Hansard — Monday, October 31, 2005 a.m.

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


Private Members' Statements		1371
	Balanced approach to politics in B.C.
	J. McIntyre
	R. Fleming
	Mental health
	C. Wyse
	K. Krueger
	International medical graduates
	L. Mayencourt
	D. Cubberley
	Cycling as physical activity
	D. Cubberley
	J. Yap

Motions on Notice		1379
	Conversion of public buildings to social housing (Motion 70)
	D. Routley
	J. Rustad
	C. Wyse
	J. Yap
	Link of sale of Terasen Gas to softwood lumber dispute (Motion 85)
	C. Evans
	D. Jarvis
	M. Sather

J. McIntyre: I rise today to make a statement about the importance of having a balanced approach to politics in British Columbia. Having decided to run for political office for the very first time, I spent a great deal of time contemplating my position on the political spectrum and my thoughts on specific issues and, most importantly as a candidate, what I wanted to communicate to voters about my approach and about my values.

After much deliberation, the emerging and constant theme was one of balance: the need for a moderate, reasoned approach to resolving issues; the need for using both heart and head when listening and, most importantly, when acting on behalf of constituents. The need for balance also extends to ensuring that British Columbians are served by a prudent approach to fiscal management to ensure their hard-earned tax dollars are invested into priority spending areas such as universal health care and public education, and not frittered away and not subject to excessive spending that shackles our children's future.

Arriving in politics with a background of almost 30 years in the public opinion business in this province, I witnessed opinion poll after opinion poll where British Columbians were polarized, evenly divided on a host of topics — even to the decimal point on some surveys. We're notorious for this polarization. This cleavage was found on many public policy subjects, ranging from social and moral issues to environmental concerns and to subjects like health care and education. Not unexpectedly, this pattern of polarization transferred to their personal politics, including voting intentions, whether that's municipal, provincial or federal. Apparently, there's not a lot of room for middle ground in this province where pendulum swings are common on the political front.

Despite deeply held differences of opinion, I believe that many people in this province want many of the same things for their families and for their communities. The disagreement mainly lies in how to achieve those common goals.

Despite very ideological political opponents, I soldiered on and still to this day soldier on, believing in and communicating the need for a balanced approach. I consider that the policies we're developing and the decisions we're making as lawmakers should, in reality, take into account social, environmental and economic considerations, similar to the triple bottom-line reporting measures that are increasingly being adopted by a significant number of businesses and agencies these days. Often I like to use the analogy of the three-legged stool. The legs can't be out of proportion or, of course, the stool topples.

In the case of B.C. as a whole as well as for communities within my riding, I do believe first and foremost that it is imperative to have a strong economic underpinning. From there we can go on and afford our vital social safety net and provide sustainability and environmental conservation that we hold so dearly in this province — the best place on earth to live, work and raise a family.

In West Vancouver–Garibaldi I need to walk a fine line to create that balance. While the voters placed their trust in me on election night, it was the Green Party, not the NDP, who finished second in my riding. The voters sent a strong message. While no doubt they appreciate and expect fiscal responsibility, this end must not be met at the expense of — or if there is an adverse effect on — our natural environment. I certainly support that view.

However, there are environmentalists and free market enterprisers who see each other as the enemy. This is not helpful or constructive in making progress in the public policy arena. Modern industry is making great strides in becoming more socially and environmentally responsible. In fact, in most Western countries it is advantageous for private corporations to lead the way in environmental sustainability. The negative effects of a poor environmental record can be catastrophic for companies. The poor public relations that will result will adversely damage a company's bottom line. A lesson learned in this regard, of course, was Exxon and the disaster in Alaska. I think no company going forward wants their name associated with that form of mass environmental destruction. It makes for bad public relations and poor bottom-line performance.

We're dealing with something similar right now in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi re CN and the Cheakamus River spill. Our Ministry of Environment, which led the unified command response very competently by all accounts, has assured us that CN will be fully accountable for all costs associated with the cleanup and the long-term remediation. The recovery plan being developed has to be vetted by the ministry, by the DFO and by first nations, and CN will be prosecuted under the full extent of the law if criminal charges are warranted.

I'm reassured that we do have balance and checks in place to ensure that corporations cannot act in extreme ways as a matter of course without stiff consequences and widespread public disapproval. Believe me, the citizens of Squamish have been very vocal on the Cheakamus derailment issue. I'm keeping right on top of this, holding CN to account for damages and remediation.

Overall, I believe the B.C. Liberal government is working hard to provide a balance. We are balancing responsible and needed tax cuts to keep our economy

competitive with record spending in health care and education. We're balancing a need to expand our resource-based industries and provide jobs for hard-working British Columbians with the need for environmental sustainability — and all within the taxpayer's ability to pay.

Balance requires more than empty rhetoric and ideology, so often heard from the extremes. Balance obliges a well-thought-out plan and the discipline to stick to it. Jumping on and off a bandwagon to garner votes leads to imbalance. Rather, balance requires looking at all points of view and coming up with practical positions and solutions that benefit all, not just a few. I for one pledge to continue using head and heart when responding to issues and making decisions. We need a moderate, centrist, reasoned approach in governing. Just as we need balance in our lives, we need balance in our public policy decisions.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the topic introduced by my colleague from West Vancouver–Garibaldi this morning.

She is indeed correct that striving for balance is important to the health and enjoyment of each of our lives. I would like to suggest that today in B.C. politics, a sense of balance is a political compass that is desperately needed to guide our government decision-makers.

Many commentators have talked about our unique political culture in B.C. Generally, this is not in a good way. Often we hear an explanation of B.C.'s culture — polarized politics — being a product of our rough history and our development as a province full of confrontation that came from settlement and industrialization, and that it still leaves a residue of conflict that infects public policy questions even today.

While polarization may be at play in our political culture today, I believe there's a growing sense that this is an unhealthy state of affairs that is rooted in the past and desperately needs transformation. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition misses no opportunity to promote this message, and I am pleased that even our Premier is beginning to make overtures in this regard to our first nations population.

In order for B.C. to truly flourish and reach its economic and social potential, it will need to generate a culture and spirit of goodwill and shared purpose. In today's B.C. the vast majority of people strongly believe that conflict and division are a distasteful and unproductive exercise. British Columbians rightly expect reason, compassion and balance from their political and economic leaders.

Let no one mistake that the interest in balanced government is a sign of weakness. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is a balanced approach to society and the economy that will give us the creativity and productivity British Columbia needs to succeed in the global economy. Around the world you will find that the most successful governments understand that balanced social development and economic development are inextricably linked, that a healthy and dynamic society combines social inclusion and economic growth. Socially cohesive societies where opportunity is broadly distributed, where no one is left behind, are simply better positioned to succeed in the global economy and to take full advantage of the new opportunities it provides.

We are an open, small, export-oriented economy at the edge of this continent. We are involved with the forces of globalization and technological change. Our province is highly educated, it's incredibly diverse, and it's dynamic. What B.C. needs from government is a vision that embraces the potential of every citizen, expands opportunity and empowers communities. That is critical.

It was not a balanced government that chose to waste $5 million on a mean-spirited disability review that caused anxiety and stress for thousands of people, and in the end only took 46 people off benefits.

It was not a balanced government that spent millions trying to sell the Coquihalla Highway, creating anger and frustration in interior communities.

R. Fleming: In the long term, B.C. will be left behind if we continue to inflame divisions and frustrations when right now we need, more than ever, a shared, common purpose. That's why, in today's economy, sound economic policy and good social policy must be one and the same.

An important opportunity to address the climate of old-style, polarized politics was very badly squandered in the recent teachers' dispute. We've just come through the longest school disruption in B.C. history, and if the government were to comfort itself by retreating back to rhetoric about essential-service laws ensuring that kids stay in school, then it would be avoiding reality. Instead, we must strive for real progress in our education system. More than ever, our teachers, students and parents need a balanced government that listens to all sides.

If the government doesn't like hearing this from the opposition, then perhaps they will listen very clearly to public opinion on this issue. A government that strives for balance must recognize and nourish a province where what unites us is stronger than what divides us. The province has changed, and our politics must finally change with it. B.C. needs a government that represents the broad public interest, not any one narrow interest.

Today our economy is performing well. B.C. and many other jurisdictions are benefiting from high commodity prices, low interest rates and a recovering world economy. But today in B.C. average families are paying more and getting fewer services.

J. McIntyre: I was indeed glad to hear the member from the opposition make his comment about balance.

I enjoyed a lot of the comments, because I think it does show that we agree on the need for this moderate, centrist approach and that the old-style politics of confrontation is, hopefully, behind us. Unfortunately, I don't see that. I sit here in question period at different times in this House, and I do not feel — especially as a new, rookie MLA — that there is a sense of cooperation and a sense of moving forward and helping find the common ground, find what is in the broad interest.

I'm a little bit disappointed that he's pointed to some of the government policies, like our position in the recent teachers' dispute. We were trying to put students first. We were trying to end the uncertainty of escalating job action and give families, students and teachers a way to have certainty and to make sure that students did stay in the classroom. We supported the learning round table, where we could discuss a number of the issues that are important to education with a broad group of stakeholders, not just one or two and not just teachers.

I think that we are looking for common ground as a government. Our five great goals do show vision. They do look for common ground in how we can bring out the best in our citizens as we move forward. I am very content to be a member of the governing party right now. As we move forward, I look forward to trying to find that balance and hoping that the opposition will come with us and that they won't resort to the tactics of the past in division.

C. Wyse: I would extend an invitation to all members of the House to listen to my presentation, along with my colleague opposite from Kamloops–North Thompson, on mental health care. Later this morning I would also invite all people to be here while we discuss housing needs, as well as Terasen Gas. Possibly we can come up with some examples of this new-found means of working in cooperation.

There is a need for improving the support system for the mentally ill — a system to provide for better mental health care. Mental illness affects 21 percent of the population across all groups, genders and ages throughout all regions of B.C. Fifty percent of the ten leading causes of disability are related to mental disorders. Mental health conditions are the single largest contributor to disability — more than cancer, more than diabetes, more than cardiovascular disease. Mental illness accounts for 46 percent of all long- and short-term disability claims. Between 4 percent and 6 percent of Canadians will experience at least one major depressive episode annually. About 4,000 Canadians commit suicide each year. In B.C. suicide is the second most common cause of death for people aged 15 to 24. Mental illness is a factor in most suicides.

In examining the present situation facing us, it is important to acknowledge the following facts. One in seven patients in Canadian hospitals has a mental disorder and constitutes one-third of all days spent in hospitals. People with mental illness stay in hospitals, on average, more than twice as long as other patients do. Most mentally ill are hospitalized during the most productive years of their lives, between the ages of 25 and 55.

The redeployment of the Riverview beds is behind schedule. Around the province, beds that were supposed to be up and running by 2007 have been pushed back to 2009. The downsizing of institutionalized care has not been matched with the complementary upsizing of community-based services.

In fact, in B.C. over the last four years, community-based resources have been reduced across many ministries supporting the mentally ill. These service reductions affect those individuals who are able to function in their community with the provision of these support services. A Canadian study found that two-thirds of homeless people using urban shelters suffered from some form of mental illness. The Vancouver Homeless Action Plan from June 2005 reports there are 750 people with mental illness on a wait-list for supportive housing. In Williams Lake 13 are waiting on a similar list.

The Business and Economic Round Table estimates that the economic costs of mental illness are the equivalent of 14 percent of corporate Canada's net operating profits. In 1998 Health Canada estimated that mental health problems cost $14.4 billion. The Justice Review Task Force recently reported that the mentally ill are jamming up the court system.

A quote from Ian Mulgrew: ?The revolving door in the courthouse, spinning with chronic petty offenders who are mentally ill and drug addicted — the so-called 'dual-diagnoses' or 'multibarriered' — is a made-in-Victoria crisis, a product of the law of unintended consequences.?

It is time for addressing the issue of mental illness in B.C. Mental illness affects 800,000 British Columbians. Presently mental illness sufferers take up needed hospital beds while not receiving the care they require. Mental illness sufferers involve the police services and plug the court systems as a result. Mental illness sufferers are kept from living life more fully and are kept from being productive, contributing members within their communities. The solution is a provincially developed and properly funded provincial mental health plan. The plan would contain a strategy for implementation, as well as coordination and integration of all government ministerial services providing support for the mentally ill.

K. Krueger: I'd like to thank the member opposite for doing a very capable job of laying out some of the statistics with regard to the huge impact of mental health problems on our population and on populations everywhere. Thankfully the days are gone when people don't want to talk about mental health issues because of the stigmas attached, which have caused many

people to try to hide their mental health problems and not seek even what limited assistance and facilities were available for them. Governments have done a lot of well-intentioned things and said a lot of well-intentioned words in the past but have failed to put together the sort of assistance that mental health sufferers really need.

For example, in Kamloops we had the Tranquille facility, which was closed by government in the 1980s without the community care services having been put in place to deal with the people who had been housed at Tranquille. Some of them stayed in Kamloops, but many of them wandered off elsewhere. Many of them ended up on skid row in Vancouver, and there have been many tragic results.

The input I received as a member of the opposition in the 1990s in this Legislature from people in my constituency and elsewhere was that the problems were not abating at all. The RCMP in Kamloops told me on a number of occasions that far too many of the people they found in their jail cells or had taken away in the back seats of their police cars really weren't criminals by intent or nature. They were mental health sufferers, and everybody felt that was wrong. Certainly, we did.

When he was Leader of the Opposition, our Premier made a commitment that we would build and operate a centre of excellence for the southern interior in Kamloops. He made that a firm commitment. In consultation with the experts who have planned the facility, we ended up deciding to build three different buildings — two to house people who were stabilized but who couldn't really go into a community care facility yet, 20 living units each; and a 44-bed acute care facility — in an addition to Royal Inland Hospital. Those two housing facilities are already open. They are beautiful buildings, the sort of thing that none of us would be discontented to see our loved ones housed in — a really nice facility. We were delighted to open those about two years ago. The 44-bed acute care facility is going to open next month, November, or the month after, I expect.

Along the way, there's been a whole lot of expertise brought to bear and a ten-year plan developed by psychiatric specialists and other doctors in Kamloops. They are really looking forward to implementing their plans. The promises that we made have been kept. These facilities are real, and the programs that the medical experts have dreamed of are close to being brought to fruition.

It isn't just in Kamloops and the southern interior that this government has made substantial progress. In March 2002 at open cabinet, the government made a $263 million commitment to mental health. This included the $125 million in annual funding for community services to fulfil the mental health initiative that was promised, and an additional one-time capital fund of $138 million to build new mental health facilities across the province to replace the outdated institutional settings at Riverview Hospital.

When government builds new facilities, it attracts new talent. There is a husband-and-wife team of psychiatric specialists who've moved from Ottawa to Kamloops to head up the new facility, and dozens of new professional jobs have been created in Kamloops. We are developing a centre that I'm sure everyone in this House will be proud of.

Projections show that for 2004-2005, provincial health system expenditures for community mental health will be just over $351 million — an increase of over $64 million since 2000-2001. Across all of the Ministry of Health mental health and addictions programs in the province, expenditures for this budget year, 2004-2005, are estimated to be $1.043 billion — an increase of $188 million since 2000-2001.

We're making good progress, but we know that more needs to be done. We need to develop the community care facilities, community living facilities, that will help people to live safe, productive and happy lives within communities without these terrible cycles of addictions and brushes with the law.

C. Wyse: I wish to open by recognizing the statements made by my colleague opposite from Kamloops–North Thompson. Assuredly, we must recognize the redeployment of funds that this government has undertaken, particularly in tertiary services dealing with Riverview. The Kamloops facility definitely is an improvement in those services, and likewise those facilities that have opened up around the province.

However, the point in seeking improvement across the system isn't simply a matter of the redeployment of funds. It's dealing with the community-based resources, along with housing, that need to be put into place to support those people that suffer from mental illness so that they can continue to function within their communities. That area remains severely lacking.

I very much appreciated the point that was made by the hon. member opposite by going back approximately 25 years to point out that this issue has been around in front of us here in B.C. for a long period of time. It cuts across the watches of many different governments, and we're still seeking the solution for that area.

The stigma that is referred to, in dealing with the mentally ill…. Though some progress has been made in that area, that fact of stigma affecting those that suffer from mental illness remains a serious impediment for society at large to address the issue of mental illness. It is chronic. It is lifelong, and it requires the support right across the entire lifetime of individuals suffering from these particular illnesses.

Once more, I return to the theme of my presentation here to the House, and that is that we require a provincial plan that coordinates across the boundaries of the six health authorities that govern the province. Presently if you move from one region of the province to another, services that one health authority provides for the mentally ill do not exist in a corresponding neighbouring health authority. Therefore, the provision

of the universality of these services does not exist, and the need for the coordination and the use of these resources right throughout the province remains of utmost importance.

In order to do all of that, I would like to close with emphasizing once more the need for a provincewide, coordinated plan to look after the mentally ill here within British Columbia. I also wish to emphasize, in closing, the population base here in B.C. that is affected by this area is 20 percent — 800,000.

L. Mayencourt: I rise today to talk about the issue of international medical graduates in British Columbia.

When B.C. residents cannot secure the services of a family physician, it's time to take stock of our medical training programs and identify better ways of guaranteeing quality health care delivery. Not having a regular family physician reduces the consistency in your treatment. It makes you reliant on walk-in clinics, which have their place in British Columbia but are not the best way to deliver health care. It does not allow people to build a relationship of trust with their general practitioner. It does not allow for holistic treatment, particularly for people who have different symptoms at different times.

While our government has made great strides in health care reform, the current physician-supply shortage is expected to worsen in the coming days. We are now in the position of having to find an immediate and viable solution for our physician shortage. Our first priority has been to dramatically increase the number of young British Columbians that are admitted to our medical schools. We're doing that by doubling the number of medical students, but the problem is that while those additional students are heading to classes now, it will take years for them to graduate. We've also initiated an unprecedented recruitment drive that has seen B.C. attract more doctors than any other province from other jurisdictions. But even with the present concentration on medical training and recruitment, we need a strategy for increased access to doctors.

As the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard, arguably the centre of medical services delivery and emergency preparedness in our province, it is my responsibility to ensure that we remain supportive and that we are responsive to the changing medical needs not just of my community but of British Columbia. That is why I endorse the Association of International Medical Doctors of British Columbia's comprehensive strategy for introducing foreign-trained medical graduates into the B.C. medical landscape as a means of effecting positive and sustainable change in the industry.

IMGs are trained medical professionals that need to repeat their residency training before they are qualified to practise medicine in British Columbia. Foreign-trained doctors are eligible to begin practising within two years, compared to a ten-year turnaround for a new doctor graduating through the provincial network. The total cost to graduate an IMG into family practice is less than $200,000, compared to over $1 million for a Canadian medical graduate.

We presently graduate 130 new doctors annually, yet we require a minimum of 400 each year to adequately service British Columbia's patients. The present formula allows only six new IMGs into the provincial residency program each year. I am advocating for 14 additional spaces, which will fast-track employable, foreign-trained physicians into the workforce while improving overall graduation numbers.

British Columbians rightfully expect high-quality medical care for their families. Utilization of foreign-trained doctors will also benefit our system by offering B.C.'s immigrant population the comforting treatment of a doctor from their country of origin. You know, if you cannot communicate with your doctor about what your body is feeling, how can he or she properly diagnose your illness? If you cannot understand what your doctor is telling you, how are you going to use treatment safely and effectively? If you don't understand your doctor, are you going to have as much faith and trust in your general practitioner as you should?

IMGs have the ability to deal with these issues. They come from the same countries that our other immigrants do. They speak the same languages and can work better with a patient to diagnose and treat medical problems. More immigrants would feel comfortable with the treatment they are receiving. We can improve standards with initiatives that take advantage of innovation such as the readily available IMG resource. Utilization of foreign-trained doctors will benefit our system by offering B.C.'s immigrant population the comforting treatment of a doctor from their country of origin.

Medical professionals and services are being challenged by increases in treatment and delivery ratios common to population growth and the needs of an aging populace. In my neighbourhood, Vancouver's downtown core, we are expected to grow by another 61,000 new residents by 2010 on top of the 90,000 that are there right now.

A number of workforce trends are also changing the medical landscape from within the industry. Research shows that the industry is experiencing an aging process amongst its physician workforce, which means that roughly 3,800 of the 8,400 practising doctors will be lost to retirement over the next two years. These figures fall into context when we consider that 200 of the 232 medical students admitted into the class of 2005 will graduate and begin practising not tomorrow but in 2011. Since 400 new physicians are required annually to maintain industry staffing requirements, a net loss of 200 professionals will not be offset by medical school expansions, due to rigorous education cycles and graduation time lines.

It's important to note, Madam Speaker, that 26 percent of doctors now voluntarily reduce their weekly work hours to accommodate lifestyle changes. The industry has also noticed a dramatic increase in the number of walk-in clinics, which do not typically pro-

This fall I have been working with the IMGs to ensure that we find an immediate and viable solution for the physician shortages in this province before the situation further deteriorates. I am committed to ensuring that British Columbians receive first-rate medical care through the vision and leadership of our government.

D. Cubberley: Thank you to the member for his comments, many of which I think are very relevant.

Supply of doctors is an issue in British Columbia, right the way across Canada and, indeed, around the globe. We have a rapidly aging doctor workforce at the very time we have a demographic shift that requires us to have more general practitioners and specialists available. We also have a growing population. Government is responding by increasing the supply, as the member indicated — and we support that — but it won't be enough to meet the rising demand in the near term.

Today there are an estimated 200,000 British Columbians who are looking for a physician, a general practitioner. Yet the number of B.C. general practitioners accepting new patients had dropped to 599 in March 2004 from 1,420 in April 1999. That's according to the BCMA. The real challenge is that we're in the same boat as everyone else around the globe, and there are inducements for our own doctors to go elsewhere, as we know — to go south of the border and to other places.

There are barriers to doctors coming here. Foreign-trained doctors are an available pool of talent currently undertapped. There are many of those docs who would like to come to British Columbia, but they're constrained by the licensing procedures in place from even being allowed to sit the necessary examinations.

Just to use one example, a German-trained doctor with specialties in cardiology, internal medicine and a licence to train physicians in Germany isn't even allowed to take the exams to qualify to practise here, despite living in the north.

We need to make it easier for foreign-trained docs to complete residencies and to set up practices. Currently in British Columbia there are only six residencies available to foreign-trained docs, and there are none for specialists. Contrast this with Alberta, a province which has a smaller population than we have but funds 23 family practice residencies and five specialist residencies every year.

Many of the foreign-trained docs are in fact people who are from our own province, who would like to come here, who have had to go overseas to pursue their dream of becoming doctors and pay for it themselves, which is a side effect of our not having enough spaces here in Canada to train them. Let me just illustrate this in the words of a constituent of mine training overseas, who can't secure even a sign of interest despite his ardent desire to practise medicine in Canada. He says that, in effect:

This situation's changing a bit. In Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia there has been more promotion in the last while of the idea of residency positions for Canadian doctors trained overseas. The system, my constituent says, "seems to be reacting to people like me, but not so much in British Columbia. I have been in contact with the University of British Columbia and the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons since the beginning of my degree two years ago, and the outlook for people like me is less encouraging here than it is in most provinces."

There are a great number of people in this situation, who want to come home and want to practise here. I can agree with the member opposite that this is a real problem. I think that what we need to do is increase the number of residencies that we have. In fact, it was something that we advocated in our election platform: to substantially increase the number of residencies here in British Columbia, both for general practitioners and for specialists.

I want to thank the member for his comments and say that in a broad sense — broader perhaps than simply foreign-trained docs — we agree.

L. Mayencourt: I welcome the support of members opposite for this particular initiative. I think it's really important that we recognize that 26 percent of our doctors now are voluntarily reducing their weekly hours to accommodate lifestyle changes. There's less time for individuals to be in front of their doctors. We've seen the increase in walk-in clinics, and they do not provide after-hours services as a GP might.

We need to take a look at this whole issue and work together to make sure British Columbians have access to a family practitioner so that they can have consistency of treatment, so that they are not becoming reliant on walk-in clinics, so that we are allowing people to develop a relationship of trust and understanding with a general practitioner and allowing for holistic treatment, particularly for those people that have different symptoms at different times.

I know our government has done much to improve the situation by doubling the number of students that

are admitted to our school system, but as I said earlier, it will take years for them to graduate. That's why I'm advocating for these 14 additional spaces. The IMG program is something that we need to start looking at and start implementing quickly. I also advocate that any unused residency seats that are set aside for Canadian-trained doctors should be opened up for international medical graduates. We are paying for those spaces already, and yet at times we have seen that these spaces have gone unused. That is wrong. We need to make sure we allow our internationally trained doctors access to the system.

This is part of a larger question as well, and it is time for British Columbia to look at our overall needs. We need electricians. We need plumbers. We need engineers. We need psychologists. We need doctors. We need nurses. We need. We need. We need. There is a wonderful world of opportunity that we have in front of us by utilizing immigrants that have come to British Columbia and have committed to raising their families and being good citizens. We should allow them access to programs and trades that they have the skills for.

One concluding remark I want to tell you. I was with some individuals not long ago, and one of the doctors in the group said to me: "You know, the best place to have a heart attack in British Columbia is in the back of a Yellow Cab." We need to get to work to make sure that doctors who are in British Columbia and have the qualifications to deliver good quality health care have access to the training programs and are fast-tracked into our system. We owe it to every British Columbian.

D. Cubberley: This morning I want to discuss the provincial goal of leading North America in physical fitness; how cycling as physical activity can contribute to reaching that goal; and how we, here in this chamber, have to enable the changes if in fact we really want society to make them.

The problem we face today is real. Inactivity is more prevalent than activity. We lead busy lives with multiple responsibilities in a culture where technology displaces activity. Combined with too much fattening food and many occasions for indulgence — which won't be lost on members of this chamber — we are literally bursting at the seams.

It has been said that the human body is the only machine that wears out from lack of use. We're testing this hypothesis today, as shown by rising rates of obesity and diabetes amongst our youth. Without changes, we face the prospect of a padded population needing joint replacement as early as the middle years. Rightly, government is committing to action, and we on this side want to play our part. Acting now is the right thing. The question is: which actions can produce results?

Fat and obesity aren't really the issue; they're just symptoms. The cause is physical inactivity. The challenge: how to get people to include activity in busy lives. Activity doesn't just reduce weight; it confers fitness, and fitness has prevalence over disease. To meet the goal, we must trigger new activity in large populations.

How much activity? Science says we need 30 to 60 minutes a day, four to five days a week, to obtain the full spectrum of benefits. The challenge: how to incorporate that much activity into daily life. It's pretty hard to imagine most parents finding a couple of hours, four nights a week, every week of the year, to go to a fitness club or pool for activity. So how could some adults become more active without adding time outside the home?

One way is for more people to cycle to work more often. Some already do, but if we want more to engage in cycling daily, we need to recognize that it happens on streets that need attention, that it requires skills that many people don't have and that people have to be exposed to the activity in order to try it. In other words, it needs our interventions if we want to make it happen. This involves two things: (1) expanding the supply of cycling infrastructure, which increases the amount of opportunity available to people; (2) we need to grow the demand, which means exposing people to how it works and then giving them the skills so that they can continue. Greater supply and rising demand trigger spiralling positive change, but we have to make it happen.

Fitness science tells us we've pretty much engineered activity out of daily life, so now we need to begin engineering it back in, and that means changing physical infrastructures to enable more activity. In the case of urban cycling, that means building bike-laned routes, local connectors and regional trails — like the Central Valley Greenway in Vancouver.

Why new infrastructure? Because commuting by bike happens mostly on roads that are designed for cars, not for bicycle travel. This means they're intimidating and even hostile. Re-engineering of physical space is needed, and cities lack the resources for the challenge, so we need to be helping and encouraging them. The community cycling infrastructure partnership exists and invests seed money in the redesign of cities for bicycle travel. This program actually works, so we need to keep it going. But, as importantly, we need to extend its scope with more resources to match the rising demand. To catalyze change in cities across B.C., we should increase funding and project approvals each year between now and 2010.

To meet our fitness goal, we need to bring more facilities on stream more quickly, accelerating momentum for change. You know, we get this idea that capacity equals opportunity when it comes to things like recreation centres, hockey rinks and swimming pools, and it works exactly the same way here. The investments are minor relative to what we put into transportation infrastructures, but their impact can be major. Victoria sees 6.2 percent of peak-hour travel occurring

on bikes currently across the entire region. That's proof that if opportunity grows, the takeup increases.

What else is needed? A mechanism that exposes people to cycling so they glimpse its potential for fitness with moderate exertion, so they grasp the value of using available time for exercise. The mechanism is already there: a Bike to Work Week campaign designed to attract participation. We know how to do that, and with provincial help the idea has been extended and seeded in North Vancouver and Kelowna. More transplanting is needed, and the incubator program right here in Victoria needs funding to sustain its capacity to spread the techniques to other communities.

Who cycles? People between 35 and 60 years of age. In Bike to Work Week here, 17 percent — you, too, member; I can see it — of participants had never ridden to work before. In Victoria that's over 1,000 people in 2005 exposed with a single promotion. Ideally, they would all get a one-day course in on-road riding skills as a reward for taking the plunge and as a way of helping them manage fears about exposure to traffic.

In conclusion, one way that we can respond to our activity deficit is to increase the number of people cycling to work. To do that, we have to address our infrastructure deficit in cities and thereby increase the supply of opportunity available to citizens, and we have to build a social infrastructure that grows new demand for that option. These levers have been designed and refined right here in British Columbia — the only province in Canada that has done that — and all we have to do is begin extending them.

Cycling as physical activity helps address our lack of fitness, contributing to our goal of being more fit. We benefit individually in added life years and overall quality of life. We benefit socially from reduced emissions — the minister here will be interested — and fewer cars on the road. We benefit by sparing our health care system the costs of premature deterioration and long disability. All three agencies — Transportation, Environment and Health — should be partners.

J. Yap: My thanks to the hon. member for Saanich South. I think both sides of the House agree that bicycling is a great recreational and fitness activity. I, myself, enjoy bicycling, as I'm sure many members of this House do as well.

Bicycling ties in very nicely to a great goal of leading the way in North America towards healthy living and physical fitness. People who use their bicycles are more physically active. By being physically active, you improve your wellness, and there is a lower probability that you will get sick. Over all, it's a net benefit to our society. I concur with the hon. member that one of the great problems we have is the lack of physical activity, which leads to conditions like obesity, as was mentioned. We know these conditions are preventable.

Certainly, as one of many options to physical fitness, bicycling would fit nicely. We all would like to see more people engaged in this physical activity. Another benefit, of course, is the positive impact on our environment. More people bicycling would lead to fewer people driving and a positive impact on the environment — no question about that.

That's why our government is committed to encouraging bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. That's why our provincial government has created the Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program. We are taking steps to intervene in this challenge that's before us to encourage more bicycling. Together with TransLink, the capital regional district and land developers, the provincial government is creating a network of cycling routes that will provide more options for commuters. In fact, TransLink has stepped up by encouraging people who commute with bicycles to bring their bicycles onto the bus or SkyTrain.

The cycling network will ease congestion in communities across the province. In two short years our government has put approximately $3.5 million dollars into new bike lanes across B.C. For example, in Richmond — my community — we recently got funding for the Garden City bike route. This will amount to about $35,000 to fund a 350-metre bicycle lane along Garden City Way.

Throughout Greater Vancouver the provincial government provided $750,000 towards construction of 11 kilometres of bike lanes for 2005-2006 alone; 31 kilometres of bike lanes have been funded this year throughout the province.

The support of public transit allows bicyclists to make longer trips more easily and in less time. We're taking steps, and I'm proud of these steps that our government has taken. I know that in working together with all partners, over time we will be able to increase the viability of bicycling as an option for commuters — not only to positively impact the environment but to improve overall levels of wellness.

D. Cubberley: It was Gandhi who said: "We must be the change we want to see in the world." I think for us as legislators that means enabling the changes that we want to see in order to reach the goal of a more physically active population. I take some encouragement from the member's comments about the investments that are being made in cycling and in enabling more cycling to occur.

I think what I'm wanting to do, though, is to try to expand the vision a little bit, because while $2 million a year is not negligible, and is certainly better than not investing in cycling, it is a very modest investment compared with the investments we make in any other form of transportation. For example, here in Greater Victoria, 6.2 percent of peak-hour trips are currently carried on bicycles. About 13 percent and a bit are carried on buses. In order to have that system of buses available to carry those people at peak hours, we invest something in the order of $60 million a year. In order to encourage those people to ride those bicycles, we

probably invest less than $1 million, even with all the resources that we put into it here.

My point, really, is to try to grow the opportunity by sustaining the investment. From '95 to '01, the cycling network program invested just over $13 million in those kinds of facilities in cities, and cities responded by investing another $13 million themselves, which shows the appetite for it that's out there locally if we actually pursue it.

I also want to speak for a moment about the success in transferring Bike to Work Week to other communities, which occurred with some seed money from the province, and to make a pitch for more. Kelowna tackled Bike to Work Week last year and had a rousing success. There were 124 teams and 838 cyclists, 314 of whom were riding to work their first time ever — 54 percent men and, astonishingly, 46 percent women. Canada-wide, women constitute only about 24 percent of those cycling, so I think that getting 46 percent on bikes in a promotional activity shows the potential for growth.

On the other hand, Kalona's application for a project grant this year was rejected, and it was rejected on a pretext, I believe, of wanting 1.2-metre bike lanes instead of 1.5. In point of fact, the program is already oversubscribed. That speaks to where I want us to go. We need to feed it because it's succeeding.

I want to leave it on that note, hon. members, and just encourage you. You have a success on your hands. It fits with our goal of a more physically active population. We need to put more resources in place, work with communities. We will effect a transport modal shift that will make our population more physically active and reduce impacts on our environment at the same time as reducing future costs to our health care system.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 70 without disturbing the priorities of the motions proceeding it on the order paper.

D. Routley: I rise and offer this motion in response to a crisis of homelessness and increasing hopelessness.

I offer a remedy with short- and long-term implications. Since 2002 we have witnessed the number of street homeless in Vancouver increase by 238 percent. These numbers are repeated throughout the province in communities large and small. This is a sign of policies gone wrong, of an approach to housing that requires our immediate and urgent attention. The Premier's Task Force on Homelessness has spent $40 million so far, and still the numbers grow. The government must acknowledge the crisis and provide immediate cold-weather shelter for the homeless of B.C. — all of them in all communities.

In 2001, 15 percent of the street homeless in Vancouver reported no assistance, no welfare. By early 2004 that number had increased to 50 percent. By the summer of 2004 that number had increased to an astonishing 75 percent. The Vancouver homelessness count estimates that at current welfare rates, to give welfare to all the homeless in Vancouver would cost the government $5 million per year, meaning that the $40 million spent so far on the homelessness advisory committee of the province would support the homeless of Vancouver for eight years.

From 1993 to early 2000 British Columbia and Quebec were the only provinces that continued to fund the building of new social housing — this despite the fact that the federal government had stopped providing any funding whatsoever for social housing during that time. From 1996 to 2001 the wait-lists for social housing declined from 11,250 to 10,000.

We must examine the government's record on this problem of homelessness and housing. The wait-list for social housing has skyrocketed now to over 13,000 people. The average wait time for social housing is three to five years. In late 2001 the federal government began putting money back into affordable housing: $89 million in one-time capital funding from 2002 to 2007, to be matched by the province. Since then, the provincial government has diverted funds to assisted-living units for seniors, people with disabilities and other parts of the health care system.

It is estimated that this funding could have created 2,500 new additional units of social housing. As of this April, there are no plans for the construction of any new social housing units under the provincial housing program. The B.C. Liberal government is focusing on a rental supplement program. This may work for some but should not come at the expense of social housing.

The B.C. Buildings Corp. Most B.C. government–owned property is managed by the B.C. Building Corp. Since 2002 BCBC has disposed of more than 300 government-owned properties. Currently there are more than 40 properties listed for sale or recently sold on the B.C. Building Corp. website. Of the public buildings being closed or that have been closed since 2001 are more than 36 Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance offices, more than 24 community courthouses and more than 113 schools. I'd like to remind

D. Routley: I apologize. I would like to refer to the Housing Minister's comments during Housing estimates. During estimates he stated that finding land is a barrier to building social housing. He says that providing supplements rather than building social housing is a better support. He says: "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 control these properties — these empty and vacated public buildings and public properties. We control them, and they are at our disposal.

While rental supplements do have a role, they do not take into account the need for more rental stock, low vacancy rates and the quality of existing stock. The argument goes that higher vacancy rates will cause landlords to lower their rents in order to attract renters. In parts of B.C. where vacancy rates are very low, this pressure doesn't exist, and low-income earners are faced with escalating rents. Some of those vacancy rates for a one-bedroom apartment in B.C.: 1.3 percent in Vancouver, 0.9 percent in Burnaby, 1 percent in North Vancouver and 1.3 percent in Victoria. These vacancy rates mean that people competing for low-rent accommodation find it very difficult to find anything that suits their needs. Very little rental housing is currently being built because it does not provide enough profit to attract developers to projects.

Throughout B.C., existing rental stock is aging, rundown and often in need of repair. There is a great concern that the aging rental stock will be replaced by non-rental market units. Some rental buildings have been stratified, forcing their residents to either purchase the unit or move. Many had to relocate because they couldn't afford to buy into these stratified projects. Rent supplements contribute nothing to the long-term inventory of social housing.

The problem of homelessness impacts communities throughout the province from Vancouver to Prince George, Nanaimo and even smaller communities like Dawson Creek and Duncan, a community I represent and grew up in. The Greater Vancouver Homeless Count found that the number of homeless people in Vancouver has doubled in the past three years from 1,049 in 2002 to 2,112 this year. People with aboriginal identity are significantly overrepresented in the region's homeless count. Their share of the total population compared to their share of the homeless…. They represent 2 percent of our population as opposed to 30 percent of the homeless on Vancouver streets. Forty families with children were enumerated on homeless count day. Most were staying in shelter or transition houses, although some families were among the street homeless.

This is a situation that cannot be tolerated in British Columbia. Shelters, safe houses and transition houses turned away 169 adults and six children on count night. This was higher than the 111 turnaways reported in '02. Health conditions were very common among the homeless, with 74 percent of those being counted as having one or more health conditions — for example, addiction, mental illness or a physical disability. The number of homeless seniors 55 and over on count day grew significantly from 51 people in 2002 to 171 in 2005.

We see that the sheltered homeless in Vancouver have grown by 33 percent in a little under three years. At the same time, street homelessness has increased from 333 in 2002 to 1,127 in 2005. This is a change of 238 percent. This can hardly be called the sign of a buoyant economy being extended to all British Columbians.

The Economist magazine describes Vancouver's homelessness. It says:Its back alleys, doorways and parks are home to a ragged, swelling tribe of homeless men, women and children…. And it is getting shamefully worse. Vancouver's homelessness rate…has doubled in the past three years…. Almost all the homeless are unemployed, and about 75 percent are not eligible for or not getting welfare, so they survive by begging, scavenging and petty crime.

Not only is it ethically imperative that we care for those people who find themselves homeless, not only is it an ethical and moral imperative, but another argument can be made. It is much more efficient for our economy to deal with the issues of housing and homelessness in a humane fashion, to provide shelter to those who need it.

A 2001 study by the province indicated that the public costs for providing services and shelter for one homeless person are up to $40,000 annually, compared with up to $28,000 for someone who has housing. This points to a benefit for the broader community. It costs upward of $300 to address mental illnesses in a hospital bed. It costs over $250 per day to address addiction issues through incarceration. To address these issues in properly supported social housing, those costs can be dropped down to the mid-$30 per day.

Mr. Speaker, I implore everyone in the House to embrace this urgent need to provide shelter to those who are most vulnerable in our province. We can no longer wait. We see the numbers exploding. We know that more is to come.

Today marks the first day of youth Homelessness Awareness Week. I implore every member of this House to grasp this opportunity for this government to do an inventory of vacant public buildings to be immediately opened to provide cold-wet weather shelter for those who need it and, with a longer-term view, to convert those properties wherever possible to provide adequate social non-market housing for the people of British Columbia who wait for the benefit of this golden era to be extended to them.

Tens of thousands of British Columbians are slipping below the waves of poverty and homelessness,

J. Rustad: I rise today to speak to this motion on several points. In particular, I wanted to point out that our government…. We are working on a dynamic housing policy and a housing strategy that will be designed to help as many people as quickly as possible so that they can live in safe, appropriate and affordable housing. We will continue to work in partnership with the federal government, local governments, regional health authorities and private and non-private sectors to create a continuum of housing for those in the greatest need.

The province always looks at its own properties to determine how to best use the lands and existing structures. When I think about the call for a provincial inventory, we already know the buildings and facilities that are available. In some cases, properties no longer in use are retained and converted to other uses, and in other cases, it makes more sense to sell them and use these proceeds in other ways.

With such an increase in demand for affordable housing, the province is well aware there may be opportunities to use vacant, closed public buildings for subsidized housing. As these opportunities are identified, the province will evaluate the merits of conversion to housing as part of our upcoming provincial housing strategy.

It's important to have a look back at what our government has done over the past four years with regards to affordable housing. Government has been proactive in addressing the needs of affordable housing. Since 2001 our government has matched every federal housing dollar — the largest amount of annual funding for subsidized housing in provincial history. We have increased provincial funding from $111 million to $191 million in 2005-2006 for subsidized housing and emergency shelters. We have allocated funding for more than 8,200 new units of subsidized housing since June 2001, including over 2,100 units to support people at risk of homelessness across the province, including $53 million in new funding for 533 units in nine communities through the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness. Some 3,500 independent living spaces will be provided by 2008 and 2009, and 3,200 units have been allocated to date.

The SAFER budget has almost doubled to $34.1 million, which means that the average payment to eligible recipients will rise from $105 to $169 each month, and the number of recipients is expected to grow to more than 19,000. The emergency shelter program increased by more than $6 million last year, for a total of about $20 million. This has increased capacity by 157 beds, to a total of 868 beds, and added an additional 208 cold-wet weather beds, for a total of 391 beds.

We do take the issue very seriously. We have developed strategies in this province, but I want to speak to one other issue with regards to utilization of our properties. It's true there are many public buildings across the province that are not being fully utilized. Our government has already taken significant steps towards this, but we believe that the best decisions are truly made locally by the people involved in the community and not so much being directed by those in Victoria.

I'd like to give you a few examples of this. In particular, the member bringing forward this motion should be very familiar, as a sitting school trustee at the moment, that school districts have the autonomy. They own their own buildings, not the province. Now, we can work with the school districts to bring forward ideas and strategies and to try to help school districts in best utilizing these particular buildings. One of the things we have done is put $10 million just this past year towards encouraging school districts to find uses for the buildings that are no longer required for educational purposes.

I would like to give you some examples from my own school district, school district 57, in Prince George. Out of the schools that were closed, one we entered into an arrangement with the Northern Health Authority to lease it on an ongoing basis.

A second one was sold off to school district number 93 so that they could have a home and facility within Prince George. Another one was leased to AiMHi to provide them with the opportunity to bring all of their services together under a single house, to be able to take the various options they had and to bring them in so that they had a concise and coordinated effort. To walk through that facility, to see the benefits that that has brought to a community is phenomenal, but that is not brought about by a province going to a school district and a local community and saying: "You should do something." It was brought out by the initiative within the community itself to utilize those facilities. Through the encouragement from government and through those opportunities that are made available — that's when great solutions come forward.

A number of other facilities in our district were sold. Quite simply, they were no longer required for educational purposes, and they were sold off into the community for market value. In each of those cases the value that was brought to the school district, whether it was ongoing operational funds or capital funds, went back directly into providing educational programs.

That is the real benefit when you consider the fact of closed facilities around the province in terms of schools. It actually provides quite an opportunity for those facilities that are no longer required for education. Those funds in my school district — in Prince George, school district 57…. They've gone towards helping to expand and do a renovation on the College Heights Secondary. They've gone to providing a new educational facility for continuing and distance education programs. They've gone towards helping the district find a new home for its administration buildings. Most importantly, a significant amount of those dollars has gone into our operational budget on a day-to-day basis — back into the education system. It's that kind of

leadership that I believe really needs to come forward with making decisions around our facilities.

I'd like to give another example from school district 57 about a project that was initiated because of a facility that was no longer required. In the community of South Fort George the community association came and said: "You know, we have an issue." We came forward with that as a school district. They went and formed a partnership with the Ministry of Children and Families, the Northern Health Authority, Make Children First, the city of Prince George and school district 57, as well as the South Fort George Community Association. They brought all of these community groups together under one roof to provide the services that were really needed directly in the communities as opposed to putting those services out and having people come to them.

When you look at that kind of initiative and those kind of opportunities and the real benefits they bring to the communities, it's hard to imagine wanting to have the province try to organize that as opposed to having local governments come forward with those sort of ideas and utilization. This South Fort George Family Resource Centre…. This was a first in our province, and quite frankly, this is something that could be used as a blueprint for how organizations in our government can come together to work and to utilize facilities around the province to be able to provide those kind of services.

Once again, the secret to this success is not a directive from Victoria. Rather, it's empowering local school boards, empowering local organizations to be able to best utilize these facilities so that they can reap some of the benefits — plus the community as a whole gets the direct benefit from these. It's this kind of leadership at both the provincial and local level that truly brings success for all in our province. Undertaking an inventory at the provincial level runs the risk of having Victoria interfere with this sort of local decision-making. It's important, as a province, that we have a handle on the facilities available, that we understand where those kinds of opportunities are and also that we encourage those sorts of opportunities be utilized.

However, I do not see the benefit of trying to organize and dictate something like that from Victoria. The motion really underlines that the NDP does not seem to have the confidence in local officials making those decisions. They seem to want to have the control directly here. Although the intent seems to be interesting, the results will only lead to more centralized decision-making. This is why I will be voting against this motion: to protect local autonomy and to keep us away from interfering-style policies that were so prevalent in the 1990s.

C. Wyse: I wish to acknowledge my colleague from Prince George–Omineca and the comments that he has made.

I would draw to attention his closing remark about not wanting to interfere with local government when, in actual fact, this government is reviewing local government being provided by school boards within themselves — which may do away with that level of local government. Those individuals involved at that level may take that as being a threat more so than actually providing a list.

Acknowledging my colleague's comments about providing the local input…. However, without people across the province — both regionally and provincially — knowing what may be available, those groups that want to provide support for where this need is do not necessarily have access to such a list of information. So in actual support for this resolution, I would draw the House's attention to those comments.

There is much need for more affordable housing being provided here in B.C. Two examples to support the housing need for the mentally ill are provided by the Vancouver homeless action plan from June of this year, in which they point out that 750 individuals are on such a waiting list, while in Williams Lake 13 exist on a similar list. Other examples exist from reports from across the province showing that seniors waiting for complex care beds and other supportive housing units are being cared for in hospitals while they await more appropriate housing to meet their needs.

More affordable housing supports those requiring care in a more cost-effective and effective manner. Over the past few years government has regionalized many government services, and these decisions have led to the closure of many offices and buildings throughout the province. In addition, particularly in the smaller rural communities, families have relocated, school population demographics have changed, and funding to meet inflationary costs to school boards was withheld. These factors have also led to the closure of schools — more vacant buildings.

An inventory of all vacant or closed public buildings and offices will provide an opportunity to review these buildings by everyone throughout the province, not just those that are found within the local area. That will provide an opportunity to determine if conversion of housing for low-income families, seniors and persons living with physical and mental disabilities is possible.

The need for affordable housing has never been greater in B.C. A partial solution for this need may well exist and be found in the empty public buildings and offices that already exist throughout the province. The need for affordable housing in northern B.C. can be a matter of life and death during the winter months.

J. Yap: I appreciate the comments of the hon. members. I will be taking this opportunity to speak against this motion.

First of all, I would like to start by addressing a couple of points, just to bring a little balance to the debate. We had a discussion this morning about having more balance in our discussions here in this chamber. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, in his presentation, talked about the increase in homelessness, includ-

ing youth homelessness, and I just wanted to bring some balance by emphasizing again that over the past four years we have seen a record increase in employment — over 230,000 net new jobs created — and there's nothing more than a good full-time job that can provide for security in shelter.

As well, in terms of employment, youth employment has never been higher in British Columbia, thanks to the economic policies of our government over the last four years, which has restored our province to leadership, restored our province to its rightful place as the leading economy in terms of creating jobs. We want to see that continue. With a strong economy we can do the types of things that we want to do and make the investments that we want to make in our province.

I also want to address the point that the hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith talked about: the fact that properties throughout the province, be they schools or hospitals, are within the direct control and are at the disposal of provincial government. That simply is not the case. We have duly elected officials in school boards that have control over school buildings and that inventory of properties, and health authorities have control over their portfolio of properties.

Let me first of all say, as I address the motion in particular, that on the surface this motion to create an inventory sounds very innocuous — just create an inventory. Well, the fact is that BCBC does maintain a continuous inventory of owned and leased space on behalf of government, so that list already exists.

If there are opportunities to convert some of these properties to housing to support our plan to create 5,000 units of housing — for example, seniors housing — can happen on a case-by-case basis. For example, there is the Vancouver Pretrial Centre, which is being considered by BCBC with community groups to see if this property might fit in with the social housing development.

Much of the portfolio may not be suitable for social housing, whether it's for seniors housing or low-income housing. Much of the portfolio consists of properties that may be, for example, highway yards. We understand there may possibly be two properties within the BCBC portfolio — one in Nelson and one in McBride — that may be potentially suitable but subject to the associated zoning, legal and other issues to be considered for housing.

But let's focus on some of the things that our government has done and will continue to do in dealing with the need for affordable housing for those in our society who truly need assistance. As has been mentioned, we have doubled the rental supplement, the SAFER program, so that more seniors can benefit from this program. This is one example of the kind of creative approach that our government has taken to address the need for more affordable housing for seniors in particular.

It's unfortunate that members on the opposite side have a fairly narrow view on how to address the challenge of more housing. On the government side, we believe that we should take creative approaches, and rental supplements get us the results that we need to see.

We also have made a commitment, a firm commitment, to deliver 5,000 new units of housing for seniors across the spectrum of needs — be it assisted living, residential care or independent housing. There are many examples of the progress that we are already making in this area. By the end of 2006 there will be a net increase of more than 2,700 beds for seniors.

I would like to share a few examples of the progress that we're making: 50 new complex care beds and 30 units for seniors with dementia in Gibsons; 155 new residential care beds at south Surrey Seniors Village; 30 new residential care beds at Hilton Villa in Surrey; 94 new residential care beds at Laurel Place in Surrey; 60 residential care and 40 dementia beds at Village by the Station in Penticton; 46 specialized psycho-geriatric beds at Sandringham Care Centre in Victoria. We're also redeveloping the Simpson private hospital in Langley to include 40 additional beds. In my community in Richmond, the Austin Harris site is being developed for 50 additional assisted-living units.

By 2008 we will have achieved our goal of 5,000 new beds for seniors across the spectrum of housing needs. I'd like to contrast this by quoting the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which indicated that between 1993 and 1999 the NDP actually reduced the number of care beds by 18 percent. We don't hear too much about that, but that's a very reliable statistic provided by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Under the NDP, wait times for residential care beds were as much as one year. Today we have an average wait time for residential care at a fraction of that, ranging from 30 to 90 days. Our approach to housing, including seniors housing, is working.

A 2002 inventory of residential care found that half of the existing residential care beds either were unsalvageable and required outright replacement or needed upgrading in order to be used for complex care. Many beds failed to meet modern building and fire codes. Resident rooms were overcrowded; hallways and washrooms were too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs. Since 2001 we've been renovating, replacing and upgrading thousands of these units.

We have focused on more than seniors care. We've also worked on other units of housing. There's a wide range of subsidized housing options across the province. The existing subsidized housing portfolio represents homes to more than 57,000 households in more than 140 communities across our province.

In public housing, B.C. Housing plays an active role in the effective planning and management of 7,800 public housing units in more than 300 group homes. In non-profit and cooperative housing, there are approximately 35,500 units of subsidized housing managed by over 650 housing sponsors.

Without this motion, the government is already building the best support system for seniors and peo-

ple with disabilities and those in need. This motion, I submit, is not needed, and I'll be voting against it.

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there are a number of members who do wish to speak, and the motion is to close debate. That would cut off the right of other members to speak to this motion. So I would like to, on a point of order, ask that this be withdrawn.

Deputy Speaker: My interpretation is that the debate is adjourned and will carry on next week.

C. Evans: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your judgment so that we can get on to the following motion.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 85 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

C. Evans: I rise today, Monday, October 31, 2005 — and I name the date so that it might be remembered in history — to speak on a motion that invites the entire Legislature, members of all parties, to delay the deliberations of the B.C. Utilities Commission on the matter of the sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan Inc. for 90 days to give the American government and the government of Canada time to resolve their differences over the sale of softwood lumber.

I have been, as most New Democrats generally are, opposed to the sale of Terasen Gas to the Americans while the government of British Columbia, led by the Liberal Party, has been either neutral or supportive of the sale. Regardless of our differences on this issue of who should own Terasen Gas, both parties appear to be united today on the issue of the need to resolve the American countervail on forest products. Thus, this motion is worded to ignore the area of our differences, and it focuses instead on the area of our agreement.

This motion assumes no position whatsoever on the sale of Terasen but simply asks that we do not consider the idea of the sale of our primary provincial pipeline company to the United States until they are in compliance with international trade law on forest products.

This opportunity for all-party agreement is exactly what citizens desire of those of us who work here. It invites members of all parties to work together for this moment to solve problems. Citizens know, of course, that democracy requires that the government and the opposition disagree on lots of issues. By virtue of that disagreement, debate and public discourse are achieved, and hopefully, balanced public policy is the result. But when there is a crisis in our province, citizens do not wish us to debate it. They want us to resolve it.

Regardless of how the individual parties might feel, therefore, about the sale of Terasen Gas to the Americans, the fact and the timing of the application for the sale provide us here with an opportunity unprecedented in the years of the countervail to come together and get the American administration's attention to resolve the dispute. This is especially true due to the well-documented relationship between Mr. Kinder and the United States President, Mr. Bush.

Opposition members on our side will not speak in this debate on the merits of the sale of Terasen. We will make our opinions known on that subject to the B.C. Utilities Commission, as directed by law. We will speak in this half hour, or what remains of it, on the wonderful opportunity that this proposed sale presents to resolve the largest crisis facing rural communities today — which is, as all rural MLAs of both parties know, the countervail capture of $1.5 billion of British Columbians' money at the American border with no end in sight.

In the interest of brevity and to make my argument simple, I'm going to speak from this text, uncharacteristically, and list my points individually in question-and-answer format.

(1) Question: is it possible to separate the political differences of the parties in this building on the sale of Terasen and to focus instead on the question of the timing of the decision rather than the decision itself? Answer: absolutely it is. The B.C. Utilities Commission is charged with the more narrow question of considering the sale of Terasen Gas. We in this Legislature, however, are charged with defending the public interest in all things for all people. It is utterly logical that we might debate the timing of the issue in the Legislature, while we leave the advisability of the sale to the Utilities Commission.

(2) Question: is it true that the countervail constitutes a crisis in British Columbia? Answer: absolutely it does. Businesses live or die on the margin. The margin of profitability has been removed from logging, sawmilling, trucking and silviculture work by the removal of 20 percent of the value of our end product for a pe-

riod of years. Sawmills are closing weekly in rural B.C., and communities are threatened. Investment is being lost, and lives damaged.

(3) Question: does the sale of Terasen Gas have anything to do with the settlement of the dispute over softwood? Answer: nothing in law, and absolutely everything in our international trade relationship with our neighbours. We have not been able to get the American administration to focus on the softwood dispute for four years. The sale of Terasen Gas is the first real opportunity British Columbians have had to ask Ottawa and Washington to care about our province and to make the argument that we want to trade with fair traders and not with bullies.

(4) Question: does this motion suggest that Canada is linking the sale of energy to the sale of lumber? Answer: absolutely not. We are not suggesting for one minute that anything different happen tomorrow in terms of the sale of energy than happened yesterday. We are not even commenting on the advisability of the sale of Terasen to Kinder Morgan Inc. We are simply asking that it be set aside until both seller and buyer are in compliance with international law.

(5) Question: why does this motion suggest that 90 days is the appropriate timing for a delay? Answer: this motion is based on the idea that good-faith bargaining can work. This motion assumes that there is nothing standing in the way of a deal between the United States and Canada on softwood but the absence of political focus. Ninety days is plenty of time for two governments to solve anything they want that it is in their interest to resolve.

(6) Question: what reason is there to believe that the sale of Terasen matters enough to the United States to use it to resolve softwood? Answer: Terasen Gas owns a pipeline to the tar sands. The tar sands are reported to have energy reserves in excess of those of Saudi Arabia. The future of Terasen is not the issue. American foreign policy and domestic policy is the issue. They are focused on energy. Canadians have heard for years that the American President cannot fight the lumber lobby in Washington D.C. The sale of Terasen gives Canadians the first opportunity we've had to be pragmatic and to bring the power of the great energy lobby in the United States into the debate over softwood.

(7) Question: what is the risk in this motion to foreign investment in our economy if the Legislature were to adopt the motion? Answer: there is no risk. This is an all-party initiative that says nothing about the desirability of the sale of Terasen or any other entity to foreign interests. It says only that we prefer to trade with people who live up to the rules invented to facilitate trade. Thus, this motion is good for investment. It assures investors that their goods and services produced in Canada will receive fair trade out in the world.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me speak through you to the government and to the Premier and to the Minister of Forests. I am cognizant of who holds the votes here. I know that this idea will go nowhere if it is not supported by government MLAs, especially rural MLAs. In fact, it would only work under any government if it was an all-party initiative that allowed British Columbians to speak for once with one voice, undivided by partisan politics.

Frankly, I do not care how this initiative proceeds today. Through the Speaker to the Premier and the government: I would be happy to withdraw my motion if a government member wished to introduce a similar motion of their own. Or if the government did not wish to be seen as having any opinion at all, they could simply call the motion and then let all MLAs have a free vote. If that happened, I have reason to believe it would be supported by rural members of both parties, because the damage that the countervail is doing in their constituencies cannot be sustained.

Here, through the Speaker to the Premier, is what you must not do. You must not consider, prevaricate or dither while this moment of our empowerment passes us by. Many are the leaders who serve and are never given the opportunity that is now yours to improve the lives of your people. We have not had a moment of bargaining strength during the last five years of negotiations, and they went nowhere. It will not come again.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government: please do not make the mistake of denigrating my thoughts and remarks as anti-American. I was born in that country. My family are still of that country. I could not be anti-American without being anti-self.

Let me tell you, though, what every American is taught before they are seven years old. They are taught that the United States respects those who respect and stand up for themselves. To do less is to invoke the appearance of impotence and weakness and the expectation of failure. Americans are taught to speak softly and carry a big stick. This motion is intended to be spoken softly. The sale of Terasen is the first stick made available to our people in years. Please help us pick it up.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak to this motion as well. You know, it's always the government's position or role in terms of protecting the greater and broad public interest. But this motion — I'm wondering if this is just a Halloween trick. First of all, the proposer, the man from Nelson-Creston, has said that this is a primary pipeline to the United States, which is complete hokum because, first of all, the pipeline that Terasen Gas has only services the people in lower British Columbia, like Inland Gas looks after the north and Centra looks after Vancouver Island. They're a deliverer. That's all they are. They're not shipping our gas into the United States.

Our companies in Canada buy more American companies than the Americans actually do buy of ours. I can imagine that the presenter is going to bring up

next week — when we come back from a week off — a motion to stop the sale of Hudson's Bay. This is a private company. We have no rights to be interfering with a private company. As I said, I was just wondering if it was a Halloween trick.

Who are we trying to punish? We are trying to punish the people who invest in private companies in this country. That's ostensibly what we're doing. What we're going to do is send signals all across North America that this is not the place to invest in. The previous government ahead of us in the '90s tried the same thing. The Premier at the time, Glen Clark, did not encourage investment into this province, and look what happened to us. We went through the dark ages of the '90s in this province. We are now coming back. Slowly but surely we're coming back.

Then someone has to get up and go forward with a silly notion such as what's in front of me — to try to link this to softwood. Softwood has been around for years and years. I mean, let's face it. The problem has been here since near the end of the Mulroney government in the federal government. There are methods by which we are going to come through this. Granted, the United States is not acceptable to it in a lot of cases right at the moment, but they're slowly learning. We have to teach them how to do business outside of being the great American traders.

Now, what we're doing here, we have no physical right to be doing because it's a private company. This is not a public company. This is horse-logging politics that we're talking about right now. It just blows my mind to think that we are trying to say that the Americans cannot come in and buy a Canadian company. For what reason? Oh, because they have behaved badly with the softwood situation.

Do you think that if we hold this back for 90 days…? What's going to happen after 90 days? There's no conclusion to this. It's an open policy. So do you think we're going to stop the people in the United States — from the Congress? Do you think Jimmy Carter, who has a woodlot, is going to listen to the gentleman from the Kootenays?

I've got a few notes here that I wrote down while he was reading it, but as I say, the problem with this motion is that it's threatening the people who have money invested in British Columbia. We are telling them it's not a wise thing to do to invest in a private company in British Columbia or in Canada because someone in the government thinks that it's wrong for them to do. As I said, the presenter tried to say that this was not a partisan motion. Well, it is a partisan motion, and what I'm trying to say is that we have no rights to talk like this or to discuss this aspect.

Three or four weeks ago I made a little talk on the throne speech as to what this company was about. Actually, B.C. Gas, when you go way back, was a private company in itself to start with. Then in the '70s — I guess it was the late '60s; pardon me, the early '60s — the B.C. government turned B.C. Gas from a private company into a Crown corporation under B.C. Hydro, and that is probably the only thing they have done.

What happened eventually is that it's been spun off again to a private company. Now this private company is going to be bought by an American company. This is a private company controlled by BCUC, and nothing will happen with regards to shipping gas, which they do not control, into the United States or anything like that. It's simply a matter of one country buying assets of a private group in another country, the same as we do into the United States. We, in fact, in Canada own and control more gas lines that are going into the United States than the United States would ever own in Canada.

K. Krueger: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member moved adjournment of debate.

M. Sather: Certainly, the people of British Columbia don't consider the resolving of the softwood lumber dispute to be silly, and it's really unfortunate that the member opposite would refer to it in that regard. It's also unfortunate that this government has not had a good track record on solving that dispute, and we would be hopeful that they would be open to suggestions from us or from any other party that might be helpful in that regard.

Perhaps it would be more illustrative of the thinking of the opposition if we heard from a member from the interior rather than from North Vancouver. I guess that when push comes to shove, the people of British Columbia will have to decide on which side of the House the spooks actually reside.

I do rise to speak in favour of this motion. There are two resource issues that are on the minds of British Columbians today and that are of paramount importance to them. One is the sale of B.C.-based Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan of Texas. The other is the protracted dispute between Canada and the United States regarding softwood lumber; $10 billion in export sales across the country are at stake in the softwood dispute. B.C. producers have lost some $1½ billion to date.

Although the role of members on this side of the House, obviously, is to oppose government policy that we disagree with, we are also committed to working

with the government in areas where we can find commonality. We are working to propose solutions that we are hopeful will find support on both sides of the House. At least we were.

The motion put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston is one such attempt by our caucus to find common ground with the members of the governing party. The government knows that we on this side of the House have some significant differences with them when it comes to the sale of Terasen Gas to an American company. Notwithstanding those differences, both sides of the House, I believe, are intent on finding a solution to the damaging softwood lumber dispute.

Although we are not privy to those discussions, the Minister of Forests has informed the House that negotiations, which he apparently believes hold some promise, are ongoing at this time between the government of Canada, the provinces and the government of the United States. We are all hopeful that these discussions will bear some fruit.

This motion, if passed, would bring some focus to those discussions. It's not about attempting to threaten the United States. It would, however, signal our view that the softwood dispute has dragged on for too long and a resolution must be found.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.