness problem and was homeless and probably had some difficulties because they cycled into an area of crime and back into the shelter…. They were actually prejudging what the makeup of a homeless individual was.

I think that's an initial barrier for us to get through. If we can get through that barrier, we really have to get through barriers in communities. I mean, if you want to see a large public hearing take place, decide to build a shelter or put a shelter for homeless people in a neighbourhood in a community. You will hear people coming to the public hearing who will complain about traffic. They will complain that it doesn't belong in that neighbourhood because it's a commercial zone or a single-family zone or whatever. They will come up with issues in and around crime and every other issue they can say rather than what they really are trying to say when they stand up to that microphone and say, "I don't want these people living in my neighbourhood," or: "I don't want them living in my community."

I think that we as leaders in communities have to at some point in time start to explain to our communities that, you know, these folks live in our community, and they are human beings, and they deserve to have an opportunity for shelter. We should put aside our stereotypical prejudices and work to find the ability for us to house them. That in itself would be a major step forward in a homeless strategy.

Coming out of the homeless strategy at UBCM, there was an agreement made that we would now take that strategy from the major communities that were the initial mayors and councils that participated in the homeless strategy to the next area, to make it a regional homeless strategy. So instead of just Prince George, we would be talking about Williams Lake and Quesnel and those communities as well. We'd have to go look and work with those mayors in a regional task force — like we did with the provincial task force, with the Premier's task force — so that we can start finding those solutions there.

As we do that, this ministry will work with the Ministry of Health to educate — for lack of a better description — the Ministry of Health, which is largely an acute care deliverer. The notion is that the investment of money at this stage is actually a long-term savings to health, because if we can house people and we can help them with their mental illness or their addiction or in some cases, it's just a matter…. When we talk about mental illness and addiction, it could be something as simple as a stable environment so they take their medication on a regular basis and they stabilize.

I think these examples that he gives have been in existence in our communities — I've been an MLA for ten years — probably since the restructuring of Riverview, back three or four governments ago. Services back at the local level were never provided at the level they should have been by successive administrations and by that administration for the people that then came to the community.

In my previous portfolio, one of my biggest concerns when I sat down with the minister to deal with mental illness was that there was actually a wing of a prison in British Columbia that measured the recidivism of its prisoners coming through not in months or years but in weeks. It was largely people with mental illness that would cycle out, back into the community, commit crime and come back into the prison system because they had nothing in the community to help them.

The homeless strategy has to be shelter, and as it moves through, it has to have the other benefits that I'm describing to the member and as he brought up to me. It needs to now go out from the notion that homelessness exists in just our major cities. We have to be able to address that in other communities.

We need to have communities understand that they need to take responsibility and ownership for some of the issues around homelessness. It's always easy to point a finger and make an excuse, but in actual fact, communities have to take hold of these issues too. So whether it be my community…. I would support a homeless shelter and I would do that at public hearing and take leadership or be one of the people that would have that voice. Every member of this House should be that way. They are our most vulnerable citizens.

I think that the steps that are being taken today — and I think this is a non-partisan issue, frankly — where we recognize the problem, we talk about the problem, we don't ignore the problem and we try and find solutions, is a huge first step considering what the history of this type of file has been for the last 20 or 30 years.

C. Wyse: I appreciate very much what the hon. minister has stated around the problem, and for the first time that I've heard, I appreciate acceptance from members opposite for the responsibility underneath their watch for this particular issue. It has been in front of this House for a very long period of time and has not

I've sort of got a little bit of the nod here for me to shorten up some questions here. So what I would ask then, keeping our responsibility now for this issue here in this House, where we have the control over the top of it, how much funding is being directed towards this non-market housing for the mentally ill here in British Columbia by this House?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know what we're spending, which is the $40-some million on the homeless strategy and the projects that I outlined to the member. I know we're into a budget process for an increase or a possible increase to the funding, but that is a process that's ongoing, and I couldn't give you that number until I was actually through and saw an approved budget. Whenever it deals with it…. That's a process that is evolving. But our intention is to invest more money in homeless next year.

In addition to that, there's also money that's put into a number of group homes where we manage the group homes, but the actual funding for the illness comes from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In those cases in those group homes, we just operate the housing component. We provide the housing component, but we don't have the other.

We might be able to get close to get the member sort of a cross-ministry number, if that would be helpful. We'll see if we can maybe do that. It will be a sort of a global figure, but we can certainly work on getting him some information in that regard.

C. Wyse: I'm getting ahead of myself. I believe there were some recently announced new funds from the federal government for housing. My question: how much of this is targeted for the mentally ill? Then I will have one more general question.

Hon. R. Coleman: There was $84 million announced, which was $42 million federal, $42 million provincial, for housing initiatives, including these. I think the member may be referring to a more recent announcement where the federal government announced they intend to spend $1.6 billion on housing. We don't know how that's coming. That's an announcement that hasn't got any substance behind it yet. It hasn't got any program behind it, and it hasn't got any delivery mechanism.

At the federal-provincial ministers responsible for housing meeting in Halifax about a month ago, we had discussions with the federal minister at that time about this particular funding. I think it was pretty unanimous from the provinces that we wanted…. Obviously, we're interested in getting some of this cash. But we also made it clear that we didn't want unilateral decisions being made with those funds. In other words, we didn't want the federal government coming in and picking a society and funding it for $10 million to have, let's say, an emergency shelter and then leaving behind a vacuum of no operating funds, so somebody else has to pick up the operating funds. So the capital gets done, but the operating funds aren't there to make sure the ongoing operation is stable.

We said to the federal government: "Obviously we want to work with you on this. We want to make sure that this is a bilateral arrangement." So it would be that the approvals and the selections of projects and their funding formulas would be approved by not just the federal government, but by the provincial housing ministry, so that we wouldn't get the situation that did occur on one program they had where they actually did deliver some of those units and never provided the operating funds. The operating fund pressure dropped to the province. In the case of our province, it cost about $5 million a year. That's for 10, 15, 20 years.

Sometimes the capital by itself isn't such a good gift unless it's got a plan attached to it. We've made it clear as ministers that we want to make sure that there's a plan attached, that we want to make sure the benefit flows to our communities. That money is geared, priority-wise, to two directions. One is in first nations housing, and the second is into vulnerable citizens, which is the very client group that we're talking about this evening.

C. Wyse: I very much appreciate the time and the patience you've taken for my questions. Mr. Minister, I would like to give you a heads-up for my next question. I'm going to direct it away from the capital aspect of it, and I wish to come back to the present set of circumstances that are facing these people that you have described and seem to understand their situation — that is, dealing with the timeliness fashion of receiving these housing services that are here.

My question is: what mechanism is in place to ensure your ministry coordinates with the other affected ministries, providing support to the mentally ill in a more timely fashion than exists today here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: I would think that the best example is probably the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness because it brings us ministers together — the Minister of Children and Family Development, Minister of Health, Minister of Employment and Income Services and the Minister for Housing. Frankly, also part of that to some degree is probably the Solicitor General, who is also there because of some of the drug-addiction issues and crime issues. That gets the five people with what would basically be cross-ministerial responsibilities together.

I think the direction has been pretty clear: to drive to a more seamless delivery method, particularly between Health and some of the services on the ground. We do have a pretty good operational delivery system from the Ministry of Children and Family Development on the mentally ill that we have in group homes. I think, though, with Health, we have to deal with the

health authorities, so the direction has been given to be more thoughtful when we're dealing with these things and looking for projects that they can put services into that will enhance their ability to deal with these issues that the member is talking about.

D. Routley: The minister has mentioned the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. In the September budget update there is $40 million for homeless initiatives over three years. Could the minister please break down this funding for each year in terms of what ministry it will be directed to?

Hon. R. Coleman: Far be it for me to ask the critic a question, but I just want to make sure I'm giving him the right answer. Is he interested in where the $40 million on the homeless strategy is going? Is that the question?

The intent of the homeless strategy is to fully capitalize a number of units across the province, in total, 533 units in 12 housing projects. By capitalizing, we feel that if they have no mortgage and capital costs, they should be pretty self-sufficient. However, we will look at subsidies in the future, if necessary.

Basically, what that is broken down into is Segel Place on 55 East Hastings in Vancouver — 98 units of transitional supportive housing. Then there's the Woodward's West Pender Ave. in Vancouver. We have a significant commitment to the city of Vancouver on the redevelopment of Woodward's.

We have the New Hope Centre in Nanaimo, which is 21 transitional units. In Surrey the Phoenix Drug and Alcohol Recovery Education Society — 62 units with multi-services. In Victoria we have the Upper Room Society, the Victoria Open Door mission — 45 transitional housing units. In Kelowna the Union Gospel Mission — 76 shelter units to be determined. An additional location in Kelowna, once we can find one — 30 transitional housing units. In New Westminster the Garfield Hotel with the Salvation Army — 22 shelter units.

In Prince George I think it's still planned for the BackPackers Motel. I don't know how the public hearing and the zoning are going, but in Prince George another 30 transitional housing units, plus the Prince George Native Friendship Centre, will receive 18 shelter and 13 transitional housing units. The Ksan Housing Society in Terrace — eight transitional units for women. And in Fort St. John, the Fort St. John Care and Share Centre — 20 shelter units.

D. Routley: The minister has indicated that having capitalization of projects by the federal government and then the federal government leaving and having the province be responsible for operations is undesirable to his ministry. But when he speaks of the projects under the homelessness task force, capitalization is okay when we leave the operating expenses to those organizations. I would ask the minister: of the $40 million, how much is being directed towards existing emergency shelters?

Hon. R. Coleman: When I was describing earlier what the federal government was doing…. It should not be drawn into what I just described. That was what we call the SCPI program, and basically what it was…. They limit their funding federally — not to 100 percent of the capital to start with — and only one to three years' worth of funding. These are the type of high-risk units that require ongoing funding. So that's what the description of those was versus the description of these, where they're 100-percent capitalized and paid for. Health will come in with the services and supports if they're 100-percent capitalized and supported through the health authorities.

So there are two different programs, two different initiatives, two different descriptions. The one that I was describing earlier, where the capital coming in from the feds was inadequate, was where they don't actually capitalize it. They just do a piece of it, and then they leave a carrying cost and an operational cost behind. We don't have a problem with them doing that if they do it bilaterally with us and we select the projects together. Then we can budget accordingly so we can plan properly for the use of the housing.

D. Routley: In describing some of the obstacles to establishing shelters, the minister has referred to NIMBYism or "not in my back yard" syndrome. This may be historically true, but what we've seen in the last three years in particular are exploding numbers of homelessness right across our province, particularly in urban centres. But also in rural and resource-based communities we've seen a great increase in homelessness. In fact, what I hear in the resource-dependent small communities that I represent is people calling out for shelters, people calling out for service because they see this exploding rate in homelessness.

He has indicated that supplements will serve a greater number of people and that that should be our goal — serving a greater number of people. I would ask the minister how the $40 million spent on the homelessness task force so far is serving the greatest number of people, when shelters are being denied funding by his ministry.

Hon. R. Coleman: Back to supplements again. I'm not going to give the member another description of the continuum of housing from homelessness to those people in different aspects of housing that need assistance. I guess he can harp on that all night long if he wishes. The reality is this: a 40 percent increase in budget for homelessness in British Columbia in the last

year. If you look at the history of housing in British Columbia, I can tell you something. Homelessness wasn't exactly a priority back when I was doing Housing estimates in opposition in this House.

The member was referring to NIMBYism, and yeah, that's a concern. The province has increased funding for emergency shelters by 40 percent, and that's done this: increased year-round shelter beds from 711 to 879 and increased cold-weather beds from 197 to 391. The budget that's been increased in addition to that for homelessness as a program-based budget increase is fully allocated. We have organizations that have come forward and asked for allocations.

Now, the member may make the statement that somebody isn't getting funding. I do remember seeing an article where the member opposite, I think, was quoted with regards to a project in Victoria that was complaining it couldn't get funding from the provincial government. I read the article, so I did some research. This is what I found out. They didn't make a request until the 30th of September. They made the request after the shutoff of the proposal call for people that wanted funding for homeless shelters. They have funding through to the end of January. We carry contingencies, and we've spoken to that organization. We're fully comfortable that we're actually going to be able to fund the balance of their year.

I guess the one way you could deal with it is to take the comment and not do the research. Or you could ask the question, and we'll tell you what the truth is. The truth of this one was that somebody applied late. We got on it, we worked with the organization, we believed we had their financial solution, and that's how it works. We like to find solutions for people that have difficulties.

D. Routley: In fact, this government has cancelled housing projects that were on line when it took power. In fact, this government has delayed and frozen housing projects. In fact, when the federal money for housing.…

D. Routley: May I continue, Chair? In fact, when federal funding for social housing was stopped during the NDP's reign in this province, the wait-lists for social housing continued to drop. They continued to drop in 1996 from 11,500, in 1997 down to 10,700 approximately and in 1998 all the way down to 9,800 approximately. This is without federal funding. They continued to remain below 10,000 until 2001 when this government took power.

Coincidentally, in 2002 the federal government restarted the funding of the building of social housing — and with federal money rather than without, when the waiting lists were dropping under the NDP. Under this government, since 2001 that wait-list has climbed from 9,500 to 13,000. Can the minister explain why his government, receiving federal funding for social housing, sees an increase of almost 50 percent in the wait-lists when they had dropped without federal funding under the NDP? Why?

Hon. R. Coleman: Increased funding for subsidized housing from $111 million to $194 million from 2000-2001 to 2005-2006; allocated funding for 9,100 new units of subsidized housing since June 2001; over 2,100 units to support people at risk; 3,500 independent living, etc.; SAFER $34 million for people with subsidies so we could help more seniors; and an emergency shelter program that has seen the biggest funding increase in its history.

Having said all that, there's one other thing that's happened in British Columbia in the last four years. People have moved back. The population has increased, the economy is charged, and that brings with it other challenges in housing. Housing prices go up; building booms take place. It has an effect on the availability of rental housing, because it doesn't get built in exchange for market housing. All of those issues are challenges that we will have to manage and address under a provincial housing strategy.

D. Routley: I would like to ask the minister how many new units of social housing, non-market, have been created in the last four years. And I would like that figure without the assisted-living units included, if possible.

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been 9,100 new units of subsidized housing since June 2001, and I've included that. And of course in that number is the assisted living. You can take out the 3,500 independent living spaces — sorry, the 3,200 assisted living — and I guess you can do the math. If the member wants, I can send him a breakdown. I don't have it in front of me right now.

D. Routley: I realize that the minister probably cannot provide the specific and exact number, but could the minister estimate, without including the assisted-living units, how many non-market social housing units have been created for people who struggle with low incomes?

Hon. R. Coleman: Talking to my officials, the number is 9,100 new units of subsidized housing, 30-some-hundred of those are independent-living spaces. As I said a minute ago, I'm prepared to give a further breakout to the member. I just don't have it here. But I do know this government has stepped up to the plate.

The member that's obviously giving some questions to the member who's asking the questions — in her riding we've stepped up to the plate on Woodward's way beyond what the initial commitment was. We've actually doubled our commitment to Woodward's so it would work, and that's going to be subsidized units in the marketplace. So we're trying to work within the

envelopes we have, and we're providing units as I said. We'll give the member the breakout.

D. Routley: To the minister, who's receiving the answers from the people who are sitting beside him: could he perhaps refer to the CEO of B.C. Housing, who I predict would have a fairly accurate estimate of how many non-market social housing units have been built by this government without including assisted-living units in that number?

The Chair: Members, would you all…. All questions should be directed through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, through to the member, he may want a further breakout than this, but this is the breakout I can give him right now. Under the provincial housing program, which helps fund the creation of new non-profit and cooperative developments that provide safe, secure and affordable housing for families and individuals, when the program concludes in 2006-2007 there will have been 7,760 units created. The allocated to date is 3,377.

I will skip over ILBC, because he doesn't want those numbers. We will go to the community partners initiative, which is B.C. Housing supporting its housing partners in creation of innovative strategies through one-time grants, accessing consulting services and the provision of construction long-term financing. That's 1,334 units. Under the provincial homeless initiative, it's 533 units.

D. Routley: Through the excellent teamwork on this side of the House, I'll ask: how many of those units are assisted living?

Hon. R. Coleman: Out of the provincial housing program, some would have assistance, depending on what their multiple barriers are, in the secure and safe and affordable housing side. ILBC obviously does. That's 3,500; 3,232 of those have already been allocated, and 340 more are to come shortly. In the community partners initiative, there are some arrangements for assistance, and obviously, under the homeless initiative, there are a number of assistances available to people in the shelters that we're adding into through Health and through the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

D. Routley: It's very nice that the minister can double-count units, it seems. There's not much time left, so I will move on. I've got two or three questions left.

In the '04-05 annual report, it mentions that the provincial housing program "will conclude in 2006-2007 with a total of 7,800 units since the program's inception." Then in the service plan update, I see in goal number one that the targets for inventory of subsidized housing remain the same for both '06-07 and '07-08. Can the minister please explain why there appears to be no plans to increase that number? And does this indicate a winding up of the provincial housing program and a…? That's enough.

Hon. R. Coleman: These are the current commitments. They don't reflect the increase in SAFER. They don't reflect what the provincial housing strategy will bring forward. They don't reflect the federal commitments, because they're not nailed down yet. They don't reflect the fiscal budgets coming up, because we're in budget discussions and we're not complete in the budget process yet.

D. Routley: The government is indicating, through the minister, that it will be taking over the CMHC portfolio and managing that portfolio, administering it. Can the minister commit that those will remain publicly held properties, publicly administered properties, and that they will not be privatized?

Hon. R. Coleman: That portfolio is largely owned by the non-profits. It's older stock where they actually own the title, so we don't have an opportunity to do that. What we will be doing is sitting down with the non-profits and looking at their redevelopment opportunities to increase their densities and work with them so they can add additional stock and serve more clients, as we go through the portfolio.

The portfolio itself, as it transitions through, like I say, is mainly old stock. To say that we wouldn't do something on one property that could benefit a multitude of others at this stage would be inappropriate. There may be a property in a community that's right for redevelopment and that would provide funds for us to move into development on another non-profit site and increase units. It would provide the capital, and the other site may no longer be applicable to the form of housing it's delivering, because some of this is pretty old stuff. We will assess the portfolio over time.

It's actually the same discussion on opportunities that I had with the former Minister of Housing, the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, many years ago. We both agreed at that time that there were opportunities on the land base that should be pursued to increase our housing stock using some of our redevelopment opportunities long term for society. That's been, frankly, a position that's pretty well canvassed on both sides of the House. There's general agreement that if there's an opportunity to take capital out of one site or to redevelop a site and increase the number and density of stock for housing, we would look at those opportunities. That's not privatization. That's just managing the portfolio.

D. Routley: There have been a number of questions asked this evening that have not been answered, but commitments have been made to provide the information in the near future. I would like to ask the minister when I can receive the information on the breakdown

of the $82 million, on the breakdown of those people who qualify for the various types of programs that he's indicated. I asked him how many people covered by those programs were mentally ill, how many were disabled, how many were frail elderly, how many were low-income seniors, how many were low-income families.

I need a list of federal and provincial agreements with B.C. Housing and a breakdown of the funding for each agreement. I think I asked to be provided — I'm waiting for my team of crack investigators — the breakdown of ILBC, the distribution of the federal-provincial money for the provincial housing program, and other information that the minister has committed to provide but that was not available tonight.

Hon. R. Coleman: As much as possible we'll send it electronically, because what the member has just listed off is a ton of work for my staff, particularly when there are 40 different housing agreements with CMHC alone. What level we're allowed to give you on the information on those agreements and their length…. I imagine some of them are 20, 30 or 40 pages long. We will get the information to the member as quickly as possible.

I would caution the member, though, that the last few requests will require a substantial amount of staff time. Therefore, they will get to it as their workdays allow. If we can get it to him electronically, that would be my preference. I would suspect that we're talking about a thousand pages or so of photocopying — somewhere in there. I do know that each one of these housing agreements with CMHC is completely lengthy. We will try and get that to you as soon as possible. Some of it may come quicker than others, but we'll try and get it to you as soon as possible.

D. Routley: Last question. In the service plan update, I do see that goal number one, target inventory of subsidized housing, remains the same. The minister hasn't explained why there isn't an increase in the numbers that are targeted and why the goals haven't increased. I would add to that list of information explicit criteria for determining the category or the definition of "at risk of homelessness" and what percentage of the units targeted are intended for those at risk of homelessness.

Hon. R. Coleman: We will provide that information as well as time permits, and as I said, these are the current commitments. There's a budgetary process in place to add to those numbers, and I will also provide much of that information to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant at the same time.

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

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

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

D. Chudnovsky: Chairperson, I had a short discussion with the minister a minute ago. Just to give you an idea of where we're going, I will take a few minutes to canvass a couple of issues that came up in the discussion yesterday and get some further clarification on those. My colleague from North Coast will be following me to talk about the areas for which he has responsibility. We will then move on to some issues that have to do with transit. I note that staff people from B.C. Transit are here again. We're grateful to them for having come. I'll be pursuing some of those questions, and

so will some others from our side of the House. After that, I'll take it on again, so we'll have a scintillating afternoon and evening, I'm sure.

First, I wanted to pursue a piece of the discussion we were having about P3 projects yesterday, and specifically with respect to some comments that were made by the minister. I wanted to quote those and then ask a couple of questions arising. The minister said yesterday — this was part the discussion, so the minister, I'm sure, will remember the context:

So my first question to the minister: is the Rutherford Creek Bridge that was referred to yesterday by the minister the one that's located about two miles south of Pemberton?

D. Chudnovsky: Does the Sea to Sky project go only as far north as Whistler? Am I correct in my understanding of that?

D. Chudnovsky: It's my understanding that the preferred proponent for the Sea to Sky P3 was chosen in March of 2005. Is that correct?

D. Chudnovsky: You're making it easy for me, minister. So the next question to the minister: was the Rutherford Bridge construction part of the Sea to Sky Highway project, or was it a separate project?

D. Chudnovsky: Is it the case, then, that what happened when the bridge washed out during the construction was the contractor paid to have it repaired, as they would be required to do under any normal non-P3 project?

Hon. K. Falcon: Aha. This is what we call the gotcha moment in the series of questions. Actually, member, what I have said about the Rutherford Bridge yesterday and in the past is…. I'm trying to elucidate a point. The point is that what we had in the design-build on the Rutherford Creek is the principle of risk transfer that we built into that.

As the member knows, you and I canvassed this whole issue of risk transfer very extensively the other day, and one of the things the member opposite had suggested is that, well, instead of doing a P3, why don't you just make a big design-build, risk-transfer-type project on the Sea to Sky? The member may recall that we had quite a discussion about that. One of the things I pointed out is that we lose the innovation side of things that we look for in the P3 arrangements because, of course, we as government are doing the design work, etc., for the improvement.

So the Rutherford Creek example was to really hammer home the point to the member opposite that where you get the risk transfer, there's substantial benefit to the taxpayer by not having to be, obviously, on the hook for those additional costs.

D. Chudnovsky: Yesterday we canvassed the issue of supposed reduction in debt, and we'll talk a little more about that in a minute. The minister indicated that it was never the intention of government to justify P3s on the basis of reduction in debt.

Today I think what we're hearing him say, and the minister may want to confirm this, is that risk transfer, to the extent that the ministry or government wants to purchase risk transfer, is not dependent on a P3 at all — that risk transfer can be purchased.

Again, it's a complicated issue, and we had, as the minister said, quite a discussion about it yesterday. But is it not the case and has the minister not confirmed that risk transfer can be purchased in various kinds of setups, P3 or non-P3?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, when you talk about engaging in contracting out major projects, there's a continuum that you have. On the one end of the continuum, you'd have your conventional tendering process, which is the vast majority of the projects that the government does. Those are typified where you've got the separate design from the actual construction. That's the example I was giving the member — where the government itself is undertaking the design work, etc., and then is tendering out the construction work.

Then you've got what we call the design-build, which some people refer to as a form of P3 — really, I would just view it as further along the continuum — where you do have a greater transfer risk, and you do have some greater innovations that are brought to the table by the private sector, because they will be responsible for both the design and the construction.

Then you've got the P3 model which goes even farther along the continuum which, as I repeated many, many times yesterday, is not ideal for every situation but is very good for situations of large projects where there are substantial risks — where historically, the province has not had a great history of man-

aging those risks, at great cost to the taxpayer. In those cases, that's where you can get the benefit of the private sector involvement because, of course, they'll be involved in the design, build, finance and operation of those projects over a period of time.

D. Chudnovsky: I guess what I wanted to clarify and what I thought was important to have a look at was the phrase "dramatic shift." The discussion which we were having yesterday was one about P3s. The minister was doing his best — you know, from our point of view rather unsuccessfully, but A for effort — to convince us of something that seems to have disappeared a little bit today: the importance of risk transfer with respect to P3s. He described that as a dramatic shift. The point that this side is making today is that the project he was describing as evidence that risk transfer is a dramatic shift in the strategy of government, which is to be lauded and is one of the reasons why we use P3s, turns out not to be a P3 at all.

The point is made, and we note on our side a dramatic shift. The dramatic shift is in the level of zeal which once was so in evidence from this minister and this government with respect to P3s and that seems to have cooled down a little bit over the last year or two. That's an interesting shift. We'll continue to monitor it, and no doubt we'll have an opportunity to talk about it more as we go along.

A couple of other issues from yesterday, and then I'll turn it over to my colleague. Yesterday the minister said:

My question is: why are value-for-money reports done after the contracts are concluded rather than before the financial close?

Hon. K. Falcon: The reason is that you do the value for money once you actually have seen the proposals and you're able to actually quantify exactly what the costs are and what the benefits are and are then able to, of course, compare that against the traditional procurement method.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps I heard incorrectly. It's not my understanding that the value-for-money investigations are done after the proposals. It's my understanding that they are done after the contract is let. Is that not the case?

Hon. K. Falcon: What happens is, prior to the final awarding of the contract, we know at a high level what the value for money is. We have a sense going in what things are looking like, but, of course, we won't be able to fully quantify it until we get down to, you know, the final negotiations and the awarding of the contract. Through this entire process — because we've set out minimum standards, etc., all these provisions — we have a sense of what we're looking at in terms of value for money. But, of course, we won't be able to finally quantify all that until we get down to, literally, the final proposal, ready for contract award, etc.

D. Chudnovsky: What's the point of a public sector comparator that happens after the contract is let? It seems to me — perhaps I'm confused — that the people of the province want to know and understand that the decisions that have been made are value-for-money decisions, are appropriate on policy terms, are appropriate in terms of all the other criteria that one would look at in letting a significant capital project. We're going to look at some of those criteria, I hope later this evening or tomorrow. If we're going to do a comparison — and the ministry and the government committed, when the zeal for P3s was much warmer, to public sector comparators — what's the point if the comparison is done after the fact?

Hon. K. Falcon: Two comments to the member. The first is that we do the public sector comparator very early in the process so that we have a benchmark, knowing what we would do and what the costs would be if we undertook it in the traditional procurement manner. We can use that as our benchmark as we go forward. It allows us to establish affordability limits. It allows us to have a sense of what we'll be looking at in terms of the proposal.

As I've said before, obviously, until you get the proposals in and until you get down to detailed final negotiations, that's when you have the ability to quantify the comparator between the PSC and, of course, the P3 option.

On another note, I keep hearing the member suggest that there has been some cooling on P3s. I should let that member know that this minister actually remains red-hot on P3s. You should know, as I've said before, that P3s don't work in every situation, but they are absolutely, fundamentally important, especially in large-scale projects.

The member also mentioned Rutherford Creek. Again, as I said to the member, that was a design-build with appropriate risk transfers. So that's not a traditional procurement method; it's a continuum. As I say, some refer to them as partial P3s or what have you. The principles underlying that are very similar to a P3.

I think the example the member forgot, which I had mentioned the other day — which was also a very compelling example as to the use of P3s — was, of course, the fast ferry situation. In that case, that was an example that cried out for a P3 model. In that case, we would have had the ability, had it been done — though I suspect there would be no private sector proponent

that would be crazy enough to take it on…. Nevertheless, the obligations would have been: fixed price, financed by the individuals developing those ferries, and they would have had to have delivered the ferries first. They would have had to pass trial runs and demonstrated an ability to deliver a certain amount of vehicles under certain safety conditions and all the other requirements that you put into place while, at the same time, protecting the taxpayers. That's a classic example of why you want to have a P3 in place.

Unfortunately, what happened there was that government decided they ought to, as government has been wont to do in so many cases historically — and that's why I don't use that to, kind of, politically bang over the head of the NDP…. I think in free-enterprise governments we've seen examples historically, which I can think of, under Social Credit where we had some major highway projects — very complex, very big, large-scale projects — that also went wildly overbudget, and there had to be investigations, etc.

The underlying thing that unites those projects together in what went wrong was that all of the risk was on the shoulders of taxpayers. P3s make sense on those kinds of projects which are very large projects, projects where there's a large degree of engineering complexity, where there's a large degree of design complexity, where there are risks associated with the schedule and delivery. Those are the situations where this government and, certainly, this minister believe very, very strongly that private-public partnerships are absolutely the way to go. They deliver certainty. They deliver things at a fixed price. They shift the transfer of risk — construction risk, design risk and cost-overrun risk — over to the private sector where it should be. And we get the benefits as the public and the taxpayer.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, we certainly stuck a stick in a beehive that time — didn't we? Good to see a response.

Chairperson, we will no doubt have an opportunity to pursue this issue of comparisons at some length. I think that they're very, very important, and I hope that we have an opportunity to talk about them some more.

We are going to deviate a little tiny bit from the discussion that the minister and I had earlier. I have a couple more things that I'd like to talk about arising from yesterday, but there are others here who have other responsibilities who need to have some time. With the agreement of the minister, I will come back to some stuff from yesterday at the next opportunity I have to pursue the discussion, and I'll turn it over, I think, to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for just a few minutes on a transit issue and then over to the member for North Coast.

D. Thorne: Forgive me if I do this a little incorrectly. It's my first time standing up in estimates. I'm not nervous; I'm just, you know, untried.

I'm wanting, actually, to just ask some questions about the rapid transit issue in the northeast sector of the GVRD, commonly known as Coquitlam line, which, I'm sure the staff and the members are aware, has been put on the back burner any number of times over the last 20 years. It's been number one in the GVRD and put back any number of times, as I say, most recently by what we call the RAV line in Vancouver. The Coquitlam line was supposed to be built, really, before that line came up through the ranks and suddenly became number one. That's another issue, and I think some of my fellow members will be bringing that one forward.

I'm mainly concerned with the change in mode of the Coquitlam line from ALRT to LRT. Suddenly, in the middle of last year it became apparent that we were looking at LRT for this small, small area of transit in the GVRD; whereas the rest of the region is, of course, ALRT, continuing with the so-called RAV line.

There is a lot of concern by members of the community and also on councils in the community, particularly Coquitlam council, which did send in a motion to the provincial government in December '04 asking it to please consider…. It was at the time that the government was asking municipalities and residents of the province to please give some recommendations for how to spend the surplus. Coquitlam council did make a motion and sent it to the government, asking the government to please consider putting some extra money into the Coquitlam rapid transit line, so that they could stay with the SkyTrain or ALRT — which we, of course, had been planning for in Coquitlam for many, many years.

We have spent a lot of tax dollars on doing community studies, on having open houses and on bringing people in from the provincial government, TransLink, B.C. Transit and all the different groups whose names have changed over the years. Coquitlam taxpayers have paid a lot of money, of their tax dollars, into making sure that ALRT was the system they wanted, that it was the route chosen, that it was the right route, etc. I'm sure I'm not telling anybody in this room anything they don't already know.

Suddenly, in the beginning of last year we have people going from TransLink over to Europe and coming back with an epiphany of sorts: "LRT is the way to go; ALRT is a terrible system. We don't want it anymore. We want LRT now."

We did hear back. Coquitlam council and the community of Coquitlam did hear back, finally, after three or four letters prodding the government to please respond to the original motion, which was in the early part of December '04. And what was the situation? Now, I just might add that I'm well aware that this project is a TransLink project. It's not a government project in the same way that the so-called RAV line is. It's a TransLink project, and the government contribution is the $170 million that was the original contribution to this line, which has not been changed up or down since the time that was first allocated.

D. Thorne: I could just talk, talk, talk, but I wanted to get those things on record — right? It's kind of like question period — right? — in a different way.

The Chair: You're on the clock here. You have, ostensibly, 15 minutes to ask your question.

D. Thorne: Oh, okay. Well, I'm not going to take nearly that long, believe me. So I guess my question is…. How can I ask it most simply? I recognize that municipalities are creatures of the provincial government. We all know that, and I recognize that the Coquitlam line is, for some reason, a project only of TransLink and it isn't a P3. The government is making a contribution, and that's it. The same taxpayer will pay for it but through municipal and GVRD taxes, not through provincial taxes.

I do not understand, and on behalf of the residents of Coquitlam — quite of few of whom have contacted council and members of this body, I can't understand why the provincial government doesn't intercede in this in some way, doesn't feel that this is an inappropriate way to run a regional transit system — by having one little piece. When you look down in a helicopter and do one of those mapping things, you have ALRT everywhere, and suddenly you have this little piece of LRT. Finding a way to join it up to all the ALRT systems…. Does the government have a rationale or an answer to that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville indicated at the beginning that she was new at this. I should let the member know some comforting words. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you've gone on a fairly long soliloquy and then think to yourself, "Gee, what exactly is the question I should ask?" echo what the member opposite — in fact, my critic opposite — said. That is: "So what do you think about that, minister?" That's always a good way to bail yourself out if you ever find yourself in that situation, just from experience that no doubt we've garnered over the years.

I think your question is a very appropriate question to the extent that…. I do recall actually receiving the letter from the council in Coquitlam. You know, one of the things I did when I responded to that letter is remind them that I recognized that there appeared to be, within the Tri-Cities, some disagreement over what kind of system the folks there wanted and that I felt it would be helpful if they could all sit down and speak with one voice to TransLink in terms of identifying the kind of transportation system they would have.

At the end of the day, this is a TransLink project. The province will merely, as we are in the RAV project, be a funding partner. We will not be a decision-maker nor be implementing the actual project itself. I think that the question you raise, while it may be germane to many folks in Coquitlam, is really a question that needs to be asked of the TransLink board.

D. Thorne: If at this point in time there was a decision within the Tri-Cities…. Of course, Port Moody is on record as not wanting SkyTrain to go down the middle of their town. However, they haven't been asked if they want light rail to go down the middle of their town. Everybody is waiting for that bomb to hit in Port Moody.

If there was a decision to change the route, for example — I'm not suggesting that's going to happen, but if it did — would the province be willing to look at being a bigger funding partner in an ALRT project for the Tri-Cities?

Hon. K. Falcon: While I think it's important to…. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member opposite, I won't engage in speculation. One thing I will say is that the commitment that the member correctly pointed out, the $170 million, was actually a commitment of the previous government. We said that we would honour that commitment, and we will honour that commitment. That's what we have planned for. It would be of absolutely no help to myself or anybody else to introduce any uncertainty into the equation by speculating about a change of direction that I, frankly, haven't seen from the TransLink board. That's a TransLink decision, and they will have to make that decision.

G. Coons: Nice to see you again, minister and staff — a pleasure to have you here. I'll get back into where we left off last night with B.C. Ferries and some questions, hopefully, that we can get on record and straightened up.

Could you, minister, tell me how many FTEs there are with B.C. Ferries on your staff?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have no FTEs from B.C. Ferries on the Ministry of Transportation staff.

G. Coons: With a budget of approximately $127 million, how is that money being accountable to the taxpayers?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, we within the Ministry of Transportation have our own staff that monitor the contract. We have about four staff, and there may occasionally be others that are pulled in for some professional advice or what have you. But typically, it's four staff whose job is primarily to oversee the contractual arrangement and ensure that the $127 million that we pay out in performance payments or service payments to B.C. Ferry Services are ensuring that they are meeting their commitments as set out in the coastal ferries agreement.

G. Coons: I see there is some allocation of funds to monitor and have access to B.C. Ferries and what they are doing.

I have a question about northern routes and the northern service strategy. I was just wondering what the service fee for the northern route was last year and what it's projected to be for the coming year.

Hon. K. Falcon: It was $19.8 million, and it's projected to be the same this year.

G. Coons: Coming from the north coast and talking to a lot of constituents and stakeholders — B.C. Ferries management staff and ferry advisory committees, workers on the ferries — there's great apprehension about what's happening with the northern strategy. Many coastal communities rely on it as a vital link. It's their marine highway, whether it's to get to work, school, other modes of transportation; whether it's going to get to other flights, timely assistance for medical purposes, sporting and cultural events — a whole life. I'm sure the minister is aware of that.

Without an appropriate ferry system that's safe, reliable and affordable, many of our coastal communities cannot function. I'm just wondering if the minister can answer this question: had the government agreed in principle for status quo service with three new ships for the northern routes?

Hon. K. Falcon: The obligation of B.C. Ferries under the current contract is to continue with the level of service that is currently underway for the coastal ferry communities, and that will not change.

G. Coons: When we attended a consultation meeting with B.C. Ferries, they put out a document where they talked about the consultation with the province. It said here from B.C. Ferries: "Government indicated preliminary support for the continuation of status quo service with three northern vessels." Apparently, the northern service strategy is sitting on your desk, and it's been there for quite a few months. Northerners are waiting in anticipation for this commitment from the government. I'm wondering if that is forthcoming.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct in the sense that we are currently in negotiations with B.C. Ferries. The member will know — in fact, he referred to it — that one of the things that we directed B.C. Ferries to do was to actually undertake those public consultations.

We wanted to make sure that the communities have an opportunity to have their input into this whole process, which they did, and they very helpfully produced a document which can help provide some guidance. But at this point I can't go into too much detail, because there are some cabinet confidentiality issues surrounding this.

I can tell the member that there is no question about the fact that the commitment to the northern coastal communities is that they have got existing service levels and that those existing service levels will be maintained, with some possibilities of enhancement. But that's all subject to, of course, negotiation.

G. Coons: I'm glad you brought up public consultations, because I was going to bring this up near the end, but I guess I can get this in here now. There are a couple of comments from the northern Sunshine Coast community strategy on their public consultations, and they said they were really disappointed with the process of consultation — that it was rushed. It was flawed by the lack of explanation for the information that was provided and by lack of adequate time to examine and probe information — and some more comments. Again, in a press release from the Sunshine Coast, they talked about, "B.C. Ferries continues its past practice of shafting the residents on the southern Sunshine Coast" because of lack of consultation. I've had great consultation with Haida Gwaii residents who lack information, who don't get the proper data that they need so they can rely — or hopefully rely — on B.C. Ferries documents.

I would just ask the minister that when the government signed the coastal ferry service contract with the B.C. Ferry Corp., schedule A of the contract indicated certain things about the vessels. The vessel on route 40 was built in '78, and retirement date is 2008. That's the Queen of Chilliwack. The Queen of the North — retirement date, 2010. The Queen of Prince Rupert — retirement date, 2009. I think what residents are really waiting for in the north and in the northern routes is a commitment from the government to get the ships agreed to in negotiations, so that tendering can be put out and we can know the cost and get them out there so the north can be a showcase when the tourists arrive for the 2010 Olympics.

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, that's exactly what we're working to do, and the moment we conclude those negotiations and we're able to have cabinet sign off on the ultimate decision — because there's obviously a cost associated with it, so we have to go through this process thoughtfully and responsibly — we will make that information public and share it with coastal communities.

In terms of the member's comments about public consultation, I have been around long enough to know that in virtually every public consultation I've been involved with, there are always groups of people who think it could have been done better, or they didn't quite like the consultations, or it didn't meet what they expected as far as public consultation. But I do think something significant to point out is the fact that unlike in many cases in the past, there actually is public consultation that now takes place on issues like that — the fact that we have an independent board of directors on B.C. Ferries with representatives from coastal communities that also have the opportunity to provide some input on issues such as this.

So I am quite comfortable that though we may never reach a place in my lifetime where public consultations form a resounding consensus of joy and happiness over the consultative process…. I do think, nevertheless, that the feedback I heard from many people was dissimilar from what was described by the member opposite. In fact, I heard much feedback suggesting that there was a real sense of appreciation for the fact that that consultation process was undertaken and that people, for the first time in a long time, actually had an opportunity to step forward and give their comments in terms of what kinds of vessels they would like to see, what kinds of amenities on the vessels, what were the cost implications involved with all these different choices, etc.

I'm quite satisfied; I think that process was thorough. Was it as perfect as it could have been? Probably not, but I've yet to design a process that meets that very high standard.

G. Coons: I guess if we look at the process…. Can it be improved? Definitely, and I hope also that the Coastal Ferry Act is a working document that we can work with together as we move through this privatization of our marine highway.

I'm just wondering, as far as the northern service strategy, if the government had gotten any professional advice from somebody to scrutinize a submitted strategy from B.C. Ferries.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, a lot of that work is ongoing. We will certainly, as the need is required, hire experts such as marine architects, etc., that can help ensure that we're achieving best value on any potential vessel options that are considered. So that work is underway.

G. Coons: A few questions about that. Who is it, where is he from, and what is his mandate?

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't have that information with us, member, but we'd be happy to get that to you separately.

G. Coons: That was one problem that I ran into, minister, in my meetings. I was at UBCM and had at least three or four meetings with coastal communities and B.C. Ferries management. One message I got from B.C. Ferries management — again, I'm looking at the time and the lineup of people in transportation and looking to where I want to go…. I'm sort of time-lining what I'm trying to do here.

B.C. Ferries has asked me publicly to put political pressure on the government so that a decision is made on the northern service strategy, so that vessels can be tendered and it supports the construction of vessels designed to meet the expanding needs of the North Coast. That's what the communities need, and that's what they expect. They're worried about the construction of vessels that are not going to meet the needs of the north and that are being — I hate to say watered down — done cheaper than it was presented in the northern service strategy.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, again I'll say that we're in the midst of negotiations as we speak. B.C. Ferries is an independent company, and they will do whatever they may think is in their best interest. But one thing I will tell the member is that our interest is the public interest. The decisions we made and the negotiations we're currently involved in are negotiations to ensure that we achieve the objective of providing the best possible service at the most defensible cost to taxpayers, and we will do that. We're in negotiations in the midst of doing that. There's not too much more I can say about that, member, to be very candid with you.

G. Coons: Minister, it's great to see that you're a defender of the public interest, and we can look forward to seeing more of that.

I'll move on here. If B.C. Ferry Services does not find an alternate service provider, say, for the northern routes as per section 9 of the Coastal Ferry Act, what happens as far as the service fee and new vessels?

Hon. K. Falcon: If there isn't a third party that comes to the table that's able to provide the service, then we will negotiate with the existing service provider — B.C. Ferries — and negotiate a new ongoing term for them to continue operation.

G. Coons: In other words, if an alternate service provider is not found, then the government will increase its service fee so that vessels and the necessary routes can be maintained at status quo?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly right, Chair. It's a hypothetical question. As I've said before to the member, we are currently in negotiations, and I just can't say any more about that.

G. Coons: The number-one great goal of this government is creating more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada, and there is great concern about our taxpayer dollars going off to a German corporation to construct ships — whatever the number may be — with British Columbians and Canadians missing out on up to 2,000 jobs. With 18 more ships to be built in the next 15 years, I'm just wondering if the minister is going to ensure and make a commitment that British Columbia and Canadian shipbuilders have an opportunity for a level playing ground and have a chance to

Hon. K. Falcon: I always cheer for our local shipowners. I wish that our local shipowners could win every contract, but one thing we know for sure is that B.C. Ferries is now independent from government. It's independent from government for a very good reason. Government over the years has shown a very unfortunate predilection to interfere with decisions of the Ferry Corp., such that it costs enormous amounts of money for the taxpayers of British Columbia. I don't need to get into the fast cats situation to provide any further evidence of that.

One thing I will say is that the decision they made to build the three C-class ferries in Germany saved the Ferry Corp. about $160 million. To put that into perspective, that would represent a double-digit fare increase for travellers and users of the system. I can only imagine the howls of outrage that we would hear were people to realize that they were looking at a 30-percent fare increase to pay for having those particular ferries constructed at home.

I get that the politics are very tough about this, but the underlying principle of three separate reports following the fast ferries — including the Auditor General, including Hugh Gordon and including Fred Wright — all said the same thing. That was that we need to make the Ferry Services separate and arm's length from government interference. That means politicians, including myself. That was the right decision then, when those recommendations were made. It is the right decision today.

I noted with interest, and I'm sure the member did too, that in fact it was just recently announced that those ferries are likely to be delivered ahead of schedule. They are on budget. I was also encouraged to see that all of the interior work being undertaken on those three vessels will be undertaken by B.C. companies, as it happens, who were able to win those contracts in a competitive circumstance.

G. Coons: Yes, minister, I think that was the whole goal of the privatization of our ferry system — to keep it separate from political interference. But again, who is the decision-maker here when it comes to giving the stamp of approval for route strategies and the northern service strategy? Who's making the decisions about the finances?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Coastal Ferry Act lays out the routes and the service obligations of B.C. Ferries and their requirements to fulfil those minimum obligations that are set out under that agreement. That hasn't changed; that's still the way it works.

G. Coons: I guess my question to the minister was: who's making the decisions? The latest Sunshine Coast strategy, the public consultation, B.C. Ferries indicates that B.C. Ferries made clear that its role was that of consultant and contractor to government and not decision-maker, and that only the government has the authority to decide how much taxpayer money is spent in support of northern Sunshine Coast ferry services and the extent to which the services must be self-supporting.

So I guess my question, again, to the minister is: is there political interference when the province is the decision-maker?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll just try and answer the question, because I'm not sure I'm fully understanding where the member is going. We are in the midst of negotiating with the Ferry Corp. on the services being delivered on the coastal routes and the north coast. Those negotiations are underway. As I've said many, many times, I can't comment on the details of those negotiations except to say that, as the member knows, the coastal ferry contract lays out certain performance and service requirements from the Ferry Corp. that they are to deliver. All we're doing is negotiating how things will look going forward.

G. Coons: Just a comment about route 12, the Mill Bay to Brentwood…. I'm just wondering about the status of the Malahat transportation study and where the ministry is with that.

Hon. K. Falcon: We're still in the data-gathering stage, getting all the information, pulling all the information together. This is not something that will be done overnight. I can assure you it's work that will be ongoing for many, many months. We have to look at that situation very thoughtfully and very carefully before, obviously, we start to flesh out some recommendations and some options coming out of that.

G. Coons: I'm just wondering whether route 12, Mill Bay to Brentwood Bay, is part of the Malahat transportation study and whether or not public consultations will be held involving that route.

Hon. K. Falcon: We will look at all modes and all options that are available. Later on in the process, once we've gathered in all the information and can actually put that information into some sense of thoughtful order, we will go out and have the opportunity to have discussions with the public and listen to feedback from the public.

G. Coons: I've had quite a few people talk to me about route 12, and there is definitely an accountability concern. There seems to be in their minds — as the minister noted, it depends on the circles you hang around with, what people's interpretations of issues are…. There seems to be no timely discussion about the changes to our marine highway through the Coastal Ferry Act and how it affects the smaller routes.

A lot of groups are contacting B.C. Ferries or contacting the commissioner. They're contacting MLAs from whatever ridings they're from. The more they

I'm just wondering if the minister can explain how this government can make changes to the Coastal Ferry Act. If there is public pressure or issues that are not meeting the public interest, may that be taken into account?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have to confess, member, that I'm not sure I understand your question. Perhaps I can say this to the member, because I do think this is important. There are lots of interests involved when it comes to the B.C. ferries. There are unions that have an interest. There are the ferry workers who have an interest. There are politicians who have an interest. There are coastal communities that have an interest. But actually, the most important interest, in my view, is that of the 22 million people a year who actually use that ferry service.

One of the things that I think is so important about the ferry service is that they are required to do independent customer satisfaction surveys annually. One of the things that I find interesting about the fact that they are required to do independent customer service satisfaction is that the customer satisfaction rates are up. In fact, this year it's 88-percent satisfaction with the B.C. Ferry Services, up from 84 percent the year before. That actually is more important to me than all the other chattering I hear outside year-round from all the different stakeholder groups that have narrow interests of why they want something or other changed from the ferry corporation. I think that is so very important.

It reaffirms, in my view, how absolutely critical it was and how right the decision was to make sure that ferries operate independent of government and political interference. As I say, in the past the landscape was just littered with political interference. Very poor decisions were being made because somebody got 30 phone calls from a community that was upset about something or other and therefore forced the Ferry Corp. to make short-term decisions that were, in the long term, a disincentive or a lack of benefit for the taxpayers at large.

I also think, minister, that surveys and talking to communities and talking to stakeholders and talking to the users are very important. A couple of times I experienced on telephone call-in shows…. Being from the northern coast, all of a sudden I realized that there seem to be two ferry systems — north of Nanaimo and south of Nanaimo. There's a real concern for rural and coastal communities of where we're going with our ferry system and of our fully integrated ferry system being torn apart to perhaps a bunch of private alternate service providers that do not meet the needs of coastal communities. There's that fear.

I do have a question about cross-subsidization. Could you explain, minister, how cross-subsidization works for our routes?

G. Coons: So when the Coastal Ferry Act was introduced, the cross-subsidization was eliminated?

Hon. K. Falcon: What we do and what we've done since the Coastal Ferry Act was introduced is look at each route. We look at what the requirements are to service that route and at what the appropriate service fee is that should be paid in order to ensure that those minimum service requirements are in place for that route.

G. Coons: As far as the current agreement with B.C. Ferries, when is that contract up?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is a 60-year term. The first term is for a five-year period. Subsequent to that five-year period, there are four-year period renewals.

G. Coons: I'm under the assumption that 2008 is the end of the contract and that you will be negotiating a further contract with B.C. Ferries. As far as the current contract, what's the stipulation on core service for routes?

Hon. K. Falcon: We can dig around and provide that. It will take a substantial amount of time. It's available on the website. If I could ask the forbearance of the member, if he has a particular interest, he could go onto the website and have a look at it.

G. Coons: Yes, I'm under the impression — and maybe we can just get an impression here if we don't have the information out here — that core service and the current service levels are guaranteed for this contract up to 2008. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, they're guaranteed for that first five-year performance term.

G. Coons: I guess that's a concern we have in our coastal communities. After 2008 in the next contract that will be signed for a four-year term, current service levels and core services are not guaranteed because it all depends on the alternate service providers. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is difficult to speculate, obviously, years out, but I think I could tell the member —

he is a politician — that it would be a brave politician indeed that was not going to continue the service in different communities. Frankly, I'm not sure where this fear is. I've never heard this fear. I suppose there may be someone trying to whip up that fear, but frankly, it is misplaced. This government will continue to ensure — under our performance agreements, arrangements and the services that we contract through B.C. Ferry Services — that there is full and complete service throughout British Columbia, as there has been today.

G. Coons: Yes, I think that is a problem because section 38(1)(f) indicates that ferry routes are to move towards a greater reliance on user-pay systems. I can see, and so can people in coastal communities, that if it is user-pay with no cross-subsidization…. As you mentioned, the cross-subsidization has been eliminated, and the cross-subsidization from the routes that made significant money — Vancouver, Victoria — went to help the smaller routes that needed the core service and the guaranteed status quo levels of service. That's a concern as we move along to user-pay. User-pay is to reduce over time the service fee contribution by the government. So the goal of the privatization is to reduce your service fee that goes to the B.C. Ferry Services.

Hon. K. Falcon: The good news is that I can assure those people who harbour that fear that they have absolutely nothing to fear. All this discussion about cross-subsidization is meaningless.

For every single route, we will negotiate a service provision that has minimum levels of service. Whatever the costs are that we ultimately negotiate through the service provider, that's what the government will end up paying to have that service provided.

Yes, there are alternative service delivery obligations overseen by the independent B.C. Ferry commissioner to ensure that the folks in those communities are getting the best possible service at the best possible price. I think that's something that is very important and should be of great comfort to those folks.

G. Coons: That's great to hear, minister, because that's something I have been running across for the last three or four months of talking to a lot of stakeholders — the concerns about that.

I'm just wondering if in the future, after you sign new contracts with alternate service providers…. Maybe you can clarify that for me, minister. The alternate service providers are the responsibility of B.C. Ferry Services to get, and therefore it's their responsibility?

G. Coons: May some services to coastal communities be reduced in the future? Again, I hate speculating, but at this point in time there is a lot of fear and apprehension in coastal communities where it is their lifeline. It is their marine highway. May some services to coastal communities be reduced, or may some routes even be discontinued?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Again, I can provide assurance to the folks that apparently harbour this fear that the government is actually the one that will set the service levels and pay appropriately to the service provider to ensure those service levels are undertaken and maintained.

In terms of discontinuance, as the member knows, under the act, if the ferry corporation wished to discontinue a route, they would have to go to the B.C. Ferry commissioner. The B.C. Ferry commissioner, as you know, is very independent. The B.C. Ferry commissioner will make a determination.

G. Coons: As the minister noted, it is the commissioner that looks at or authorizes the discontinuance of a route. The commissioner can only discontinue a ferry route when a suitable economic case for the designated ferry route happens. So again, we are looking at that fear out there of routes…. I would like to get the assurance of the minister that in the quite near future and in the far future, routes to coastal communities will not be discontinued because economic cases are not suitable for the continuance of those routes.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member: with the greatest of respect, that's just so highly speculative. We're talking about a coastal ferries contract that doesn't expire for another three years, and to engage in that kind of speculation I don't think is particularly helpful at all.

I think the member knows well — and perhaps he can advise the members of his community — that there is an independent ferry commissioner there to look after the interests of those folks. There's also, on the independent board of directors, coastal community representatives that actually serve on that independent board of directors. That should give great comfort to folks in those communities.

G. Coons: Your comments, minister, may not wash well with too many people who are looking at the public consultation meetings and getting notices about their routes being sent out for alternate service providers, who may discontinue their route if there is an economic case for it.

As far as the commissioner and the political arm's length away from government, that's something I'd like to comment on a bit later.

But as far as NAFTA…. Could the minister please explain or comment on where NAFTA comes into play with the privatization of our integrated ferry system?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the best of my knowledge, NAFTA doesn't come into play. I've never heard it ever suggested that it comes into play.

G. Coons: The Coastal Ferry Act requires B.C. Ferries to find…. They're legislated to find alternate ser-

vice providers or private operators to provide services. For example, let's just say from Washington State, Clipper Navigation based in Seattle, comes up just to operate the Mill Bay ferry. I'm being speculative, and I don't want to cause fear here, but let's just say that does happen. An out-of-country service provider comes in. Has the government investigated any ramifications of NAFTA in respect to, say, an American operator coming into B.C. Ferries?

Hon. K. Falcon: With the greatest of respect, I think what the member is now doing is engaging in debates that actually took place when the legislation, the Coastal Ferry Act, was introduced. I think the member has to ask himself the question of how this actually relates to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation in 2005. If I could gently suggest it to the member opposite, I do think we're not here to discuss the original legislation that brought in the Coastal Ferry Act. We're actually here to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation in 2005.

G. Coons: Thank you, minister. I may be mistaken, but I sort of see my role — albeit a role that I'm just undertaking right now, as far as estimates — to look at situations, to look at assumptions, to look at where the government is planning to go and basically, as you said, minister, to meet the public interest. I hope to go on with that, but I do hope that the NAFTA concern that I was talking about is something that, as we get into alternate service providers, the government will be held accountable to.

We'll go into federal subsidies. We'll get into some money. We'll get into some estimates, then, minister. How much of a federal subsidy does the government get this year?

G. Coons: I'm under the assumption that every year it increases by the cost of living. Okay, I'll continue with that. As far as the province accepting the subsidy, what responsibility does the province have in accepting the federal subsidy?

Hon. K. Falcon: The obligation that flows through that, of course, is to maintain coastal ferry service, and that is exactly what we do.

G. Coons: Yes, that is correct. The responsibility of the province would assure reasonable and adequate service with appropriate supervision thereof. I think that's a key one that I have concerns about. I'm just wondering: in your estimation or in your thoughts, what is appropriate supervision for this federal money?

Hon. K. Falcon: Appropriate supervision is ensuring that B.C. Ferries remains in compliance with the Coastal Ferry Act and that they maintain the service provisions that they are required to maintain. We discussed this at some length yesterday. There are penalties in place if they do not meet the schedules and the requirements that they are entitled to meet under the Coastal Ferry Act. That's exactly what we do. That's why we have four staff dedicated to doing nothing but overseeing and ensuring that British Columbians are receiving the benefits and the service that are to be provided for the dollars that we flow through to Ferry Services.

G. Coons: Once again, minister, as far as the federal subsidy coming in, it gets renewed every year at the cost of living. I'm just wondering, if B.C. Ferries does go to alternate service providers and perhaps gets out-of-country ferry services coming to British Columbia, whether or not you think there might be some sort of concern that this may be an issue in receiving the federal subsidy.

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is no, as long as we fulfil our obligations under the terms of the agreement.

G. Coons: As far as the horrendous rise in fuel costs and the fuel surcharges happening with B.C. Ferries, in your next negotiations with the federal government, is there any intent of trying to get the subsidy increased due to high fuel costs?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is no. The federal funding portion follows a formula that has been in place for some time. We just continue working through with the existing formula.

G. Coons: What about fuel taxes? How much does the ministry get in fuel taxes?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just for clarification, is the member referring to the 3½ cent tax that flows through the BCTFA?

Hon. K. Falcon: Of course, as the member well knows, we never know for sure until we're through the year. For example, the situation we're in, where you get rising fuel prices — our tax, of course, is based on volume, not on price — can impact the volume of fuel that's actually sold. The amount that we're looking at for '05-06 is $222.547 million.

Hon. K. Falcon: The gas tax revenue that we receive goes to the BCTFA. Any dollars that actually go

to the ferries are a voted appropriation, which the member has in his estimates there.

Hon. K. Falcon: The voted appropriation that goes to B.C. Ferries results from all of the revenues that are derived by government — income tax, every other revenue, including, presumably, fuel tax. Then we vote an appropriation for B.C. Ferries, and that's the appropriation that's laid out in the estimates.

G. Coons: You don't have an amount going to B.C. Ferries that you can relate to right now?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just the amount that's in the voted appropriation that's in the estimates in front of the member, and you should be able to read that number. If not, I can read it out for the member.

G. Coons: One major concern that coastal communities and constituents are having is the higher fares that are happening. I'm wondering…. Commissioner Crilly initially stated in the response to an application for a fuel surcharge increase that B.C. Ferries asked for a certain amount and he cut it in half. The reason was that: "It is reasonable that there be a sharing of forecast risks regarding fuel prices between ferry customers and B.C. Ferries. The burden of increased fuel costs should be shared by ferry customers and B.C. Ferries in a way that is seen as equitable." That was his decision.

I'm beginning to see that the concern, as we get from many constituents out there, is that fares are going to start to rise immensely. Since this government…. You know, you're the key decision-maker on routes. You're a key partner in the marine transportation triangle, let's just say, with the public, with B.C. Ferry Services and the commissioner. Will this government commit to their fair share of contributing to the fuel surcharge increases for all the routes in the system?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, the government won't. Under section 47 of the Coastal Ferry Act, it's very clearly laid out that the ferry corporation has the ability to come forward and make a request. The member quite correctly points out that they did, in fact. As I recall, they requested 8 percent on the major routes, and I believe it was 13 percent on the minor routes.

The independent B.C. Ferry commissioner looked at that and made a determination that 4 percent on the major routes and 6 percent on the minor routes was the appropriate amount. I think that is just perfect evidence of why we have the role of an independent B.C. Ferry commissioner. He looks at that information, and he makes a judgment that is in the public interest — not in the provincial government's interest, not in the ferry corporation's interest, but in the public interest. That's exactly what he did.

I get that nobody likes paying more for anything. I'm not happy when I have to go to the pump and pay more for my car. I imagine most folks out there aren't. We are seeing these fuel surtax increases in the airline industry, the marine industry and every other industry that is impacted by the cost of fuel.

G. Coons: As far as B.C. Ferries…. Again, I'm speculating. As far as the act is concerned, if B.C. Ferries ends up not to be operating or meeting the provisions under ministry guidelines as far as meeting the needs of coastal communities, are there any provisions in the Coastal Ferry Act for the government to recover a marine highway?

G. Coons: Back in June when B.C. Ferries asked for their fuel surcharge, and it was limited to half…. I'm going back a statement or two, minister. David Hahn of B.C. Ferries was talking about needing the fuel surcharges to maintain the cost of the travelling routes, etc. He said that B.C. Ferries will likely still come up short of cash and may need to ask the provincial government for more money.

I'm sort of having a problem relating how that is with service fees, which you are in negotiations with, as far as the release on the fuel surcharge, where David Hahn is looking at the concern of asking the government for more money. Could you explain that for me? I'm a bit confused.

Hon. K. Falcon: There is a provision that allows Mr. Hahn to ask government. Mr. Hahn is certainly capable of doing that, but this government as I've said…. I was very clearly on the record that this government would not be stepping in, in this case, and that the independent B.C. Ferry commissioner is the appropriate person for them to deal with. That's exactly what happened. As I say, the request of B.C. Ferries was for 8 percent on the major routes, 13 percent on the minor routes. They ended up with 4 percent on the major routes and 6 percent on the minor routes.

I see some hopeful signs that there's been some softening in terms of fuel costs. As I recall, that's one of the things that the ferry commissioner pointed out. You know, what goes up has a way of coming down, and as things come down he wants to ensure that there is balance in the decision that he rendered, and I expect that that was the case.

G. Coons: Thank you, minister. I'm just wondering if B.C. Ferry Services Incorporated can be scrutinized by the Privacy Commissioner or the Freedom of Information Act.

G. Coons: Again, I'm making an assumption that you can correct. I'm assuming that the B.C. Ferry Cor-

poration, our old ferry system, was. Could the minister explain why section 74 was included in the Coastal Ferry Act, where it is now not scrutinized by the Privacy Commissioner or the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's an independent company, and like other independent companies, it is not subject to the provisions of the act that the member stated.

G. Coons: Other concerns that came out, and I'm sure the minister is expecting this, so I'll try to go through this…. I guess it's the same with the Auditor General. B.C. Ferry Services cannot be scrutinized by the Auditor General, because of section 7.8, or the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. I'm just wondering: how can the Legislature, how can we as MLAs, how can we as a government, scrutinize the hundreds of millions of dollars that we've contributed to B.C. Ferry Services Incorporated over the last three years?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, now, this is getting into some interesting territory. I have to take a moment to discuss this because I do think it is germane and very important. I might point out to the member that these questions were canvassed earlier by the opposition when the Coastal Ferry Act was introduced, so we are in danger of recapturing old territory. I would encourage the member to go back and look at the previous debate of his party in opposition over this issue.

The sum total of what the member is saying is that he is apparently under the belief that there was better scrutiny while this was a Crown corporation. I find that rather fascinating. It was while this so-called tremendous scrutiny of Crown corporation ownership was underway that we had the single largest fiasco in the history of the Ferry Corporation — which was fast ferries. That actually happened right under the nose of the Legislature — apparently without the knowledge of anyone and apparently without the knowledge of all the apparent oversight provisions that this member is so happy to restore.

I would say to this member that actually what we have now is absolutely consistent with three independent reports that came forward as a result of the fast ferries fiasco, and I encourage the member to read them. One was from the Auditor General, one was from Hugh Gordon, and the other was from Fred Wright. There was an underlying theme in all three of those independent reports. That underlying theme was this: you must separate B.C. Ferries from political interference, because until such time as you separate B.C. Ferries from political interference there will constantly be decisions that are made not in the interest of the 22 million people a year that actually use the ferry service but in the political interests of the party in power.

That's why, as an example, when the ferry corporation makes a decision to have vessels constructed offshore, that's tough politics. Believe me, that's not easy politics for us as government, but I am not allowed to interfere with that decision because that decision may not be in the best interests of me as a politician or my party as a governing party or even the unions that would prefer to have the jobs here, but it is in the interests of the 22 million people a year that utilize those ferries.

So when the member wants to talk about accountability, I tell you, there is far more accountability today with B.C. Ferries than there ever was under Crown ownership. They are required to prepare audited financial statements. They're required to have an annual public meeting, open to all members of the public and interested folks. They have an independent board of directors, which includes coastal community representation. There is an independent ferries commissioner that reviews all the decisions and acts in the interest of the public. They are independently audited. They must file with the Ontario Securities Commission annually.

That combination of that level of oversight, I can say to this member with the greatest enthusiasm, will provide far better oversight and far better protection to taxpayers than was ever provided when it was mismanaged and interfered with by governments of both parties, previous parties — frankly, not our party because we weren't there — that were in power in the province.

G. Coons: If I can use a comment from my colleague, I guess there is a hornet's nest being hit again. I'm sure that's a hornet's nest that we'll come across in the future many times.

I sort of want to go back to keeping that arm's length of being political. We talked about this yesterday. If we look at the commissioner, the commissioner was appointed by the government. If we look at the directors, the directors were — and correct me if I'm wrong — appointed by the previous B.C. Ferries commission that were government appointees. If we go down the line, the commissioner…. Again, if we look at the decision-making and we talk about the decision-making, as far as money, B.C. Ferries indicates the government is the decision-maker.

Plus there is a whole list of other things out there that the government influences. It has the ability to influence the appointment and removal of directors, amend the B.C. Ferries mandate, approve business plans, establish borrowing and investing limits and restrict B.C. Ferries revenue-generating capacity. So when we start looking at who actually owns or controls B.C. Ferries, many stakeholders think that it's still in the control of the government. That's a problem, especially when it's not able to be scrutinized by anybody in the Legislature, whether it's the freedom of information and privacy act…. I just wanted to clarify that with the minister.

As far as the province and B.C. Ferry Services and the commissioner, who is actually looking after the public interest out there, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The public interest is protected, in fact — and this, again, was canvassed extensively dur-

ing the debates over the Coastal Ferry Act — by the provisions in the act that set out minimum performance requirements; by penalties that are in place to ensure that those performance requirements are carried out; by provisions on the board of directors that state there shall be a representative of the union involved in the board level, that there will be coastal community representatives involved in the board level, that there will be professionals appointed at the board level, that there's an independent ferries commissioner, that there's an annual general meeting, that there are audited financial statements and that it's overviewed by the Ontario Securities Commission. All of those things actually point to the best possible protection of the public interest that you can possibly imagine.

Again, I'm just happy to have the philosophical debate, because ultimately that's what this comes down to, member. The philosophical debate is that that member's party believes there was better protection for the public when it was under Crown ownership. As I've said before, I'm quite fascinated by that discussion, because evidence actually says exactly the opposite.

History is replete with examples of political interference under Ferry Corporation ownership. It's one of the reasons why today the ferry company is saddled with the oldest fleet in the world. It's one of the reasons why the ferry corporation today has vessels with an average age of 40 years. It's one of the reasons why they're undertaking a replacement program of 22 new vessels over the next 15 years. Granted, it doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long time to fix and turn around, frankly, decades of political interference and mismanagement in this corporation.

I am very, very satisfied, as I think the public is, with the new model of the B.C. Ferry Services. That is borne out in the independent customer assessments they undertake. There's a fascinating thought. I don't recall that ever happening under Crown ownership, but it happens now. They get a third party to undertake customer satisfaction. You know what I really appreciate about that? What I appreciate about that is that they actually respond to the things the customers care about. This is quite a novel thought at least in terms of when government used to run things.

I can tell you personally that one of the things I always couldn't stand in the ferries was the bathrooms. I always thought the bathrooms were appalling. It's just a personal thing of mine. I found it of interest that a lot of the public feedback was exactly the same thing. What does the ferry corporation do? They're changing the bathrooms. They do refits, and they're improving the bathrooms. Why? Because they're responding to what the public is actually telling them in customer satisfaction surveys. Now, there's a revolutionary thought. They're responding to what the 22 million people a year who are utilizing that system actually want to see. As a result, the customer satisfaction rate has increased — 88 percent this year from 84 percent last year.

I think that's a pretty positive thing. Coupled with all the extensive provisions that have been put in place under the Coastal Ferry Act, I am more than satisfied that the oversight is sufficient and the public interest is very much protected.

G. Coons: I'm sure, minister, that hopefully after we have these conversations until the next contract is done with B.C. Ferry Services, all of the concerns will be alleviated. I don't think having nice washrooms is going to alleviate the fears of higher prices, less service and discontinued routes. I don't want to be the sounder of fear and apprehension about what's happening, but that's what I'm hearing from British Columbians — and concern about the public interest.

If I just refer back to the ministry's backgrounder of December 9, 2002, with B.C. Ferries restructuring: "To further protect consumers and the public interest, an independent regulator will enforce the provisions of the Ferry Services contract." If we look at a 1987 Supreme Court ruling on what the judgment is for public interest, it says it "should be grounded in community values and, in particular, long-term community values."

I think that's the heart and soul of this whole debate that we're getting into, minister. Out in the communities they're looking for long-term commitments, and I hope that's what we're getting to in this conversation. As we get into alternate service providers and the act talking about the discontinuance of routes and user-pay and the cost of ships with user-pay, there's a real fear and concern. As I said, I hope that will be alleviated.

As far as the public interest, yesterday we looked at the commissioner's website. As I said, I sat there long hours at night looking at the commissioner's website. On the website he has public interest. I don't know if I can use props, but as far as public interest, the Coastal Ferry Act sets out six principles which the commission is to follow in the course of its activities. These serve to define what is meant by the public interest in the provision of the coastal ferry services.

The first one is: "(a) priority is to be placed on the financial sustainability of the ferry operators…." Okay. There's a check on this side, let's just say.

The second one: "(b) ferry operators are to be encouraged to adopt a commercial approach to ferry service delivery…." Okay. Most people that I talk to…. That's not in the public interest. And: "(c) ferry operators are to be encouraged to seek additional or alternate service providers…." There's the fear of the discontinuance of routes and higher fares and user-pay.

The fourth one: "(d) ferry operators are to be encouraged to minimize expenses without adversely affecting their safe compliance with core ferry services…." As far as I can see, I don't think you can use "minimize expenses" and "safety" in the same sentence. I think that's an oxymoron and something that a lot of ferry users and ferry workers are really concerned with.

The fifth one: "(e) cross subsidization from major routes…to be eliminated…." Again, we get the elimination of the cross subsidy. The smaller coastal communities that depend on that, or used to depend on that cross subsidization, are fearful that their routes will be discontinued and their fares will skyrocket.

The last one: "(f) the designated ferry routes are to move towards a greater reliance on a user pay system so as to reduce, over time, the service fee contributions by the government." That's serving the public interest as far as the commissioner is concerned. I don't personally see that as meeting the needs of people in their communities and a long-term vision.

As far as the government and its role in protecting the public interest. Again, I have to relate back to the backgrounder of December 9, 2002, put out by Minister Reid and B.C. Ferries. This is from the government: "To protect the public interest, the new authority and B.C. Ferries will be accountable in these ways: a binding agreement reviewed every five years…; a service fee paid by the government…; an independent regulator…; the province will appoint two members to the B.C. Ferry Authority and B.C. Ferry Services..; and they'll hold annual general meetings."

I think the concern is the public interest is not being met by what we're seeing, and the concern is that the accountability is not happening for our marine highway. I just want to ask a question about this and as far as the Coastal Ferry Act…. Do you know how many times the word "public" occurs in the legislation?

The Chair: We need to keep on the estimates rather than on the act, so I'm just drawing the member back to the estimates.

G. Coons: Thank you, Chair. I'll be drawing back to the estimates. The directors of the B.C. Ferry Services…. How much are the directors paid?

Hon. K. Falcon: I actually don't know. If there are any payments made, it would be payments made by B.C. Ferry Services. You may want to ask the corporation.

G. Coons: I am just wondering: as far as when the B.C. Ferry Services Inc. was first initiated, did the government engage the services of any law firm to act on behalf of the province in connection with the $5 million in secured debt and preferred share financing?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, member, with respect…. I think the member is going back and talking about the Coastal Ferry Act and what went into the preparation of the Coastal Ferry Act. That was two years ago. That was something that was already debated in the House. As I've said on many occasions, I'm here to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation in 2005. I think it would be helpful for both of us, in terms of actually moving this along, if we could focus questions on the estimates of 2005 as opposed to what legal firm may have been involved in putting together the Coastal Ferry Act back in 2003.

G. Coons: Again, looking at the time, minister…. There are quite a few questions, and perhaps we can afford some time to meet and discuss the issues and where we are moving on this. At this point in time I would like to have some concluding remarks, as I can see there is a pileup of people who want to ask transportation questions.

I would like to thank the staff and the minister for their input and for being here. I hope to work long and hard with everybody on the other side in making our marine highway the best marine highway that we can.

The concern is the profit-for-service concept that we're going towards and the fear of just going towards a flotilla of profit-and-loss centres. I hope we can alleviate the fears in the next three years, minister, so that British Columbians and coastal communities can expect the service that they have always had and need with new ships routing the course, especially on the northern services, for the 2010 influx of visitors.

G. Robertson: I have a number of questions for the minister related to the RAV line, which runs through my riding of Vancouver-Fairview, starting with some explanation of the stated and conditional costs for both the RAV construction contract and the concession agreement, which were both reportedly signed on July 27 of this year. Specifically, for which portion or categories of those total costs is the province liable?

Hon. K. Falcon: The province has an agreement to commit certain funding. That funding is predicated on the consortium and the delivery agent, which is TransLink, hitting certain milestones, etc., as they move along in the project.

G. Robertson: The government has claimed since 2003, I believe, that its contribution to RAV construction would be no more than $235 million. That is the figure that remains to this date on all RAVCO documents. However, a footnote appeared on RAVCO information bulletin number nine, the 2nd of August — and it also recently came up on the RAV website — which identifies additional expenses for a combined total of $435 million for the provincial contribution. Can the minister please clarify if the government's financial commitment to the project changed and, if so, when and how that change took place?

Hon. K. Falcon: We commit $235 million during the construction phase. The balance is in the form of performance payments which total up to the $435 million total provincial government commitment.

G. Robertson: We're talking about the stated liabilities to this point of the project and the implications for the provincial budget and, therefore, for the taxpayers of B.C. It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of cer-

tainty around the future of this project and what the liabilities to the taxpayers will be.

I do want to talk a little bit about conditional liabilities, as there are a number of known and clearly delineated conditional liabilities with the project that have been accepted by the province. Those include tunnel-boring risk, contaminated soil remediation risk, schedule risk due to construction disruptions from either of the above, construction and material cost overruns, ridership shortfalls during operation. So when RAVCO and In Transit B.C. claim that this is a fixed-price, date-certain contract with the penalties to SNC Lavalin, the contractor, for delays, the statement is hugely misleading, as the province has acknowledged. In fact, according to the public statements by RAVCO, most all schedule, material and geotechnical risks are a stated liability of the province, which could easily amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. What is the government's contingency plan and budget for these conditional liabilities?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not exactly sure where the member is coming from, so let me try and clarify. The province has an agreement with the GVTA through to RAVCO that we will fund up to $435 million. That amount is capped. Whether RAVCO, in the execution of the agreement that they have with the proponent SNC Lavalin, has taken on any conditional liabilities is something that they negotiate amongst themselves. The list that the member listed off sounded…. There certainly weren't provincial liabilities. Those would be the liabilities that presumably were negotiated between the proponent and the GVTA through RAVCO.

G. Robertson: In other words, the minister is stating that the government is not accepting any conditional liabilities related to the construction, to contaminated soils, to risk related to disruptions, to ridership shortfalls. The minister is stating there is no risk being accepted by the province.

G. Robertson: I want to turn now to the concession agreement, which is how SNC and, behind them, the B.C. and Quebec public pension funds will be repaid their commitments of private capital to this project. RAVCO has stated that the private sector commitment is $653 million. SNC has recently raised $720 million in debt and equity offerings specifically for the RAV project. This is according to three European bank disclosures and to international press. Can the minister clarify which figure is correct in terms of private contribution?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I could speculate on that, but I don't actually have that information. I would remind the member that we're here to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation 2005. If the member wishes to pursue that most fascinating line of questions, I would encourage him to actually talk to the GVTA or talk to RAVCO and InTransit. They would be happy, I'm sure, to provide him with the information that he seeks.

G. Robertson: I can only assume from the minister's response that the province is not accepting any responsibility with regards to the servicing and repayment of any of the private capital that's involved in this project.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's correct. We are a funding partner in the RAV project.

G. Robertson: One more question, moving on to…. In a concession agreement…. In order to fully understand the cost to taxpayers for this project when we started at $235 million and we're now at $435 million stretched over time, we need the people of B.C. to see the construction contract and the concession agreement which specify those details. Can the minister tell us when these will be made public?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, if the member wishes to look at things like the concession agreement, he would need to speak to RAVCO and InTransit BC to get access to that information.

G. Robertson: Again, as a funding partner alone, I'm a little confused here as to the province's contingent liabilities on this project. My understanding has been that they do extend to cover a number of the liabilities that I have mentioned. In terms of the contracts that the province is party to…. The release of these contracts, I believe, is at this point before the Auditor General. The Auditor General is reviewing those contracts. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, I can't confirm that because I don't know. What I do know is that the Auditor General is free to review whatever the Auditor General feels he wishes to review that's under his purview.

G. Robertson: I'd like to ask the minister, on behalf of the people of B.C., the taxpayers of B.C. — who, I think it's fair to say, are not clear as to what liabilities they bear with the RAV project…. Total costs at this point range from, increasing most recently, close to $2 billion to approaching $5 billion in some estimations.

Preventing the release of the contracts — the construction contract and the concession agreement — so that the taxpayers and the public of B.C. can understand what potential costs and liabilities exist here, is a violation, I believe, of multiple laws, including the GVTA constitution, the Local Government Act, the Community Charter act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

I would like to hear from the minister some commitment that the provincial government is willing to push for a release of these agreements so that the pub-

Hon. K. Falcon: I hope I'm not hearing the member make allegations about laws being violated. I think that's what I heard. If the member is making those allegations, I would hope that the member has the evidence to back that up. We are all honourable members in this House. We don't stand up and make speculations based on baseless information. I would caution the member to be careful about the allegation that he's making. I'm sure he's not trying to be irresponsible about it, but it sounds desperately close to that.

All I can tell the member, again, is that this is a project of RAVCO B.C. and InTransit BC If the member wishes to ask questions about the agreements that they have signed, the member can do so.

I want to reiterate that this government is a funding partner. We've been very clear about what our contribution is. I just explained that to the member. It's $435 million over the term of the agreement. That is a capped contribution. There are no conditional liabilities. Where this member wishes to go, I couldn't even begin to imagine, but I would just ask that the member be responsible in the kinds of allegations he levels.

G. Robertson: I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for attempting to be helpful on these questions. We'll certainly pursue, on behalf of the people of this province, more answers where we can get them. I'm going to pass this on to my colleague here from Victoria-Hillside.

R. Fleming: The minister may want to change staff members. I don't know. I want to ask some questions about B.C. Transit. So just take a minute.

Hon. K. Falcon: For the benefit of the member opposite, I just want to introduce some new staff that are here for the B.C. Transit portion of the discussion. I'd like to introduce three staff members, Steve New, who's our senior vice-president of municipal systems; Ron Drolet, senior vice-president of customer service; and Tony Sharp, chief financial officer and VP of finance.

I would like to ask a few questions in relation to the service plan, the B.C. Transit update dated September of this year, around service both in Greater Victoria and in the municipal systems part of the corporation. To begin with, the question I would like to ask is around the increase to service levels that's anticipated in the plan. I wonder if the minister could describe the highlights in terms of service levels that are going to be provided over the course of the plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I want to say to the member opposite that, actually, our challenge right now is to maintain core service levels. We've seen a dramatic escalation in fuel costs, and that has had a dramatic impact on B.C. Transit. As the member knows from our budget '05-06, we're increasing funding by $2.3 million. In the out years of '06-07 and '07-08 that increases $2.8 million.

We do have flex-funding arrangements with communities that allow those communities the opportunity to undertake expansion within their communities as long as they're prepared to pick up the additional costs. That has been something that has been quite successful in terms of allowing for future customer expansion, while allowing us to maintain the challenge of meeting our existing core services.

I guess, in a nutshell, I'm saying to the member, while the demand is always out there for more and more service expansion, given the challenges that we face, particularly with fuel costs, we're doing our best to maintain the existing services.

R. Fleming: The gas prices also provide a new market for transit customers, as well, and I think that should be borne in mind in terms of having a more ambitious approach to ridership for the corporation than, perhaps, what is in the plan.

I wanted to ask a question about fuel prices. The statement the minister just made about the impact of fuel costs. Of course, it will be felt in this fiscal year, but for the most part, we were shielded from it over the last several years because we had a fixed-price agreement for the purchase of fuel that only ended three weeks ago, I guess, on September 30. Can the minister tell me if a new agreement has been signed, what the final price increase was and what the terms of that agreement are — how many years it was fixed for?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is partially correct. There was an agreement we had in place, a contract arrangement on fuel from, I think it was, May of '03 expiring on March 31 of '05. That was at a contracted price of 52 cents a litre. We then had a contract from April to September at 78 cents a litre. The most current contract that we now have underway is from October to December, and we're now looking at 90 cents a litre.

We are monitoring the situation. Obviously, we're starting to see some softening on fuel, but refining margins are increasing, and we do not, unfortunately, see any particular softening on the diesel side of the equation. I appreciate the question from the member, because in a nutshell, it shows the real challenge that we face in trying to maintain our core service levels with such a dramatic run-up in fuel costs.

R. Fleming: Maybe I'll come back to some fuel questions later, as it relates to total budget, but I wanted to move on to a section on maintenance costs that is in the service plan. They are projected to increase quite dramatically in the 2007-2008 year, the third year of this budget. I guess my question is: why do they rise so dramatically in the third year?

The suggestion in the document is that it's to deal with deferred maintenance. With regard to the deferred maintenance, how long has that been going on? Why has it occurred, why is it continuing to occur, and are there any safety risks attached to that deferred maintenance?

Hon. K. Falcon: The reason why there's a bump-up in '07-08 is that, typically, when these buses are acquired, they tend to be acquired in bunches. So as they go through regularly scheduled maintenance, they have a larger maintenance bulge called midlife maintenance, and that would explain the bulge that you see in '07-08. There are also, I am to understand, some real pressures in terms of the cost of parts. As these vehicles are becoming more complex, the parts involved are also equally becoming more complex, and that is also having some upward pressure in terms of the maintenance costs.

R. Fleming: Does that, then, mean that they have to staff up…? Is it just parts, or do you have to staff up in that third year to meet the maintenance demands rather than even it out over several years? If they're, indeed, in the midlife of a vehicle, I imagine the midlife would be more than one year.

Hon. K. Falcon: Much of that work is contracted to companies who have the capacity to deal with this. Certainly, it would not be uncommon for them to be aware of when the midlife maintenance work is going to be required on much of the fleet, so they have the ability to make allowances for that fact.

R. Fleming: Is the midlife of the vehicle directly seen as a one-year point that is hit during the…? I'm just wondering why it would be concentrated in one year rather than spread out over these three years?

Hon. K. Falcon: What happens is you've got a bus fleet that's purchased in various lumps over the year. The maintenance that's required is done in kilometre intervals, so that at a certain point a certain number of kilometres are achieved, and then they will go in for maintenance having to do with the transmissions or engine overhauls or brakes or whatever the case may be. It's really a process that is staggered, you know, throughout the years.

I'd like to talk about the B.C. Transit plan as it relates to the Greater Victoria transit system and ask the minister a question about service hours. The projection for all three years of this plan is 582,000 annual service hours of conventional transit service. I note that that's still lower than it was five years ago, when I think it peaked at 630,000 hours. I'm just wondering why the annual service hours, having been reduced and cut so much, are not being gradually rebuilt over the three years of this plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct in terms of his numbers — the 582,000 service hours. The key difference is that we're targeting resources so that we actually move more people — not just a question of having more hours, but actually moving more people within the system. We've seen, for example, that ridership is up 9 percent since the peak in 2001, which demonstrates that actually targeting those resources to move more people is more effective than just simply having additional hours.

The other thing, as the member no doubt knows, is that B.C. Transit is using different vehicles. The double-decker buses, which have the ability to carry a hundred people as opposed to the traditional 60 — there are now three of those employed within the CRD and also in Kelowna, if my recollection serves me correctly. So that is an example of where we're able to move and target resources into the higher traffic areas and actually end up moving more people and more riders.

R. Fleming: I guess I have some questions just on service hours and their relation to capacity. The buses in the Greater Victoria system are indeed carrying more people. The ministry has a number of performance indicators and targets that they are now measuring that they previously didn't, presumably. I'm wondering if his ministry, if this corporation is tracking customer ridership conditions, particularly in relation to the phenomenon known as pass-ups — people waiting at bus stops as sometimes multiple vehicles go by.

To comment on the minister's earlier comments, if I may: there's obviously a limit to where you can get efficiency in terms of ridership and how many service hours you get on the bus. I think our system is highly efficient as it is right now. I think we're at the point right now where we're having overload, and particularly at peak hours, we're leaving people stranded. I wonder if the minister can comment on whether this is being measured, and if there are any performance targets to reduce pass-ups during the three years of this plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct that in the Victoria region there are a number of routes where during peak times the buses are full. In fact, it's funny, you know, as the member was mentioning that, I was remembering back when I used to take the bus to school all the time and some of the frustration I felt when a full bus would go by. You never quite forget that, actually. Nevertheless, in Victoria those are generally on high frequency routes. Typically on those high frequency routes, although a bus may go by, as the member well knows, within a matter of minutes usually there's an additional bus that can come by and, hopefully, be able to pick up those people.

But I don't want to take away from one of the underlying premises that I suspect the member may be

about to go to, and I think would be correct in going to, and that is that the run-up in fuel costs also increases the demand for public transit. That, again, reiterates the importance of B.C. Transit making sure that they are targeting as effectively as they can the resources to those routes where you have the higher demand being evidenced. I don't want to pretend it doesn't put a strain on our resources. It does. But as we commented on earlier, with the fuel costs going from 52 cents to 90 cents, there's no question that it creates a financial challenge that we are working hard on, not just through the increase in the budget but by just trying to maintain the services we're providing and do a better job of trying to provide those services.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's sharing of his memories of being passed up by a bus. One of the wonderful things about being in political office at this level is now you get a chance to do something about that for others.

R. Fleming: Only in Vancouver. Yeah, well, we're going to get on to that too.

My question was simply: is this phenomenon being measured — the phenomenon of pass-ups? Do you have any performance targets to reduce them? Obviously, it's associated with worsening service, a deterioration of service. And why isn't it in the plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: Every time there is a pass-up, that is reported and tracked. That goes into decisions of B.C. Transit in terms of resource allocation and also future planning.

R. Fleming: Would the minister and the corporation consider, as a performance measurement and a goal, that this phenomenon — because it really is associated with the quality of service for passengers — be included in its reporting and that there be goals set to reduce this phenomenon? I fear that we're actually not addressing it and that we're going in the wrong direction currently.

Hon. K. Falcon: If you look at transportation systems or transit systems around North America, you'll find that pass-ups are not a traditional performance measure. They are useful, from an operational perspective, in terms of transit authorities being able to utilize resources effectively. The board of B.C. Transit has, of course, implemented and recommended certain performance standards. We could certainly send that information up to the board so that they could have a look at it.

I want to ask some other specific questions around the Greater Victoria system. One of the branches of the B.C. Transit Corp. that is under the minister's office is the Greater Victoria Regional Transit Commission. They have a plan for action that they released in August of this year. In that plan it calls for a 35-percent service increase in total transit service over five years in this region. I think it contrasts with the service plan that the Crown corporation has produced, which looks like it…. In contrast to a 35-percent service increase, it looks more like a 2-percent service increase. I wonder if the minister could explain how two branches that are under his office have such differing targets.

Hon. K. Falcon: The commission, of course, has a vision of how it would like to see transportation. I've actually looked at the vision. I met with the chair, Don Amos, recently to talk about their vision. They're currently shopping that vision around. The member probably recognizes that it has some significant revenue-generating provisions within that, some of which are fairly significant public policy measures.

I did meet with the chair, interested in the vision, and we'll continue to have some discussions around the vision that they have. Of course, I've also got broader responsibilities. Certainly, we as the government have broader responsibilities that we also have to contemplate in relation to the vision that the commission is recommending.

R. Fleming: I note the strategic context section of the ministry service plan. The first value that's expressed is: "We respect regional and community goals and priorities." That 35-percent service increase is now a regional goal and priority. There's another one there too, which is to grow ridership annually by one million trips a year or three million trips over three years. This again contrasts to the Crown corporation service plan, which only projects an increase of 500,000 trips over three years or 130,000-odd per year versus a million.

The question was: can you comment on the contrast between, again, the Victoria regional transit plan when it comes to ridership figures and how that might reconcile with the strategic context of your ministry, which is to try and accommodate and respect regional and community goals and priorities?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yeah, there's a contrast for sure. Obviously, our goal is to maintain and fund core services that we're currently providing. In fact, one of the things that I am proud of is that even in spite of the fact that during our early years in particular we faced some very, very challenging financial circumstances, there were no cuts made at all to the funding that went to B.C. Transit. In fact, there were some increases to assist with some midlife maintenance costs, some capital costs, etc. So we've done our best to realize that very important public transit obligation.

Obviously, the commission has a very aggressive vision of transportation which involves expansion

throughout the region, and I think it's a worthy vision for them to advance. It also involves some pretty aggressive revenue requirements, as you know, at both the fare box at the property tax level and a request for the province to increase fuel taxes to help fund that rather ambitious vision.

Our goal right now, as I've said, is…. Given the fact that we've seen the fuel costs go from 52 cents, which we used to pay up until March 31, 2005, to 90 cents, we are fighting very hard just to maintain the core service levels. To undertake that kind of ambitious expansion in the midst of just trying to maintain current service levels would be, indeed, a very big challenge.

I've listened very thoughtfully and respectfully to the presentation that was brought to me by the chair, and I'm giving it some thought and consideration, but I don't want to understate the challenge that is represented in terms of the impact for taxpayers generally.

R. Fleming: There certainly is a tremendously huge investment in other types of transportation infrastructure, but the public transit mode seems to be getting very little other than treading water, which the minister has sort of now admitted is the strategic goal of the service plan — just to stay the same and not meet demand or potential new demands.

I want to ask a couple of questions about other systems. First is a question about service delivery. There's a reference in the plan for the ministry that RFPs will be pursued in the transit system. Given that Greater Victoria is the only direct operation, there are four municipally owned systems, and the balance of the 51 systems are private, I'm wondering where those new RFPs for outsourcing services will be focused.

Hon. K. Falcon: There is a regular schedule of RFPs. Typically, every five years they'd go out to provide the service, obviously under the supervision of the local municipalities, etc. But they typically provide the services in many of the communities that the member refers to.

A short question is with the reference to flex funding on page 8. I'm just wondering what flex funding is.

Hon. K. Falcon: The flex-funding provision provides opportunities for communities who wish to expand services beyond the services being provided to be able to do so at their own cost. It has got some provisions to allow them to look at property tax issues. It has got partnership arrangements that they can make with local health authorities, first nations, etc. But at the core of it, flex funding is a provision that allows them, by resolution, to expand the services on their own without having the concomitant funding participation of the province.

R. Fleming: Okay. So it enables more of the cost, I guess, to be downloaded to the municipalities to run.

A question I have from the service plan, again, is the reference to Whistler. The B.C. Transit plan states: "The acquisition plan does not fully address the fleet requirements for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and Paralympic Games for the Whistler area." So if the plan readily admits that there's not a sufficient acquisition plan to meet that, what remedies are the minister and the ministry seeking?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're actually in the very early stages of discussing an agreement-in-principle with Whistler and VANOC with respect to that, so those negotiations are really just beginning.

R. Fleming: I have a question about UBC Okanagan in Kelowna. There's been some interest in having a universal bus-pass program there. Has the province actually turned down requests to fund a service improvement that might interest students in a U-Pass program in Kelowna?

Hon. K. Falcon: There were representations made to the province that they would like the province to actually fund that upfront. I reminded them that they were required to hold a vote — just as they were in the lower mainland when the U-Pass system was introduced — where students can vote and determine whether this is something they wish to have. I reminded them of that, and presumably that's the manner in which they'll proceed.

M. Karagianis: I came here to discuss transit expansion in the Western Communities on behalf of my constituents, and I share issues here with the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

Understanding now that fuel costs and other pressures mean no expansion of transit, I would like to ask about light rapid transit issues in our constituency. I'm sure the minister is aware of the growing pressure that we have in some parts of our communities here, especially Malahat–Juan de Fuca and Esquimalt-Metchosin, with a growing population. There is some interest out there in light rapid transit. I'd like to ask the minister: are there any plans currently for moving towards light rapid transit strategies and plans for the Western Communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's my understanding that the CRD does have a regional growth strategy that goes out 20 years. I think, as part of their regional growth strategy, there is some contemplation at the end of that 20-year period that the population density may justify some form of light rail.

Certainly, that would appear at the surface level to make some sense, but I must say I haven't seen a business case, nor has one been presented to me at this point.

M. Karagianis: I do know that the planner in Langford, Michael Baxter, has actually been quite aggressive

on this file. Langford actually already has a plan for light rapid transit from Station Road in my riding through into downtown.

Has the minister had any contact whatsoever with this community or heard from this community about this planning?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have not been in contact with the individual or the community with respect to that, nor have my staff. My understanding is that B.C. Transit has done some community-level, very early discussion in terms of potential corridor, etc., but it's at a very, very preliminary stage.

In trying to actually look at ways to support some of these initiatives in our communities, is there a possibility in the future of some infrastructure funding, strategic planning funding or any other access to funding to help develop these plans further for my communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: The CRD and B.C. Transit have the ability, through the new deal for cities dollars that are available, to negotiate for some dollars to investigate transit priorities. That is something that is available.

M. Karagianis: I'm looking to take something away for both the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and me to take into our communities. This is a huge concern in this area. We do know of discussions around the E&N corridor. Is government working or making any commitments to the Island Corridor Foundation at this point on future planning there as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would actually be under the Ministry of Economic Development. They are the lead on that particular file, so that's not something I could probably elucidate very well for the member.

D. Chudnovsky: Just to do a little planning for this evening. I need to apologize to the minister and his staff because I'm afraid that we're going to need both groups of staff people tonight. I'm sorry. You know how this works. We wish that we could do it another way, but I think that we are going to need — "need" is probably the wrong word…. We request that the minister have both groups. There will be some people talking about road issues, transit issues, ferry issues, so I'm afraid…. We wish we could do it another way, but we're going to have to do it that way. Once again, apologies to your staff, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Would it be possible to group them so that we could just allocate some of the staff resources a little more effectively?

D. Chudnovsky: Chair, perhaps the best thing to do would be if we could get it organized outside of here. It's a bit inefficient this way. We will do everything we can to do it for you.

J. Horgan: I just want to pick up with the minister and his officials from Transit on some questions that were being posed by my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin. Our concern is that the service plan, as we see it, doesn't contemplate any significant expansion of service into the Western Communities. By that I mean Colwood, Langford, Highlands. I would also like, in subsequent questions, to talk about Sooke, also in my constituency.

Could the minister clarify for my colleague and I what the government plans to do, through B.C. Transit, to address increased ridership and increased population in the Western Communities of Victoria?

Hon. K. Falcon: In the Western Communities one of the things that B.C. Transit has been doing — as I alluded to or, in fact, discussed with the previous member opposite as we were discussing B.C. Transit — is trying to resource some of the assets more efficiently to deal with some of the challenges in increased ridership. For example, more double-decker buses were added to deal with some of those challenges. Community buses were added, which provide more hours for the same dollars, in some of those more remote communities where you don't have as high a volume of traffic. But because of the cost-efficiencies associated, you're able to provide the service and the equivalent hours at a reduced cost. Those are some of the efforts that are being made to address the issues in the Western Communities.

J. Horgan: While we're on the community bus service, could the minister and his staff…? We discussed fuel costs and cost increases from March to September and then in the new bulk-buy for October to September. Are there significant fuel savings from the community buses?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, there are substantial savings associated on the fuel side compared to the larger buses. It's about 2 to 1 in terms of the fuel savings. They have a lighter frame, obviously, and they've got smaller diesel engines, which are fairly efficient.

J. Horgan: Certainly in my discussions with community activists, transit activists and also with munici-

pal officials in Sooke and in Langford, in particular, there is enthusiasm for the community buses. If they are linked to the double-decker buses that the minister alluded to, then you can see efficiencies. Those in the community see that there's some activity, some action, on the transit front. It appears to be a change from the traditional patterns. People are more excited about getting on buses or using them for short jaunts, certainly within the Western Communities. But they need to be able to link up to those larger buses.

You mentioned in your comments that there were three double-decker buses. Is that the full complement for the CRD, and if not, what is that number?

J. Horgan: Well, I was concerned. I see a lot of double-decker buses, and I know my eyes are failing but not that rapidly.

So of those 35 buses in the CRD, how many are dedicated to the Western Communities routes — numbers 50, 61 and, I think, 53.

Hon. K. Falcon: Approximately half of the buses are utilized on the core trunk routes. For example, Saanich to downtown would be an example of that. About a quarter are dedicated to the Camosun College and UVic routes and about a quarter to the Western Communities and Sooke.

J. Horgan: Prior to our recess the minister made reference to consultations taking place with communities west of Victoria. I'm wondering if he could elaborate on the discussions that are taking place in the district of Sooke.

Hon. K. Falcon: The consultations with respect to Sooke are in two primary areas. The first is on the park-and-ride side. The existing lot is essentially full, so Transit is working with groups and stakeholders to try and identify additional surplus lands that could be made available for additional park-and-ride lots. If we can identify those, then that is something that could be added to a future capital plan for B.C. Transit.

The second is the community bus service, which the member has correctly pointed out has been quite popular in the Western Communities. We are engaged in some public consultation for next year's plan to extend service to areas such as East Sooke and Otter Point.

J. Horgan: As my kids would say: excellent. That's very good news. I know that people in East Sooke and Otter Point and Shirley will be very happy to hear that. It will certainly shorten my discussion with the minister when we get to road improvements on Highway 14 if I can go back confidently to my community and say that there is some hope on the bus front so we can move people around. As services have been reduced in outlying areas of greater Victoria, the need to get into town for those who don't have access to single-occupancy vehicles has increased, so I'm very pleased to hear that.

On the park-and-ride, when you say that it's full, how is that measured? This is at the Mills Landing area, I assume. It seems to me that there are surplus lands in the area. Does Transit have a plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding on the park-and-ride lot there is that the parking lot is generally full, and you've got a situation where cars are parking along the road right-of-way, which I guess can create its own challenges. But there's also a number of people, particularly from the west side of Sooke, that would like to see other options available rather than just have everyone have to coalesce in this one particular park-and-ride — that there are perhaps other locations that could improve things. Those are the kinds of discussions and consultations that B.C. Transit currently is involved in.

J. Horgan: Madam Chair, I want to compliment the member for Langley on an expert job prior to your arrival.

I thank the minister for those comments. I appreciate that course knowledge is pretty important in all this stuff. I know this is new territory for him, and I appreciate that he's following this with me.

With respect to the new deal gas tax and moneys flowing from the federal government to British Columbia, does B.C. Transit have a plan to expand service to the Western Communities with those funds? Are there operational dollars? Are they capital dollars? How do you plan to split that up?

Hon. K. Falcon: UBCM still hasn't come forward with a mechanism by which some of those dollars can flow, but what I can tell the member is that the dollars that would be available are for capital, not for operational, unfortunately. That will help in some sense in terms of the capital side on assets, but it does not include operational dollars.

J. Horgan: So then we could contemplate in the short term that resources will be available for the park-and-ride solution in Sooke — that would be a capital expense, purchasing land — and also the possibility of expanding the double-decker fleet for the Western Communities? That will then lead into a question about the CVRD, so your staff can be thinking while you're answering and linking those two services.

Hon. K. Falcon: In terms of the park-and-ride, that has been included in the three-year capital plan of B.C. Transit, so that is something we anticipate.

In terms of the double-decker bus usage, we're really reaching almost the maximum capacity on the very busy routes. So in the short term, we will be looking more at the community bus options and some of the 40-foot buses, I think they're considered, to deal with more of the feeder routes, etc. But in terms of the main routes, you know, you reach a point where the capacity in terms of the double-deckers is achieved, and we're very close to that now.

J. Horgan: The Minister of Labour has chastised me for putting too many questions forward at once. I can't help myself. I just start spitting them out. I apologize to the minister for that.

Could I have a sense, then…. If it's within the three-year capital plan, could we anticipate a time line on that purchase? And if you do increase the size of the park-and-ride, one assumes that you're going to have to increase the number of seats for those commuters to sit in?

Hon. K. Falcon: The timing is subject to being able to do a deal on the land, which we are cautiously optimistic could be as soon as '06-07 fiscal. In terms of the capacity, as the member knows, we have already added to the capacity by including up to five double-decker buses, particularly in the peak runs — in the morning, for example. We think that that has contributed quite dramatically to the capacity issue.

J. Horgan: I would like to move to an issue that I think is probably in the formative stages. Certainly, I know that in my community there is a great deal of discussion about it, and it will lead us into the issues that I'd like to discuss with respect to the Malahat and improving the commute from south Cowichan to Victoria. The Cowichan Valley regional district and members in the community have been talking about connecting the CVRD system with the CRD system. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me how those discussions are going?

Hon. K. Falcon: B.C. Transit just received a resolution two weeks ago from the Cowichan Valley regional district regarding the idea of a transit link between the CRD and the CVRD, so B.C. Transit will sit down and initiate discussions with them regarding the idea that they've brought forward and set out some terms of reference in terms of a study to look at traffic patterns and what the demands are, etc.

Hon. K. Falcon: No. The short answer is there isn't likely a time line available, given that there are municipal elections in November. It will likely be post–municipal elections, once they have new councils in place and there's an opportunity to deal with the decision-makers at that time.

J. Horgan: B.C. Transit is responsible for both systems, so I'm hopeful we're not waiting for regional elections to start looking at how the linking of the two systems could help us move more people up and down the Malahat in fewer single-occupancy vehicles. Is the minister's staff reviewing these options now? How far advanced are their discussions, or did they just pick this up two weeks ago?

Hon. K. Falcon: B.C. Transit just received the resolution two weeks ago, so this is very, very early in the stages of discussion and exploration.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that we can't respond proactively until we get requests from the community. I understand that, but I know as a citizen, prior to my election, there was a considerable amount of discussion about trying to find low-cost solutions to the transportation challenges of the Malahat Drive. One of those suggestions was that B.C. Transit take some steps to link the two systems so that there could be an efficient movement of people up and down the Malahat. I know that staff have probably given it some thought. Is this the first time that the minister has had anything to do with it — today?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Cowichan Valley regional district long-range transit plan envisioned the regional linkage that the member speaks of as an intermediate priority in that five-year planning window. The resolution that B.C. Transit received two weeks ago appears to suggest they want to move that from intermediate priority to a more immediate priority. So while they've always, apparently, given it some thought, it was not an immediate priority for them. Apparently, that has now changed.

J. Horgan: Just before I finish off on this component, would the minister, with his deputy at his hand…. Is transit a component of the solutions that are being contemplated by Stantec in the Malahat study?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. That would be one of the many options they'll be looking at.

J. Horgan: I look forward to canvassing those options when I'm concluding with my transit remarks, but I want to go back to comments that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin made before she concluded her remarks. It had to do with the Island Corridor Foundation, and I appreciate that the minister's response at that time was that the lead ministry for that was Economic Development.

I'd like to speak about the notion of protecting corridors for transportation and transit use. I'm certain that B.C. Transit sees an opportunity and has been con-

templating the E&N line or other potential routes for rapid transit. Could the minister comment on what thinking has gone into that within his ministry and within B.C. Transit?

Hon. K. Falcon: B.C. Transit would not be looking at the E&N corridor. That is a much broader corridor. They are talking about specific corridors in relation to the CRD, the area they're responsible for, and working with different communities to identify potential corridor protection. In terms of the Ministry of Transportation's view, we always look favourably, frankly, on the preservation of corridors, so that's something that, just in principle, we would support. Obviously, there would be a lot of other factors associated. I frankly don't have all that information in terms of cost and liabilities and taxation issues and those kinds of things that my colleague is taking the lead on.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. I know taxation appears to be a stumbling block at this point with respect to the whole process, and I know the E&N corridor includes my colleague from Alberni-Qualicum's constituency, as well as, I think, a portion in the member for Saanich South's.

I was wondering if, in terms of the corridor that's within the CRD — that being the portion from the Malahat through Esquimalt, through View Royal and into downtown Victoria…. Is that being contemplated as a potential transit route?

Hon. K. Falcon: The E&N is not the priority corridor in terms of planning by the CRD, nor by the communities along that line, nor by B.C. Transit. There is an alternative corridor that all of the communities, the CRD and B.C. Transit have been working on for some ten years.

J. Horgan: For my benefit, could the minister advise me what the corridor is?

Hon. K. Falcon: The alternative corridor they've been spending upwards of a decade studying is from downtown through to Douglas and onwards to the Town and Country Shopping Centre. Then there would be a long-term future planned linkup to the University of Victoria. Then it would follow along the highway and then down to Colwood and Langford.

J. Horgan: That's the existing corridor, then. I guess the reason that I posed the question is that discussions in my community, and also in the community of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, focus on getting people onto an alternate corridor so that there is some efficacy in taking public transit. As it is now, if you hop on a bus at the western exchange, you are in the Colwood crawl with all of the single-occupancy vehicles.

The member for Saanich South and I have had long discussions about how you find the additional space between Portage Inlet — and again, I apologize for the course knowledge to the minister here — and Helmcken. Where are you going to put a corridor? It seems difficult to me.

Hon. K. Falcon: At the risk of dragging us both down into a level of detail that would probably not be particularly helpful, I am advised that in the planning work they have done thus far with all of the folks involved in the planning, there is actually sufficient room on that corridor that I just mentioned — the alternative planning corridor — for a future concept involving light rail. This would not interfere with the movement of traffic — highway traffic, commuter traffic — along that route. That is something that is considered.

If the member would wish to sort of explore in a more fulsome way some of the detailed planning or at least high-level planning that's gone on in that regard, I'm sure B.C. Transit would be happy to sit down with the member.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's desire to stay out of the minutiae, and I share that desire. I just have a couple more questions on transit, and then we can move on to other issues.

While we're on this existing corridor and the decade-long debate: during that time, has the ministry or B.C. Transit secured a dedicated right-of-way along the Trans-Canada Highway?

Hon. K. Falcon: From the high-level study and the high-level look that have been done along that corridor, there does appear to be, as I say, sufficient room available for a future light rail option. Again, we have not yet gotten down to the level of detail of drawing the line on where exactly that would go. That would be subject to much more detailed work that would have to be done. But conceptually, based on the studies that have been done at a high level, there is room there in that corridor.

J. Horgan: I'll just throw this one out, then. If we're at high level and we're looking at creative ways to move people around, has B.C. Transit contemplated a seabus from Colwood to Esquimalt?

Hon. K. Falcon: There was a small study, apparently, that was done in the early '90s. I guess the primary result of that study was that there is a big difference between the seabus, which operates in an inner-harbour, protected area, so to speak, and a coastal requirement that would be involved with the suggestion the member opposite is making.

I guess the lessons coming out of that study were that as a result of the distance involved, the kind of coastal waters that would be involved and the kind of vessel that would be required as a result of that, it would be extremely expensive, and at that time it was determined not to be an efficient alternative at all.

J. Horgan: I will just, if I might, as I conclude my questions to transit…. I mean, the reason that I, the

member from Hillside, the member for Saanich South and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin are so concerned about these issues is the rapid growth in the south Island and the desire to protect the livability of the region by finding alternative transportation modes.

I bring up the seabus notion because we are an island, and we're not afraid of ferries. Most of us who were born and raised here quite like the ferries. I know the SeaBus of Burrard Inlet may not be the appropriate mode, but perhaps there are other vessels that could be constructed here in British Columbia to ply the waters between Colwood and Esquimalt. I leave that to the staff from Transit to contemplate until next year.

I'll just conclude with a couple of questions that the member from Hillside left for me. It's on page 20 of the B.C. Transit service plan. It's a line item under "Funding, Unidentified": $1.392 million this year, $2.55 million in '06-07 and $3.008 in '07-08. I'm wondering if the minister could identify that "Unidentified"?

Hon. K. Falcon: Out of the total expenditures identified, these represent some unfunded pressures. We've had this in the past too, where there have been some unfunded pressures in the B.C. Transit plan, and as a result of that….

I mentioned earlier in estimates that a good example was some capital maintenance requirements that were involved in some of the midlife upgrades, so the province provided extra dollars to take care of that. This is largely the fuel pressure discussion we had earlier, which is identified in these numbers. Government is aware of that, and cabinet is in the course of dealing with that.

With that, I would like to begin discussions on other transportation issues. I'd like to ask a series of questions on the pending study of the Malahat. Before I do that, I was wondering if the minister could give me a breakdown on the total transportation infrastructure spending per capita, in the service plan, in the lower mainland and in the capital regional district — the difference per capita between the two.

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't have that information available. We'd have to create that.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his quick response. I raised the question because constituents of mine were concerned, during the course of the election campaign and through the summer, about the capital spending in the lower mainland versus the capital spending on the Island. I know very well the minister's pressures in that regard from his colleagues and from other members of the House. I just thought if I could quantify the difference, I would be able to rebut some of the concerns in my community about a disparity between the two. That's why I asked the question, and I thank him for that.

First of all, again, I'd like to say I have met on a number of occasions with Ministry of Transportation staff in my Langford community office. They've been very helpful and very cooperative in providing me with information. I'm hopeful that I can just ask a few more higher-level questions of the minister right now, with respect to the study on the Malahat, that I didn't believe were appropriate for junior staff. The first one is: during the RFP process, how many respondents were there?

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't have that information with us, but we can certainly get it to the member at a later time.

J. Horgan: With respect to Stantec, the winning bidder, I was provided by the minister's staff with the RFP, but I was never provided with the terms of reference for the study. I'm wondering if that document could be made available.

Hon. K. Falcon: On the RFP that we thought we'd provided to the member, it does contain the terms of reference within it. If the member didn't receive it or didn't think he received it or what have you, we can certainly send another copy.

J. Horgan: What I received was the RFP, and within that were the terms of reference. So the terms of reference haven't changed from the issuing of the RFP and the tendering of the contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is possible there may have been very minor modifications, which are often the case when you negotiate the final terms of a proposal, but the report that would have been provided to you would have been pretty much substantive in terms of the outline.

J. Horgan: In my discussions with staff on the terms of reference as I read them in the RFP, I questioned the absence of discussions with CVRD representatives. The terms of reference explicitly refer to the city of Langford and planners there, but not the CVRD.

I know that the point person on the file actually lives in the CVRD, so I'm comforted by that. There is some course knowledge there but…. Have the terms been broadened to include discussions and consultations with people living in areas such as Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake and Cobble Hill?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it is important to point out that the consultative process in terms of stakeholders is not at all limited. In fact, it states right within the RFP

that the consultant will be expected to independently contact approved agencies and stakeholders. That would include any stakeholders that the contractor would feel is relevant.

J. Horgan: Perhaps I could assist the contractor in determining what would be relevant, inasmuch as the people that are using the road live in the Cowichan Valley regional district, by and large. The challenging times of the day on that section of highway are when my constituents, who live north of the Malahat, are travelling south.

So I was wondering if we could perhaps now get a commitment that there would be explicit consultations or public meetings in Cobble Hill, Mill Bay and Shawnigan Lake.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said, the contractor will talk to the stakeholders that the contractor deems are appropriate. If that includes the individuals or communities you mentioned, then I'm sure that will be the case. I'm not going to make any commitments on behalf of the contractor. The contract has been let, and the terms of reference are available for the member for review. I expect that the contractor will consult with whichever stakeholders are appropriate to come to a proper resolution.

J. Horgan: I appreciate, as I look at the terms of reference, that they are far-reaching and comprehensive with respect to options and alternatives. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me if there has been correspondence of significant numbers with respect to one option, which is to traverse the Greater Victoria reservoir watershed.

Hon. K. Falcon: We're not aware of any letters, although I can tell the member, having been in my position for as long as I have, that I'm used to receiving all types of letters from people with all types of opinions regarding all types of options that they may believe government is contemplating or that government is actually contemplating. So I wouldn't rule it out in the future, but to date we're not aware of any.

J. Horgan: I assumed my in-box was paralleling the minister's on this file. As he knows, I've been very vocal about the issue, and I've tried, in the process of being vocal on the issue, not to foreclose on any options. I'll continue to do that, and I know that will be of some benefit to the minister in the short term. We'll see how it is in the long term.

One of the options, as he knows, is commuter rail. I'm wondering if the ministry, prior to the letting of the contract, had done any analysis on the possibility of commuter rail from points north of the Malahat to Victoria.

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently there were some done about six to seven years ago. I'm not sure how extensive it is and, frankly, not even too sure of the time frame, but that would clearly have to be brought up to date. Whatever work was done back then would have to be brought up to date.

Hon. K. Falcon: We would have to track it down, and I'm sure we'll be able to. If we are able to track that down, I will then certainly pass that along to the member.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I know the archival process in my basement would take me some time, and I imagine the Minister of Transportation's basement is somewhat bigger than my own.

But while we're on the subject of commuter rail, it brings up the Island Corridor Foundation yet again. The minister has been very clear that I can seek that information elsewhere, and I'll do so.

But it's a challenge, again, as a member of the Legislature for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. I meet with people in communities around my riding, and it is a growing movement — it's almost a trend, I would say — that the public seems to be of the opinion that the Ministry of Transportation should be thinking more seriously about commuter rail and more seriously about the Island corridor. I am doing my level best to convince people that the study is underway and that in the fullness of time, we'll have some answers to that question.

Could I ask the minister: since the House has begun sitting, has the timetable been expedited at all, or are we still looking at about an 18-month wait for that study?

Hon. K. Falcon: The study is still on target to be completed by the fall of 2006.

J. Horgan: Has the ministry been keeping statistics on hours of closures per month on the Malahat?

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently, somewhere there are those kinds of statistics kept. We don't have that with us. If the member wishes, we could try and find those and pull them together. It may take some time to pull that information together. But if that is what the member wants, we can try to get that together and send it across.

J. Horgan: I'm getting the hook, but I had a few more questions. I see some relief over on the other side. I had a number of questions along the lines of hours of closures and incidence of ambulance-attending accidents. These would be statistics, I'm assuming, that are held by ICBC.

Would that be correct? Or could I get that sort of information from the Ministry of Transportation as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: We do, on an aggregate basis, keep track of all of those kinds of closures across the prov-

ince. That's why I was suggesting that we probably can break that out and try and track it down individually, but it's a fairly time-consuming process. We certainly don't have that information with us, but the information is collected on an aggregate.

J. Horgan: I would certainly appreciate access to that information, minister, in the interest of assisting in communicating with my constituents about the importance of the study and the importance of completing that corridor.

I just have one or two further questions. It has to do with a committee that I'm led to believe is a deputy ministers' committee looking at emergency preparedness and, in particular, emergency plans for south Vancouver Island. In discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, I was advised that there's a food component to that in the event of a catastrophe on the south Island. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me if the Ministry of Transportation is participating in that deputies' committee.

Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding is that it's an ADM committee, an assistant deputy minister–level committee, and yes, we are participating at the ADM level.

J. Horgan: Does the ministry have a solution to a potential closure of the Malahat during a catastrophe? How would we evacuate Greater Victoria in the event that the Malahat was closed and a disaster hit?

Hon. K. Falcon: We were just sort of commenting in our back-and-forth here that we're trying to imagine in what scenario you would have to evacuate the entire city of Victoria. Nevertheless, we do have emergency routes and emergency plans that we are constantly working on and updating in the event of any kind of evacuation that would be required.

J. Horgan: Given more time, I would want to probe what those routes were. But at this point I'll just thank the minister and his staff for their time and pass the floor to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Thank you, minister and staff, for being here. I hope you're getting paid for this.

My first question has to do with B.C. Ferries. In the constituency that I represent, it is quite a significant interest to the residents. Can the minister inform me and the constituents when the northern strategy report will be released?

Hon. K. Falcon: I realize it's getting late. We all zone out once in a while.

It's difficult for me to put a precise time line, because it'll be coupled with two events. One is when cabinet has the opportunity to complete our discussions on the northern strategy issue and also when we have completed negotiations with B.C. Ferries over that same issue.

N. Simons: My understanding is that the report was submitted in August 2004. I'm wondering if the negotiations have hit a snag or if there are some issues that need to be resolved and if the report's contents had any impact whatsoever on the ministry's service plan for the current year.

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is no. The reason it takes some time is that there are very substantial issues involved. Naturally, we want to make sure we give some very thoughtful consideration not only to the report but also to the report that involved the public consultation with communities. Of course, that would guide us in our negotiations with B.C. Ferries, which are currently underway. No, there's not a question of any delay or impacts, as the member suggested.

N. Simons: Is it part of the report that B.C. Ferry Services has requested an increased tax subsidy or increased service fee, and has this been included in the projections for the ministry's service plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: I won't be commenting on issues that are currently under negotiation for, I think, fairly evident reasons. While I respect that the member asked that question with all sincerity, I hope the member will understand that I won't be discussing issues around the negotiation at this point.

N. Simons: I'm a little bit confused in that my understanding was that there is no political interference in the running of B.C. Ferries. I stand corrected. Is the ministry involved in ensuring that the Coastal Ferry Act is adhered to, and is there ministerial discretion involved in its enforcement?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am the minister responsible for the act, and naturally our ministry, through the four employees dedicated to do this, ensures that all the terms and conditions of the Coastal Ferry Act are adhered to, that the service provider meets all of those obligations and that if they're not met, the penalties in place are utilized.

N. Simons: My question is: is there any discretion involved in enforcement of the act?

Hon. K. Falcon: All of the performance requirements and service requirements are set out under the act, and that information is available on the website.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm sorry — in the contract. I said the act. It's getting late, and I apologize, member.

Our staff, of course, are there to ensure that they fulfil the terms of that contract. When the member talks about discretion, I'm not sure what the member means.

We must follow the terms and conditions of that contract, as must the service provider. Any discretion the member may refer to would only be discretion that is allowed under the contract. I'm not aware of any, unless the member can point me in the direction of where it exists.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for asking. Discretion. What I mean is simply that — discretion in terms of whether the contract can be amended or changed or altered. Obviously, the residents of Powell River and the upper Sunshine Coast, in particular, have been very concerned about the seeking-out of alternate service providers. They've been getting mixed messages from B.C. Ferry Services about whether or not alternate service providers will be sought, and they're rightfully concerned about this.

Does the service plan of the ministry include any provisions for a change to the Coastal Ferry Act or to the contract to prevent this process of seeking an alternate service provider from happening?

Hon. K. Falcon: I suspect that any concern that's out there is being fed by people who are trying to engage in disinformation or misinformation. The act is very clear under section 69, which requires B.C. Ferries to seek alternative service delivery to ensure that if there are alternative providers capable of providing the same level of service at a lower cost or providing a better level of service, it is incumbent upon B.C. Ferries to ensure that takes place.

But again, I think it's important to note that under section 69, the independent B.C. Ferry commissioner oversees that process to ensure that the process is fair, to ensure the interests of coastal communities are protected. You know, frankly, I've never been clear as to what the concerns are, except by those very small groups of individuals who constantly try to spread misinformation. Evidently there is another small group of people that believe and listen to some of that misinformation.

N. Simons: I'll ignore the tone of that response. I believe it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast are in any way a "small group of people" concerned about their highway system. So I would ask the minister if he might reconsider the words he used. I'm wondering: does the regional transportation advisory committee have any input into this year's ministry service plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is referring to the regional transportation advisory committee. There's nothing that precludes the committee from commenting on any aspect of transportation that they wish to. Typically, the RTAC tends to comment on issues around the transportation investment plan with respect to our roads, highways and bridges.

N. Simons: So in other words, it's sort of irrelevant if there is representation of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I think it's quite clear that if there was any involvement or any participation of community, and not just pseudo-consultation, that perhaps the word "ferries" would have appeared in the service plan for this year.

I would suggest strongly that in the future, before making trite comments about the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast and their concern about their highway system — as it impacts tourism, as it impacts business…. These are large groups in every walk of life who are concerned about the ferry system now, and I don't see anything at all that is meeting the concerns of this community.

My last question to the minister: is there any plan? Does the government have any plan to consider how cross-subsidization may be reintroduced so that the most ferry-dependent communities — the ones that you have just spoken of in a somewhat dismissive tone, such as the Sunshine Coast and Powell River — are not forced to bear the entire brunt of the massive increases that they're facing?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member has a very pessimistic view of what's actually taking place, and that's unfortunate. You know, the coastal communities have representation on the independent board of directors. That's pretty extensive; that's pretty substantial. It's something that I think is very important. They have opportunities at the annual general meeting to share their comments with the ferry corporation. They have opportunities throughout the year to share the information with the Ferry Services corporation.

I think the member should cheer up. I think there's lots of good news. In terms of the alternative service delivery, again I say to the member that this is a requirement to ensure that the best possible service is being provided to those members for the most efficient cost available. The member talks about cross-subsidization. Unfortunately, he wasn't here to hear me answer this question earlier on, but as I said, there is no cross-subsidization that takes place under the Coastal Ferry Act. What we do is negotiate the specific routes, and whatever cost is the result of the negotiations of delivering service by the provider for that route is the agreement that comes into place.

N. Simons: To the minister: I would like to disabuse him of the notion that I'm in any way pessimistic. I prefer to refer to it as realistic. I would like to encourage people to participate in the public process. I will have a difficult time doing so if they're referred to in a belittling tone, and I would prefer to see that the minister has some respect for the communities that he supposedly represents. With that, I end my questions.

D. Chudnovsky: Good evening — nice to see you and your staff again, minister. Glad to be back. Speaking of pessimistic, I don't think I'm going to get through even a tenth of the things I would love to talk with you about, but let's see what we can do.

I'd like to talk for a minute about the section in the service plan that states: "The government's climate change objectives are fully integrated within the ministry's transportation strategies…." In support of this statement, the plan notes that 85 percent of the ministry's fleet is "green." So what is a green vehicle, and how do we determine that it's green?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. This is something I'm particularly proud of; 85 percent of the fleet is either of a hybrid vehicle nature or alternative fuel. The 15 percent that is not are typically the heavy trucks that are very challenging in terms of being able to convert to alternative fuel, given the terrain and, frankly, the very heavy requirements that are imposed upon them. We have found that transferring that to alternative fuel options is really not a good option. So where we were able to in the fleet, we have done so. That represents 85 percent of the fleet, and it's something I'm very proud of.

D. Chudnovsky: Could the minister give us a sense of the size of the fleet, the kinds of vehicles we're talking about, the percentage that is hybrid and the percentage that is alternate fuel, and what kind of alternate fuels we're talking about?

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, the member knows by that question that that involves a fair degree of information. It's information we could gather from our fleet manager, but it would take some time. But if the member wishes, I'm happy to get all of that information over to the member in due time.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that. We appreciate that, and I certainly would ask that that information be made available. We'd very much like to look at it and do some analysis.

I wonder if I could move now to the gateway project. The federal minister was in the province last week and made an announcement about, as I understand it, $600 million of federal funding that will be directed to the gateway program.

First, I wonder if the minister could give us a sense of what time period that $600 million is allocated to. That is to say: are we getting it in a month? Are we getting it in a year? Is it ten years? What's the time line on the $600 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: The announcement that was made last week, the federal government Pacific gateway announcement, involved $590 million for what is widely known as the Pacific gateway. This is very, very significant for British Columbia. The term in which the dollars are anticipated to flow…. The down payment, I might add, is determined to flow over a five-year period. We can get into the details of that, if the member would like to, in terms of where the dollars are being allocated at least initially.

The one thing I just will add for the benefit of the member as to why I think this is so very significant is that British Columbia — I have touched on this before, and I'm pretty passionate about this, as is our Premier — is blessed by geography in that we are the closest land mass to North America from Asia. Because of that opportunity and because of the explosive growth we are seeing in China and India, this affords us a tremendous opportunity — as a country, frankly, but certainly as the province of British Columbia — just in the container traffic alone that will be coming to North America.

Now, that container traffic has many options, as the member no doubt knows. There are ports on the U.S. west coast, there's a port in Mexico, and of course we have our B.C. ports. The opportunity for us is that if we make the necessary investment in infrastructure…. That means road infrastructure, because we have got to be able to move those containers by truck, by which today about 60 percent move. Rail infrastructure, by which about 40 percent move, is also very, very important.

What the Pacific gateway does is put together a pot of money and say: "Let's identify some of these key priorities through an advisory group that the federal government is setting up" — in which we'll have provincial participation — "and let's identify some of those priorities, and let's start flowing dollars into those priorities."

D. Chudnovsky: Forgive me, minister. As you might say, I zoned out for a second, and I'm not sure that I heard correctly. Did the minister say that the $590 million was a down payment that we'll receive in the next five years, or did he say that we will receive a down payment on the $590 million in the next five years?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. To clarify for the benefit of the member — and I apologize if I was unclear — the $590 million, which will flow over a five-year period, was referenced by the federal Minister of Transport on a couple of occasions as a down payment toward future contributions toward the Pacific gateway.

D. Chudnovsky: There are a number of different pieces — projects — involved in the gateway project. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about the structure of that. What I mean by structure is that some of the projects have started, some of them haven't started, and some of them are in the planning stage. Some of them are referred to as proposed; some of them seem like they're more than proposed.

It is confusing, I think, to the public sometimes — certainly confusing to me, but maybe it's not to others — which elements of the gateway have been decided upon, and what elements of the gateway project are to be decided upon.

Hon. K. Falcon: There are a few pieces here. On the Pitt River Bridge and improvements to the Mary Hill interchange. That is a project that…. As you know, part of the federal funding commitment includes participation in the Pitt River Bridge.

Public consultations have already been held there. I must say that in the history of public consultations, it was very, very positively received, to say the least. That project will be moving forward and will be completed by '09.

On the South Fraser perimeter road, substantive public consultations have been underway, certainly on the southern part, with over 1,600 members of the public attending public consultations and very advanced work on design drawings, etc., in terms of that project.

Environmental assessment work will have to begin. Part of the federal commitment was a contribution of a couple of million dollars towards some of that environmental assessment work.

There is still more public consultation to do on the South Fraser perimeter road portion of the gateway program. The final piece would be the twinning of the Port Mann and the widening of the No. 1 piece. On that piece, public consultation will begin early in the new year. That public consultation will be founded upon a lot of the very extensive design work and consultations that have been undertaken with staff and with communities throughout the lower mainland.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, let's talk about the South Fraser perimeter road for a few minutes. When was that project approved?

Hon. K. Falcon: That project in its entirety has not yet been approved. It's interesting the member brings this up, because I'll hear this…. As you can imagine, the clamour from councils and from chambers of commerce, etc., for getting that project underway is extensive, and it's repeated. But as I always say to them, this is a very big project. It's in the range of $800 million. This is a project that would require federal participation for us to be able to move forward on an accelerated basis.

What has been approved thus far is some planning dollars, some dollars available for strategic land acquisition and design work and some of the public consultation process.

D. Chudnovsky: I would agree entirely with the minister on the issue of clamour. We on this side certainly hear a clamour for an expedited approach to the South Fraser perimeter road. Of course, all of these pieces of the gateway and other potential projects fit together and have an impact on one another, potentially.

If I could, though, just go back to my question. The minister's response was that it hasn't been approved, but maybe he could outline for us the history of the development of this project.

The reason for my question should be apparent. If there's clamour, one of the things that we need to ask ourselves — and that we would respectfully suggest that the ministry ask itself — is: are we expediting this piece of the gateway? Are we moving at an appropriate speed with respect to moving on this part of the gateway project?

What I'd like to be able to do is get a sense of how far we have moved and when we did move. What's the anticipation? I'm not just talking about conceptually. I'm talking about dates. When did we first begin work on this project? How far have we come? What are the next steps? When are they going to happen?

Hon. K. Falcon: The South Fraser perimeter road has been a road that has been talked about and studied at one level or another since the 1980s. In fact, work really was initiated in the early '90s — some initial work that was undertaken. There was fairly extensive work done in the late '90s on alignment options for the South Fraser perimeter road.

In 2003, as part of our ten-year transportation plan — the Opening Up B.C. document — we started to put serious dollars into place to start getting some design work undertaken, some of the initial engineering work that would need to be done. Of course, the member knows the dollars we have available from our budget — $289 million for the gateway program for '05-06. We've got dollars available for strategic land acquisition, in addition to public consultation and environmental assessment work, etc.

D. Chudnovsky: How much money has been spent by the ministry on the South Fraser perimeter road? And how much is it expected that…? Well, I'm going to be asking too many questions.

How much has been spent so far on the road? Where has the money come from? And what is budgeted in this budget for expenditure on the road?

Hon. K. Falcon: To date we have spent about $50 million on planning and strategic land acquisition on the South Fraser perimeter road. We anticipate probably another $25 million this year on the South Fraser perimeter road. As I indicated earlier, that's part of our budget commitment of $280 million — sorry, member, it's late, and I feel like my tongue gets twisted as it gets later and later — $289 million over the next three years for the gateway program.

D. Chudnovsky: Where will we be in three years with respect to the completion of the project?

D. Chudnovsky: The minister has said $289 million over the next three years. My question is: at what stage in the completion of the project will we be after having spent $289 million over the next three years?

Hon. K. Falcon: First thing, I'd point out that the $289 million is for the entire gateway program.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's okay. I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.

The key as to where we'll be in three years is totally dependent on what, if any, level of federal participation we get. One thing I have advocated loud, clear and long to the federal government is that there is a very important role for the federal government to play, particularly on the South Fraser perimeter road.

The reason is that the federal Delta Port is particularly crucial to British Columbia and to Canada's achieving its status as the preferred gateway to North America for Asia. For that expansion to take place, it is absolutely necessary, given the increased volume of truck traffic that would be involved, that the South Fraser perimeter road would need to go ahead. Therefore, there is an important strategic federal interest in ensuring that they participate in that planning.

The encouraging thing about the Pacific gateway announcement was that there was granted a very modest amount of money, admittedly — $2 million — towards contributing to the environmental assessment work that has to be done. But we are operating on a cautiously optimistic assumption that the federal government will agree that this is indeed a priority for British Columbia and Canada to develop a Pacific gateway. We need to ensure that those gateways along the South Fraser perimeter road, right from the Delta Port to the Tilbury industrial park, Sunbury, Port Kells, the Fraser-Surrey docks, the CN intermodal — all of the gateways that connect with the South Fraser perimeter road — are strategically important enough.

Of course, they connect with Highway 15, which goes right down to the fourth-busiest border crossing. There is enough of a gateway benefit there that the federal government should be involved. My hope is, as I'm sure it is the member's opposite, that should the federal government, through the Pacific gateway program and its advisory committee, identify South Fraser perimeter road as a priority — as we are hopeful they will, and we will certainly make representations to that effect — that could kick-start this moving forward very aggressively from a construction side.

However, one thing I will point out to the member is that the reason we are moving forward with all those other steps is that — as the member knows, on a project of this magnitude, i.e. the gateway program, whether it's north, middle or south — there is an extensive environmental assessment process, as there should be, and there is an extensive public consultative process that's involved. Those both take time — many, many months. We are moving forward on those with the confidence and the assumption that the federal government will be there to partner with us on the balance.

D. Chudnovsky: What's the minister's best guess as to the completion date of the South Fraser perimeter road and the total cost of the project?

Hon. K. Falcon: The total cost for the South Fraser perimeter road is $800 million. The completion date is a little more difficult to nail down, because it's totally dependent on when the federal government may decide to make a commitment.

We need them to make a commitment. I'm very clear about that. I'm not going to put my neck into an $800 million noose without knowing that we've got a partner beside us in the federal government, but we would probably be looking at a completion date of 2011, assuming that the federal government comes to the table in some reasonable period of time.

D. Chudnovsky: Could the minister tell us when the $800 million estimate was made?

Hon. K. Falcon: The $800 million figure was arrived at approximately one and a half years ago. The $800 million figure includes a very generous contingency allowance that we put into place in anticipation, frankly, of the kind of inflationary pressures that we're seeing now. We made sure that we factored in a large, generous contingency allowance for such an event, and we are seeing some of that today. So that's, I think, good planning.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister has accurately anticipated my concern. I wonder if we could explore that a little bit more in detail — for instance, the Bennett Bridge. The estimate for the cost of the Bennett Bridge has escalated by something like 50 percent. Is the generous contingency that the minister has talked about in the range of 50 percent?

Hon. K. Falcon: An important distinction that will be helpful to the member opposite: two things. One is that the estimate made on the William Bennett Bridge was made in 2002. Subsequent to 2002 on the structural side of our ministry — which is really bridges, because bridges involve a heavy component of steel and concrete…. Those were the two commodities which have seen the most rapid run-up in cost — steel in the 50-percent range and concrete-forming in the 40-percent range. That's one key difference. The run-up is much less pronounced on the roadbuilding side, though it is still there — particularly fuel increases, which affect the cost of pavement. Obviously, they also affect the cost of machinery, but it's nowhere near the kind of dramatic run-up we see on what we call the structural side, which are the bridges.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister takes me in interesting directions, and I thank him for it. Let's talk about the Bennett Bridge for a second — then maybe we'll come back to the gateway — because I have to say that I am confused by the math on the Bennett Bridge. Perhaps the minister can help me with it.

It's my understanding that the cost of the Bennett Bridge has escalated about 50 percent. The minister reminds us that the cost of cement and steel have in-

creased in the range of 40 to 50 percent. But if that were the full explanation of the inflation of the cost of the bridge, then cement and steel would have to be 100 percent of the cost. Clearly, cement and steel aren't 100 percent of the cost of the bridge. You have to pay people to do the building, and certainly, their salaries haven't increased by 50 percent.

Maybe I'm missing something. I'm a humanities and social sciences guy, not a science and math guy, so it could be that I've misunderstood the math, but something doesn't work for me.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and walk the member through this. What I said is that the steel costs have gone up dramatically in the range of 50 percent — concrete forming costs in the range of 40 percent. The bulk of a project like that is the bridge, of which the bulk of the material is actually concrete forming and steel. That's most of the cost right there, so when you have cost escalations like I just mentioned, therein goes the total value of the cost of the project going up.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps I should let the minister add what he wants to add before I ask my next question.

Hon. K. Falcon: It includes steel in place which is, frankly, industry jargon that refers to including the labour costs that are involved in having the steel in place as part of the bridge costs.

D. Chudnovsky: You may very well have lost me on that, but I'm trying. The minister is saying, as I understand it, that the cost of steel in place — which I now know means steel in place, which includes the labour cost — has escalated by 50 percent. Or has the actual steel cost within that escalated by 50 percent?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's together. Steel-in-place costs have gone up 50 percent. That's both of the two joined together.

D. Chudnovsky: This is a little bit of a digression, but it is an important digression, because if we learn from our experience, which we need to do, then we'd better learn from the increased cost of the Bennett Bridge. I think we all would want to know as much as we can and understand as clearly as we can what it all means. I wonder if I could ask the minister if there is documentation about that that could take us from the initial estimate of the cost of the bridge to the current estimate of the cost of the bridge, which identifies the changes in the elements of the cost?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Value For Money report, which I would encourage the member to have a look at, has a paragraph that discusses the capital costs and makes reference to the fact that when the project was announced in 2002, the capital cost was estimated — estimated, I might point out — at approximately $100 million. It goes on to point out that since that time there has been a rapid run-up in construction material and labour inflation that resulted in the estimated capital cost increase of $44½ million, and then it explains why. So I might refer to the member to that.

Certainly, prior to going, to actually receiving bids on this — I'll double-check this with my staff; I'm going by memory — we had done an updated estimate, because we were very aware of what was going on in terms of costs and inflationary pressures on the structural side of the market. It was clear to us that there were going to be increased costs with respect to the William Bennett Bridge.

D. Chudnovsky: Is there a document somewhere or are there documents which can be melded that say, approximately: "Steel in place, $80 million; concrete, $20 million — 2003; and steel in place, $110 million; concrete, $40 million — 2005." That's what I'm looking for: a document that itemizes the costs of the project and shows us the inflation in the cost.

Hon. K. Falcon: I smile because it's much more complicated than that, member. If the member wishes, I would be more than happy to deluge the member with a whole ton of information, which I'm sure he will find most fascinating nighttime reading. If that's what the member would like, I'd be happy to get that over to the member.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that. We'd very much like to see that and hope to learn from those documents in the way that the minister no doubt has had the opportunity to learn. Back to the gateway for a little bit, although we may get back. If we have a chance, minister, I'd love to get you back to the Bennett Bridge, but who knows.

You'll recall, minister, that during the summer I wrote to you with respect to the proposed twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of the Highway 1 and asked, in response to press reports, about studies which you had indicated in the press had been done in anticipation of the possibility of this project. The minister wrote back saying, as I recall, that these studies would be made available to me and to the public in the fall. As I recall — and I stand to be corrected; nothing hangs on the date exactly — I think the minister talked about August or September and then, later on in other comments, talked about a later date. My question, after all of that, is: what about these studies? When are we going to get a look at them?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are times I wish the minister had stuck to his original description of the fall. The fall gives me much more flexibility in terms of some of my optimism to keep pushing these things along. The member's quite correct. Initially, I was hoping that by August-September we could have all of those reports

available. I should have stuck to the fall. We will have those. I won't say it looks like it. We will have all those reports available to be released publicly as part of the project definition report by the end of the year, for the member's benefit.

D. Chudnovsky: Could the minister let us know now what the studies are? I'm not looking for the results yet, but what we would like to know is: what has been studied? What are the studies to which the minister referred in the the press comments?

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize, member, because this is very, very extensive, and I will try to give the member an overview of what is planned under the project definition report, which is sort of the high-level overview of the entire project.

Underneath the project definition report you have a report that identifies the preliminary scope. You've got a report that identifies the assessment of the configuration and scope options that are available. These are configuration and scope options that you naturally take to the public to discuss and to look at. You've got the business case and the justification for the project. Underneath the business case and justification for the project you have a number of other technical studies and reports, like traffic studies, etc., that would form part of those reports.

You have also got a summary report of the environmental studies which have been undertaken to date. You've got the draft cycling plan that forms part of the project. You've got what are commonly referred to as TDM, or traffic demand management options, and the implications of those options that will be available for discussion. And you've got transit priority options, which would also form part of the overall project definition report.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit more in a little more detail about the technical studies to which he referred underneath the business case, if I heard him correctly. What, in terms of traffic and congestion patterns and options…? I wonder if the minister could give us a little bit more information about what those technical studies are about.

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially, what would happen is that we would be looking at volume and traffic flow scenarios of the major road system of the GVRD — that's the entire major road system of the GVRD — under various scope options utilizing various TDM measures on our portion. So the utilization of various TDM measures on our portion…. What impact that would have on the GVRD major road network would be a very big part of it — for example, extending HOV lanes, adding additional HOV lanes, dedicated commercial truck lanes, etc., and those kinds of things.

The model in which we utilize this information was actually a model that was jointly developed with the GVTA. It is a model that uses travel diaries and trip traffic data from a report that was recently released by the GVTA. It would have been just a matter of weeks or certainly not more than months earlier.

Minister, could you give us a sense of the depth and sophistication of the study? For instance, would one be able to look at the studies and say: "Here's our best guess as to traffic volume and congestion if we use HOV lanes, if there are no tolls on the twinned Port Mann, but there are tolls on the Golden Ears, and the south perimeter road isn't finished until 2011"? Are they at that level of sophistication — the studies?

D. Chudnovsky: Chairperson and minister, I think this is probably a good place to stop for tonight. If I might, as I have on other occasions, just give the minister and his staff a little bit of an idea of where we might be going tomorrow.

It's my expectation that in the morning we will be canvassing the gateway project in more depth, and that likely will take most of the morning. In the afternoon we are likely to get to major and minor road issues across the province. If that's at all helpful to the minister and his staff, that's our plan.

I want to, once again, thank the Chairperson — thank you and the other Chairs — and to thank the minister and his staff for their attendance and their help tonight.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.