2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

(Bill 11)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Mary Manning Centre

S. Orr

U.N. convention on the rights of the child

V. Anderson

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

I. Chong

Oral Questions

Sodexho

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

Labour Code changes

J. Bray

Hon. G. Bruce

Cost of referendum on treaty negotiations

J. Nuraney

Hon. G. Plant

Income assistance appeals process

H. Long

Hon. M. Coell

Government support for small business

K. Krueger

Hon. G. Collins

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Abbott

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Whittred

Hon. G. Abbott

Royal Assent to Bills

Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary) (Bill

12)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. MacPhail

B. Penner

D. Jarvis

[ Page 1947 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

MacKay: From the beautiful Bulkley Valley–Stikine part of the province, I

am pleased to introduce two guests today. I should start with a little bit of a

preamble. If anybody was here in 1997, they might know my next guest. He spent a

couple of weeks on a bed outside on the lawn in April and May of 1997, dealing

with a health dispute. That person was His Worship Paul Jean from Burns Lake.

He's up in the gallery today.

Also

upstairs with him is my constituency assistant, Patty Peterson, from Smithers,

who's on a much-deserved holiday. I'd like the House to make them both welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'd like to introduce a graduate of Earl Marriott Secondary School, a

citizen of Surrey–White Rock and a journalism student at Kwantlen College, who

is now doing a practicum with Esquimalt News . She assures me that members

of the media are to be fully trusted and can be told almost and virtually

anything. She assured me of that this morning.

An Hon.

Member: They teach them that.

Hon. G.

Hogg: They teach them that at school, do they?

Would you

please welcome Shelley Tomlinson.

[1405]

S. Orr:

I'd like to introduce two people today from the glorious flower city of

Victoria. I'd like to introduce two very special people: Mr. Fred Ford, who is

the executive director of the Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Society of

Greater Victoria, and Mr. Bob Willihnganz, who is the chair of the board of that

society. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray:

I was very pleased, walking into the chamber today, to see two guests joining us

in the members' gallery. First, there's a young man who's moved back to British

Columbia to pursue his career, Jeff Bishop, and also joining us is a very

enthusiastic constituent of mine, Mr. Robin Adair. I ask the House to please

make them welcome.

Hon. K.

Falcon: In the gallery today I'm very pleased to welcome some grade 11

students from Southridge Senior Secondary School. There are two grade 11 classes

with us here today, representing 41 students, along with four of their teachers:

Trevor Julian, James Knihniski, Anami Naths and Dawn Haider. I would ask the

House to please make them welcome today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 11, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2002. More good news from the government of British Columbia.

This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: the Access to Education Act,

the Assessment Act, the Family Relations Act, the Health Authorities Act, the

Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act, the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act (No. 3), the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, the Public

Service Act, the Strata Property Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the

Vancouver Charter. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the

second reading of this bill.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) MARY MANNING CENTRE

S. Orr:

I rise today to tell you about a very, very special organization in this region.

I can honestly say I wish that this organization did not have to exist. It is

called the Mary Manning Centre of the Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling

Society of Greater Victoria. This organization was established in 1982. Because

of the terrible things that some children in our society are subjected to, the

Mary Manning Centre exists, and for that I am very grateful.

This

organization is a non-profit society that provides counselling services to

victims of child physical and sexual abuse and their families. Every year this

centre sees approximately 250 children and their families. They come from

referrals from the police, social workers, school counsellors, doctors and

teachers. This is the only non-profit organization of its kind in the south

Island, and they are recognized as experts in this very difficult field of work.

Many of the

children, or clients, that the Mary Manning Centre sees are first abused between

the ages of six

[ Page 1948 ]

and 12. About 18 percent were abused by someone they knew; 35 percent are

males, and 65 percent are females.

[1410]

This is the

toughest kind of work, and the 11 highly trained counsellors regularly have a

waiting list of approximately 65 to 85 children and youth. Sometimes they have

to wait three to six months before they receive any help.

I wish with

all my heart that innocent children didn't have to be hurt, and I know that

everyone in this chamber feels the same. I am only glad that we have an

organization like the Mary Manning Centre and their dedicated workers helping

these innocent children put their lives back together. For that, I thank them.

U.N. CONVENTION ON

THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Anderson: Children have a priority. As Canadians, we have an ethic that

gives children a priority in care and concern. We are not alone in this

principle. The national governments of the world, through the United Nations,

likewise have confirmed that children have a priority. In 1943 they established

the children's emergency fund which we know as UNICEF, a focus of the annual

Halloween boxes of our children. In 1989 they passed the UN convention of the

rights of the child, of which Canada is a signatory nation. Yet many of us,

perhaps, have never read this convention, which contains some 45 articles to

affirm our responsibility to our children. Thus, today you have on your desks a

copy of the convention of the United Nations.

Let me

summarize just some of the important parts of this convention, as we would stand

up for our children and their rights and their opportunity for the fullness of

life. Some of the rights listed here are the right to a name and nationality;

the right to affection, love and understanding and to material security; the

right to adequate nutrition, housing and medical services; the right to special

care if disabled, be it physically, mentally or socially; the right to be among

the first to receive protection and relief in all circumstances; the right to be

protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation; the right to

full opportunity for play and recreation and equal opportunity in all of life's

activities; the right to develop one's full potential in conditions of freedom

and dignity.

Hon.

Speaker, I pray that we will read this and act upon these recommendations. Thank

you.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR

THE ELIMINATION OF

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Chong: Next Thursday, on March 21, many people will be observing the

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. On that day in

1960 police opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration in

Sharpeville, South Africa, against the apartheid pass laws. Since 1966, March 21

has been recognized by the United Nations as the International Day for the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It is a day to celebrate the many steps

the world has taken to free itself from racial hatred but also a day to reflect

on the challenges that remain and to renew our commitment to overcoming them.

Canada was

one of the first countries to support the UN declaration. In 1989 the Department

of Canadian Heritage launched its annual March 21 campaign. This campaign was

initiated in response to the need to heighten awareness of the harmful effects

of racism. For more than ten years, the March 21 campaign has mobilized youth

across Canada to rise up and take a stand against racism. Through their

participation in the campaign, Canadian youth have spoken loudly and eloquently:

there is no place for racism in their lives.

Since 1994,

including this year, the province of British Columbia has proclaimed March 21 as

the day for the elimination of racism. This year the provincial government is

partnering in community activities with Abbotsford, Campbell River, Prince

George, Cranbrook and the lower mainland. In my own riding of Oak Bay–Gordon

Head, I have been privileged to work with many young people who speak out

against racism. I have seen them acknowledge this initiative with passion,

demonstrating a clear commitment to fostering respect, equality and diversity.

They have the energy, commitment and creativity to advance the struggle against

racism. They are the voice of the present and the future. We look forward to

them to transcend the boundaries of race, ethnicity and religion, and to embrace

diversity.

[1415]

Even in

this year's Commonwealth Day message provided by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth,

there was mention of a theme — celebrating diversity — that I believe

touches on this very issue. Next week is spring break week. As we return to our

constituencies, I trust that all members will take time on March 21 to observe

this important day.

Mr.

Speaker: This concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

SODEXHO

MacPhail: Yesterday British Columbians got a chance to see the kind of

shoddy, shady operators this government is letting into the health care

privatization business. Despite an abysmal record of delivering health services,

Sodexho, an international conglomerate, is now on the public payroll for the

northern health authority, giving the government privatization advice.

The

Minister of Health Services has now had some time to look into Sodexho. Can he

tell British Columbians how much money the government is spending on getting

advice from this company? Can the minister tell us if they checked the

references of this company before putting them on the payroll?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'll take it on notice.

[ Page 1949 ]

MacPhail: The minister has had the information about Sodexho for over a

week. Let me provide the minister with some information about Sodexho.

Sodexho is

not only famous for a shoddy and dangerous approach to patient care. Sodexho

also holds contracts worth millions to provide school lunches. A recent Chicago

Tribune investigative report found that school children were getting

violently ill from food served to them by Sodexho subcontractors. Last year a

worker lost part of a thumb in a Sodexho cafeteria, which found its way into a

student's lunch. Again to the minister: will the minister step in and cancel the

contract of Sodexho that's being held — spending money — in the northern

health authority right now?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have given latitude to the health authorities to seek the advice

they feel they need in terms of how to redesign the health care system so it

actually starts meeting the needs of patients, for a change, in British

Columbia. We have given them that latitude.

I am aware,

as I said yesterday, that the northern health authority has given a consulting

contract to Sodexho. It's my understanding that there is no contract to provide

any kind of direct services. It is simply a consulting contract.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the minister is so hesitant to get rid of Sodexho because he likes the

business model it promotes. If you want to prohibit workers from improving their

working conditions and participating in the delivery of care, then Sodexho is

the company for you. They are promoting this kind of model with a manual, which

they have provided to their managers, with advice on how to keep workers under

their thumb. [Laughter.]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Order, please. The

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, it's not a laughing matter. When you find a body

part in a child's

sandwich, in a child's lunch, it's not a laughing matter. British Columbians

don't want to have anything to do with this kind of company.

Again to

the minister: why are patient dollars being funnelled to a company whose

business model is a boon for the shareholders but a disaster for the patients?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It's certainly a repetition in questions from yesterday to today,

and there's a repetition in answers. We have given authority to the health

authorities in the province to actually seek out the most cost-effective way of

delivering support services in our health care system. We want to make sure we

get quality service — and improved quality service, if possible. We also want

to make sure we do it in the most cost-effective way. That's the challenge we've

given to the health authority, and that's what we expect them to deliver on.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

[1420]

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, what we know about Sodexho should make even right-wing governments

like this one cringe. They make millions in profits by putting cut-rate services

to patients, and they seem to believe, as the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson so eloquently put it a while back, that hospital workers are just a

bunch of toilet cleaners that do not deserve decent wages and working

conditions.

Again to

the minister: when will he show some leadership and send these guys packing? Or

is it the case that Sodexho is providing just the kind of services he's looking

for?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am not, as the Minister of Health Services, going to micromanage

the delivery of health care around the province. I am not going to hang over the

shoulders of the health authority administrators and tell them how to do their

job. The task we have given them is to get the best value for the taxpayers in

British Columbia and deliver the best quality of patient care and support

service in British Columbia. We have said to them that they should look at

options. We have very good workers in the health care system today who are doing

excellent work. We also have opportunities to look at other options in terms of

how that gets delivered. Those decisions are going to be left to the capable

administrators we have put in place to deliver health services at the local

level.

LABOUR CODE CHANGES

J. Bray:

My question will be for the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. Over the

last two days my office has received a number of calls from constituents seeking

clarification on reports they've heard that government is preparing to introduce

changes to B.C.'s Labour Code that will undermine the rights of workers. I'm

wondering if the Minister of Skills Development and Labour can tell us whether

or not those reports are accurate.

Hon. G.

Bruce: What the process is, is under a review of the labour relations in

British Columbia. The issues that are on the website have been submitted by both

union and business associations. What we're doing is putting that out there so

that all can comment on it, be they employees, be they small businesses or be

they union members. We're looking for that input to be returned to us so that we

can further try to improve labour relations in British Columbia to get the

economy turned around in this province. After ten years of the most disastrous

government we've ever seen in British Columbia — in fact, ladies and

gentlemen, that we've ever seen in this country of Canada — it's going to take

a great deal of time and effort and energy on all of our parts to get British

Columbia back to its rightful place: number one in Canada.

[ Page 1950 ]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a supplementary question.

J. Bray:

Unlike a couple of members of this House, my community does want to hear these

answers. The minister said the government is committed to consulting with

British Columbians on changes to improve the Labour Code. My constituents want

to be actively involved in that. I'm wondering if the Minister of Skills

Development and Labour can outline for this House how our constituents can take

an active participation in that consultation process.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's important to note that we're trying to broaden the ability for

people to participate. That's why we're using the electronic age. It's on the

website — similarly as we did with the employment standards review. With the

employment standards, we had over 300 submissions that were submitted to

government. I would hope that your constituents and others — be they

employees, small businesses, union members, union associations — would take

that advantage on the website. I have to thank the member for asking these

questions.

I actually

thought the opposition would probably jump to their feet and try and represent,

once again, the union movement of the province. But the fact of the matter is

that we know that after ten years of your rule…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …in British Columbia, we probably have fewer union jobs in the

province than ever. What we're looking for…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …in the province is to get the economy going with good union

jobs…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …and highly skilled, well-trained, well-paid people.

COST OF REFERENDUM

ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Nuraney: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

There have been concerns expressed in the media about the potential costs

associated with the referendum on treaty negotiations. Can the Minister

Responsible for Treaty Negotiations clarify what the anticipated cost attached

to the referendum is?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to provide the information the member is seeking.

Elections B.C., which is an independent office of the Legislature, will be

conducting the actual vote. They have given us a budget for the mail-in ballot

that they say will cover the cost of their part. That's about $9 million.

We in

government will be sponsoring an independent referendum office to provide the

public with information to help them understand the questions. That office has a

budget of about $800,000. All in, we're expecting that this exercise will cost

less than $10 million.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon with a supplementary question.

Nuraney: I'm sure everyone in this House would agree that settling

aboriginal claims is in the best interests of all British Columbians. Can the

Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us how the cost of the

referendum compares to previous aboriginal treaties?

Hon. G.

Plant: We know that the cost of the Nisga'a final agreement is close to $500

million and perhaps more. With as many as 60 other possible land claims

settlements and treaties being negotiated across the province, we can expect

that the final bill for negotiating and settling treaties will be a very, very

big bill.

We also

know that the cost of negotiation is expensive. The first nations have loans and

contribution funding already in the BCTC process of $230 million. If you add the

federal-provincial contributions, I suspect we've spent half a billion dollars

without a single concluded treaty to date.

In that

context, I say that a $10 million investment to protect this hugely important

and ultimately very costly process is a very reasonable, modest investment that

the taxpayers of British Columbia want us to make on their behalf so that we can

make treaty-making work for all British Columbians.

INCOME ASSISTANCE APPEALS PROCESS

H. Long:

This is to the Minister of Human Resources. A number of my constituents have

heard through media reports of the government's plans to make changes to the

appeals process for those on income assistance. Can the Minister of Human

Resources outline those changes and how they will affect those on income

assistance?

Hon. M.

Coell: Presently, the ministry has an appeals process that has numerous

internal appeals plus a tribunal system and an appeal board. That can be lengthy

and cumbersome.

What I have

done, working through the ministry and with ministry staff, is design an

external appeal process that will be one level. It will have regionally based

tribunals throughout the province. It's the hope that this will be a much more

effective and streamlined approach and will give decisions that affect the lives

of people on income assistance quickly.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has a supplementary

question.

[ Page 1951 ]

H. Long:

A number of constituents have also expressed the need to ensure the continued

involvement of local communities in the appeals process. Can the Minister of

Human Resources tell us how he plans to allow community groups and other

individuals to participate in the appeals process?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the ability to have tribunals that are appointed throughout

the province on a regional basis will allow that to happen. I think one of the

things we want is for people to have reliability in the system and the comfort

of knowing that these are fair and accessible tribunals. That will be done in

June of this year so people who are on income assistance will have access to

those tribunals after that period.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

Krueger: Economic analyses consistently demonstrate that small business is

the greatest creator of jobs in Canada and in British Columbia.

My question

is for the Minister of Finance: what is this government doing to encourage small

business in British Columbia?

[1430]

Hon. G.

Collins: This government has in fact done a great deal to encourage small

business in the ten months or so that we've been here. In our very first budget

we eliminated the PST on production machinery and equipment — a $160 million

benefit to businesses across British Columbia to reinvest in their businesses

and expansions.

We're

eliminating the corporate capital tax on general corporations, which many small

businesses pay in their triple-net lease.

In this

budget, presented a short while ago, we just raised the threshold for the small

business income tax from $200,000 to $300,000 to match other jurisdictions in

western Canada.

The

Minister of State for Deregulation is working hard on a plan to reduce the

regulatory burden of businesses in British Columbia by one-third in three years.

As well,

government reduced the income taxes for British Columbians across the board. We

saw our top marginal income tax rate go from the highest in North America to the

second-lowest in Canada, which will help the high-tech sector and small

businesses grow to become medium and large businesses.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In the small House, Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For

the information of members, we'll be beginning with the estimates of the

Ministry of Energy and Mines, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of

Health Services.

In this

chamber I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be

debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services, followed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:34 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 19:

ministry operations, $535,278,000 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

Prior to the lunch break we were talking about compensation and mitigation for

community groups that have lost their unit allocation as a result of the

cancellation of over a thousand units by this government.

[1435]

I was

trying to get a sense from this government in terms of what they have budgeted

for this mitigation work. How many societies are in the position of losing money

because they have put energy and resources into meeting the conditions of

government for these allocations? The minister was reluctant to provide the

number or even the ballpark number for reasons that he articulates to be not

wanting to set up expectations. I am, however, still interested in pursuing this

line of questioning, because the community groups — and many of them have come

to me — have raised their concerns around it.

One of the

things that I think is important is to send a signal to the community, to say to

them that perhaps the government will indeed be fair and that they will work

with them to address these concerns, to really stem off litigation. I am

concerned about litigation. Ontario has gone to the path of litigation, and,

yes, Ontario had cancelled unit allocations that were under construction, but

there were some that weren't either.

Irrespective

of that, in British Columbia societies have gone through a process. Some of them

have incurred staff costs, and some have incurred other costs — whether it be

legal costs, costs related to land, etc. There are a whole host of costs that

societies have incurred.

I'm

wondering, perhaps, if the minister — if not in this House — can provide the

information to me by correspondence, through his staff. I would welcome that

information, just so that when I speak with the community groups, I actually

have some sense of an answer for them other than to say: "Hey, don't

worry." What they've learned from this government is that when it says,

"Don't worry; you're a priority," they see

[ Page 1952 ]

services cut to programs in areas that they fully depend on. It's a far cry

to simply say: "Hey, don't worry."

I wonder if

the minister can give me the assurance in this House today that he could provide

me with the targeted budget that the ministry has set aside for this work. How

many societies will be impacted?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We did canvass this particular point at some length this morning.

I'll say this one more time, and I'll say it as gently and as dispassionately as

I can.

First of

all, it is the government's intent to deal fairly, reasonably, equitably and

appropriately with any housing societies who may have suffered as a consequence

of the changes which have been made.

Again, as I

pointed out on numerous occasions earlier today and, I think, yesterday as well,

the reason why we advised the societies last October about the projects under

review was so that they would not go out and make any additional investments

that they did not have to make in relation to their projects.

I also

acknowledged earlier today, Mr. Chair, that where additional costs were

unavoidable, we would also take that into account in any discussion around

mitigation which will commence between B.C. Housing and the projects. That's why

we made the announcement in October.

The

societies were advised yesterday of their status — whether their projects were

proceeding or not proceeding. Again, we believe that in some cases, projects

that were advised they would not be proceeding will, at some point in the months

ahead, be proceeding with stronger partnership. Further, I advised the member

that a number of the projects — in some cases they're B.C. Housing projects,

and in other cases…. At least in one case, the society in question asked that

their allocation be returned. So, clearly, the compensation issue is not one

that's going to be universal here.

We are

entirely confident. This is not something that I dreamed up; these are the best

estimates of the professional, knowledgable staff that I have around me. We have

provided sufficient funds to ensure that everyone will be treated fairly,

equitably and reasonably in this process.

[1440]

I'm going

to tell the member this one last time, Mr. Chair. We are not going to be

releasing a figure in this House. We have to balance the opportunity to be fair

and equitable with the projects with the legitimate right and concern of the

taxpayer that we will act in the best interests of the taxpayer. I've given my

commitment that we are going to treat the projects and the societies fairly and

equitably. We will do that. We've made provision for that. Those discussions

have already started. I'll be glad to advise the member as they proceed. I'm

entirely confident that there will be a completely satisfactory resolution of

this point, but I am not….

The member

can get up and ask this question all day long, if she wishes. I am going to be

rather less statesmanlike in my responses from this point on, because I've made

the point a number of times now, and it's time to move on. In the interests of

the taxpayers of British Columbia, in the interests of the societies in

question, we are going to treat them fairly and equitably. I am not going to

release a precise figure of dollars in this House.

J. Kwan:

It sounds to me almost as though the minister is using a tone of threat in

this House, hon. Chair. The line of questioning that I'm asking is important. My

office and I have been talking with societies around these issues. They've been

concerned about it since right after the election. They have been phoning my

office continuously around this issue. I've been meeting with them continuously

around this issue beginning last year, even before the minister made the

announcement of freezing the 1,700 units of affordable housing. Then the

speculation surfaced after that time, when the expectation was that there'd be

about a thousand units that would be cancelled. That has now been confirmed, and

people are continuously asking these questions in terms of what kind of

compensation and so on.

You know,

this is supposedly an open and transparent government. Supposedly, they have in

the line items within their books how much they're allocating for what purpose.

The line of questions I'm asking is completely within the authority of the

budgets. This is why we're here in this budget estimates process: to find out

what items the minister has within his budget and what they are for. I'm asking

the question around what has been allocated for the mitigation and compensation

component.

If the

minister is not prepared to give that answer…. Obviously, he is not prepared

to give that answer in this House. Even though in the New Era document

they claim that they will be open and they claim that they will be transparent,

there is zero transparency here. There is zero transparency here, and that is

obvious. He wants to get up and use a tone of threat in this House. You know,

quite frankly, in my own view it's not appropriate.

Let's go

through, then, specifically what would be deemed to be items that would fit for

compensation. Let's start with the issue around staff time that has been

incurred from the societies who put forward an application under the previous

government that has received approval from the previous government and has

received allocation. Let's start with the compensation process, then, item by

item to determine what would be fair compensation in this scenario.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is one thing that is remarkably transparent in this House, and

that's how thin the research is on the part of this member and her opposition

party in preparing for these estimates. It's remarkable how, after some very

patient responses to the question, they want to keep coming back to the point.

Again, to

make the record clear, B.C. Housing has commenced its discussions with the

societies with respect to projects that will not be proceeding at this

[ Page 1953 ]

point in time. We will consider all legitimate costs in those discussions.

[1445]

J. Kwan:

Would staffing costs be considered as a legitimate cost?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm advised that we'll be looking at all legitimate costs on a

case-by-case basis.

J. Kwan:

I'm trying to decipher, for the societies who are going to have to deal with

this government on these issues, where they have incurred costs. Some societies

are at the brink of having to make a determination whether to fold their entire

project or continue to try and proceed with some hope of making their project

realistic by getting funding from the government and realizing the social

housing units for their communities — much-needed units for the communities

throughout British Columbia, where we have over 10,000 people on the wait-list

waiting for safe, secure and affordable housing.

Quite

frankly, the minister is not forthcoming with these answers. He says: "What

is legitimate, what's fair." I'm asking him: what is deemed to be fair and

legitimate? Start with one easy item: staff costs that have been incurred by a

society in moving a project forward since the allocation's been made and since

the government has announced that the project will not proceed and has cancelled

those allocations. Will staffing costs be considered a legitimate expenditure

that societies will be able to recoup from this government?

Hon. G.

Abbott: B.C. Housing has commenced those discussions. We will not know,

until all of the issues are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, precisely what the

outcome will be. I'm afraid the member is going to have to come to grips with

the fact that on May 16, 2001, the government changed in British Columbia. They

are no longer the government. They're no longer responsible for negotiating

issues such as compensation in cases like this.

When we

look back at the many issues on which the former government went to

compensation, they didn't get up in this House and say: "Here's exactly

what we're going to do for Carrier Lumber," or, "Here's what we're

going to do here," or, "Here's what we're going to do there." You

don't do that. The member knows that full well.

We have

started the discussions. We are going to look at legitimate staff costs; we're

going to look at legitimate third-party costs. Again, until we get into those

discussions more fully and until we know the rationale or the fact basis on

which the societies are making their requests, we cannot form judgments.

The member

knows full well that it is entirely inappropriate and irresponsible to be

attempting to undermine the position of the taxpayers of British Columbia by

attempting to grandstand in this House for people she somehow believes are

allies of hers and by pretending to be negotiating their position with the

government. It doesn't happen.

J. Kwan:

The arrogance of this government and this minister is unbelievable. He rises up

in the House and lectures me, and he often does that with my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings, saying that they have 77 seats in this House and they can do

whatever they want. Any question you ask is not legitimate. The amount of

arrogance this minister is displaying is absolutely stunning.

[1450]

This member

claims he comes from the community, and he deals with them. He's been a

municipal councillor, and so on and so forth, but he fails to understand the

anxiety that the community groups are going through. He fails to understand that

a lot of these community groups are small groups with a volunteer board at the

table, plowing ahead day in and day out, trying to do what they think is best

for the community — in this case, around housing — trying to see affordable

housing units developed in the community to support members of their community.

They invest

their time and energy. The board members take a personal risk because they have

a fiduciary responsibility to those societies at the end of the day. In spite of

the election and in spite of the government freezing the projects, people have

gone forward to see what they can do to maintain the possibility of seeing the

units develop into housing for the members in their community. Now all of a

sudden they find themselves with their projects cancelled and risks they have

assumed that they now have to take on. It does, for a small society

particularly, come down to dollars and cents; it does. Some may be able to get

legal advice; others may not.

All I'm

attempting to do, hopefully through this government, is give some assurances to

members of the public that they don't need to worry, that in fact government

will be there for them on the issue around compensation, and "here are some

of the things you can look at in terms of what your losses are." I actually

don't think the societies will sit there and think of how they can gouge the

government, if you will, and cheat them if they weren't legitimate loss costs. I

don't think that at all. I don't think the societies are thinking about that.

They're just simply thinking about what is valid, what is not valid and the kind

of things that they need to start to prepare when they meet with B.C. Housing

and their staff.

What is

clear from this minister, though, is that he actually doesn't know. Either he

doesn't know what the answer is, so he doesn't know what the line budget is in

his budget, or if he does know, then he is trying to create a very difficult

position for these societies. Either way, I don't think it's acceptable.

This

minister likes to claim that he is open and accountable in the estimates

process, and he knows very well what I'm trying to get at here in terms of

helping the societies with some level of assurance in terms of

[ Page 1954 ]

their compensation and mitigation issues. The minister is not even prepared

to acknowledge that.

I asked a

question about staffing costs — would it be legitimate? — and he refuses to

answer that question. Legal costs — would that be legitimate? Mortgage costs

that people have to carry because they carried the land — would that be

legitimate? I think these are broad questions that societies are looking for.

I'm not advocating for any one society in particular but broadly speaking to let

the communities know what it is they can look at and start to prepare for that

work.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm going to try one more time here. B.C. Housing has been a solid,

dependable, reputable organization for decades here in British Columbia. They

deal on a daily basis with some 700 non-profit societies in the province. They

deal with them on a daily basis. They deal with them with respect to projects

that are there, with ongoing subsidies, with other issues they may frequently

have. The fair treatment of those 700 societies has been, I think, very much the

hallmark of B.C. Housing.

I have made

the commitment, and I know B.C. Housing has made the commitment, to treat all

the parties here fairly and equitably. I don't know how many times I have to say

that before the member is prepared to accept it. Not only do I find it, in fact,

quite appalling that the member would insult me — I'm happy to accept her

accusing me of wanting to cheat and gouge people — but I'm astounded that she

would suggest, somehow, that our staff would take any kind of approach like that

into these kind of discussions. That is absolutely astounding.

I have made

a commitment here. We are talking about things. The member asks: "Well,

what kind of things?" Land costs, in some cases non-refundable deposits,

might certainly be considered a legitimate issue for a project that wasn't

proceeding — and elected, I might add, not to proceed after trying to secure

stronger partnering. Architects' fees are another example. Development

consultant fees are another example. Really, legitimate staff costs are,

again….

We have to

deal with these on a case-by-case basis. We don't negotiate these things in this

chamber. Clearly, the public interest demands that we deal with it responsibly

and appropriately, and that's what we're going to do.

[1455]

If the

member is trying to pose here as the great defender of the non-profits, every

time now I'm going to have to remind the member as we continue along the present

track that the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act, which we talked

about last night….

The member

frowns, and I don't blame her for frowning. She must be deeply embarrassed, if

not ashamed, by her government's record with respect to this. For years

non-profits begged the former government to repeal that legislation, because

what it did was every time a non-profit wanted to change the use of their

property — maybe to add a seniors activity centre, remortgage, pave a road or

whatever it happened to be — the government…. In 1999 that government made

the situation with the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act even worse,

punitively adding an amendment to the act that legally would force the

non-profits to pay the Crown — i.e., their government — one-third of the

value of the land and the assets on the land — absolutely astounding.

If this

member's trying to pose as some great white knight who's trying to ride to the

rescue of non-profits in the province, I have to remind her — and I'm going to

remind her at every turn here — about the Housing Construction (Elderly

Citizens) Act and their pathetic failure to deal with that. As a government, the

only thing they could do was make it even worse by adding even more punitive

penalties to the non-profits. I'm not going to sit in this chamber and be

lectured by that member and her opposition colleague on the issue. Clearly,

they've got a big problem here.

J. Kwan:

Let's just go through these items. Actually, you know what? The minister just

finally came clean on some of the items that societies would be able to claim as

fair and legitimate compensation. He actually made a list of some of those

items: architectural fees, development cost fees, land-related fees, legitimate

staff fees, etc. — costs. That's all I was asking for — a list and simple

answers from the minister — and the minister refuses to answer.

Hon. G.

Abbott: You were actually asking for dollar figures?

J. Kwan:

Yes, I was asking dollar figures. What kind of ballpark are we looking at? I am

interested in knowing whether or not this government has budgeted this item and

for how much. The minister claims that the amount would be not as costly as

actually building these units. Well, what percentage? It's the public who ought

to make the judgment whether or not the government acted rightly or wrongly by

cancelling these allocations and therefore have the taxpayers incur a cost for

compensation and mitigation.

That's all

I was trying to determine from an open, accountable, new-era government — this

Liberal government. How are they budgeting their things, and how are they

justifying these kinds of decisions? Also, I was trying to give comfort to the

societies who have lost money as a result of the cancellation of over a thousand

units, but the minister refuses to answer that question — until just now.

You have to

keep on pushing and pushing, and then he gets up and makes threats, in my view.

He answers with a tone of threat in order to give an answer. The minister is

laughing because he thinks this is somehow funny.

[1500]

The other

issue around the minister is that he wants to talk about the previous

government's record around housing. I'd be delighted to talk about the previous

government's record. Let's just review some items.

[ Page 1955 ]

B.C.

Housing, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was initiated by the former

government in 1994. It provides for a comprehensive housing program, wholly

funded by the provincial government, to provide low- and moderate-income British

Columbians with secure, safe and affordable housing. Homes B.C. is delivered by

B.C. Housing through community-based, non-profit co-op housing societies. In the

first five years of Homes B.C., 4,100 units of new housing were supported. In

June of 1999 the provincial government committed funding for another 2,400 units

of housing over the next two years under the Homes B.C. program. An additional

600 units were funded, through the Treasury Board process, in the downtown east

side and throughout British Columbia. That brought the total number of units

completed or under construction since 1999 up to 3,000.

Since the

inception of Homes B.C. in 1994, the government has committed funding for over

7,500 units of affordable housing in British Columbia, with a total capital

value of $833 million. To put the investment in perspective, 7,500 units would

have provided enough housing for the entire population of a city the same size

as, let's say, Prince Rupert.

Hon. Chair,

I am proud of this record. I wasn't there for all of that. I'm a strong advocate

for housing. Everybody knows that. I've always been and will continue to be a

strong advocate for housing. Yes, I am proud of the previous government's record

on that. Does that mean to say that there wasn't more to be done? Does that mean

to say that there weren't some mistakes made along the way? Of course the

previous government, just like any other government or any individual, made

mistakes — no doubt about it.

On the

seniors question the minister keeps on…. I think it was last summer when that

legislation was brought forward. I wasn't in the House. I was away on my

honeymoon. I think some members may well remember that. I think the member for

Vancouver-Hastings was in the House and acknowledged that should have been done.

She acknowledged that. That's my understanding of it.

If the

minister wants to continue to talk about the previous government's record, we

can go down that track throughout these estimates. If he wants to just be so

arrogant as to say that somehow the issues around housing should be minimized,

by his tone in this House, then yes, I will rise to the challenge, and we will

continue to debate these items.

All the

minister has to do is get up and answer the question. It's simple. There's no

hidden agenda around it. For the minister to imply that somehow it was my

suggestion that the society is trying to cheat the government…. It is this

minister who made that implication. I wanted to rise up and correct the minister

on that. If the minister wants to proceed with these estimates in a manner that

is respectful on both sides of the House, I would urge him to simply rise up and

answer the questions that I have posed for the minister.

The issue

around compensation. I'd like to ask the minister: has the minister, within the

ministry, sought legal advice around the issue of mitigation and compensation?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the latter question is yes. While the member's

revisionist history of B.C. Housing was in some measure interesting, it wasn't

entirely accurate. I should remind the member that in fact, B.C. Housing has

been in place since 1967. I think the member may have confused it with the Homes

B.C. program, which started in 1994. In fact, B.C. Housing has been in place for

35 years — thirty-fifth anniversary coming up. It's been around a long time.

They are now involved in over 55,000 housing units in the province.

Again, as

we talked about last night, I don't believe it's terribly useful or instructive

for the taxpayers of British Columbia to get involved in grand credit-grabbing

moments. I won't here. The important thing is that we have to remember that what

we have done with B.C. Housing since 1967 has all been funded by taxpayer

dollars. What we try to do as a government is ensure that for every dollar we

take out of a taxpayer's pocket, we secure the maximum public good for that.

That's where that's at.

The answer

with respect to whether we have secured legal advice is yes.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

Yes, I did misspeak myself. It wasn't B.C. Housing I was referring to. It was

Homes B.C. since 1994. It was actually in this period of time when a significant

amount of housing was developed and delivered in British Columbia. Yes, it was

the previous government who did that, and yes, I am proud of that record.

The

minister tried to intimate that exposing a number associated with the

compensation and mitigation question will somehow create a situation of grand

credit-grabbing. I think those were exactly his words.

I have

faith in the societies out there that are dealing and grappling with this tough

situation they find themselves in. They had letters they received from B.C.

Housing advising them that their project would proceed and that they had the

unit allocation to proceed. Now all of a sudden they find themselves with a

cancellation and incurred costs.

I don't

actually think there's any society out there that would go and make up costs

that weren't legitimate. I don't think people would look at it as a grand

credit-grabbing scheme, as the minister would like to suggest. All I want and I

think the societies want is to ensure that there is fairness in this process and

a better understanding of how to proceed within what would be considered to be

legitimate and to go through that accordingly.

The

minister could be very helpful if he just set aside…. I know he likes to think

he's non-partisan in his approach. If he could just put aside his high note of

partisanship in this House for one moment, we can get through this estimates

process. Last night he was singing so high with his partisanship credentials….

The

[ Page 1956 ]

notes were so high that I was worried the windows were going to shatter in

this House.

The

minister says that they have sought legal advice on this issue. When does the

minister expect this work to be completed, in terms of working through the

societies on the compensation question?

Introductions by Members

Hon. K.

Whittred: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Hon. K.

Whittred: In the gallery I see a group that the Minister of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services and myself met with this morning. They are from

an organization called Seniors Housing Information Program, otherwise known as

SHIP.

I wish to

say that we had a very informative meeting. Present in the group are Gordon

Gram, president; Rose Bergen, vice-president; Doris Routcliffe, secretary; Tony

Hardy, treasurer; and Val MacDonald, who is the executive director of the

organization.

Will the

House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm very pleased to join with my colleague in also welcoming the

folks from SHIP. We had a very good meeting this morning, and I'm delighted to

join in welcoming them to the House.

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Abbott: We certainly proceed on this side of the House and at B.C. Housing

assuming that everyone has the best of intentions as they proceed. I don't think

there's any question about that.

The

discussions have begun. One can never know what length discussions will take. It

will depend on the character and the complexity of the negotiation. That is

precisely the same as any other discussion and negotiation that goes on.

J. Kwan:

Will B.C. Housing be bringing lawyers to these discussions, or would it be just

on a staff level with legal advice?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We will not be involving lawyers in the discussion. It will be staff

from B.C. Housing and the societies. We expect the discussions will be amicable

and fruitful.

[1510]

J. Kwan:

There are no time lines on these discussions. There's no budget that we can

glean from on these issues. I understand from the minister that discussions have

already started on these items and that they will not bring lawyers into the

discussion from the ministry.

The

questions around the discussions with the society. Take, as an example, where

there's a parcel of land. Let's say that land is involved, and the mortgage

costs of the land are going up. The project has been cancelled because the

allocation has been cancelled. If the society puts the land on the market and

it's not sold, then the land is still there and the society has to hold a

mortgage. The land is not sold. They're trying to mitigate their damage, but

they might not be able to do so. In the meantime they're still assuming costs.

Would the

government undertake to compensate for those ongoing costs? As long as the

society's demonstrated that they have attempted to mitigate costs as best they

can, then on that basis would the government be compensating the society?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I'm happy to respond to the question here. I do want to

emphasize once again, though, that I think it's only the member opposite who

senses that the sky is falling here. That's certainly not the impression we are

getting from the non-profit societies around the province. I think the great

majority of people want to develop projects that are going to enhance the public

good in British Columbia. I'm sure they want to work very hard strengthening

their partnership so that in fact they will be able to proceed.

For those

that can't proceed, we have certainly resolved to treat them fairly and

equitably. We can certainly look at land compensation, but I do have to advise

the member that in only one case has there been acquisition of land, and in that

case it was for $1. Again, I'm not quite sure where she's going with this, but I

don't believe the sky is falling around that point.

J. Kwan:

I know that the government members and government ministers, every time the

opposition rises up and raises an issue that perhaps they don't like or don't

agree with, start to intimate that the members in opposition are fearmongering.

Lo and behold, with MSP premiums — my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had

projected that MSP premiums would go up. At that time the government members

said: "Oh, these guys are just fearmongering." Sure enough, the cost

for MSP has actually gone up. I don't know who's really fearmongering.

All I'm

trying to do is get a sense of what this government would consider and deem to

be fair compensation and what would not, how that process would unfold, what

kind of protection would be afforded to the societies to hopefully move forward.

Of course I

would love it, and I would be the first to congratulate the government if all

those units that have now been cancelled will somehow be brought back to the

table and continue to proceed. I would applaud the government if they proceeded

with that kind of action. I am a strong advocate for housing, and I don't care

which government does it as long as they do it. That's good news for British

Columbians who are waiting for safe, secure, affordable housing throughout….

[1515]

The

minister mentioned yesterday that they are still working with ongoing partners

on some of these projects and trying to strengthen partnerships. He said

[ Page 1957 ]

yesterday that the partnership question is actually a mandatory component for

projects proceeding. I don't agree with that necessarily. I don't think every

society in every community would necessarily be able to bring in partnerships at

the level the government likes, but that doesn't mean they don't need housing

there. So I don't necessarily agree with that approach. Then again, it's two

different philosophies. I understand that. They have their ideology, and I have

my different approach to providing safe, secure, affordable housing as a

priority for British Columbians.

Out of

those 1,000 units, is the minister anticipating that a number of them will

actually proceed with ongoing work? If so, how many? Does the minister

anticipate there would be another announcement come forward announcing more

affordable housing for British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Abbott: In terms of the mandatory character of the partnerships, it is

abundantly clear that in every case where a new affordable housing project is

being contemplated, it will reside within a regional district, within a

municipality or certainly within a health authority, and so on. All of those

have resources they can bring to the table. Municipalities, in particular,

frequently have land they are willing to dedicate to make projects work. In

other cases, they'll bring DCC costs to the table; they'll bring servicing to

the table. The health authority can bring to the table a commitment to funding

beds. There's a whole range of ways in which those partnerships can be built.

Additionally,

as I noted yesterday, British Columbia is the first province in Canada to sign a

federal-provincial affordable housing agreement with the federal government. I

understand that Nunavut has since signed, and perhaps other provinces have as

well, but British Columbia was the first. So we are able to engage federal

dollars in those projects as well.

All this

serves to make the taxpayer's dollar in British Columbia go further, produces

more housing units and produces more public good as a consequence. We believe

that is exactly the right approach to take, and that is the one we're going to

proceed with.

J. Kwan:

I asked the minister this question: of those 1,000 units or so that have been

cancelled, how many does he think would actually proceed through further work

around partnership? And is there a pending announcement around those projects?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The question is of an entirely hypothetical character. Given that we

don't know what additional resources any of those 20 or so projects might bring

to the table, it's impossible to answer.

J. Kwan:

The minister said he was hopeful that some of those projects would proceed. I

think I heard him correctly on that. I would assume the staff at B.C. Housing

would continue to work with some of these societies, especially where…. I

would expect, actually, the societies would have to make this decision in the

case where they don't actually have to incur extra costs. Otherwise, if the

project doesn't proceed, they'll be out of pocket. I would assume that would be

with groups who were prepared to take that risk, and I presume it would be with

the understanding that there would be allocations down the road. If there

weren't allocations down the road, there's no sense in keeping on asking people

to keep working on this.

My question

to the minister is: does he anticipate there will be further announcements in

terms of affordable housing development in British Columbia? If so, how many

units? What kind of ballpark are we looking at? How hard should these people be

working to try to hang in there in the hopes that they may get the allocation

reinstated?

[1520]

Hon. G.

Abbott: As I laid out in some detail last night, what we are going to be

doing as a government is designing our housing policy around meeting the needs

of the most vulnerable in British Columbia society. That may be the frail

elderly, the mentally ill, the physically incapacitated, the homeless and so on.

We will be targeting our precious taxpayer dollars to produce the maximum number

of housing units and the maximum public good from the expenditure of each and

every one of those taxpayer dollars.

So, yes,

certainly we will be hearing in the weeks, months and years ahead of further

projects that will meet the bill in that regard.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister then mean to say that within his ministry budget he has

additional dollars of unannounced projects, unit allocations that could be

awarded to societies? Is that what he's saying? He's saying "weeks, months

and years ahead." In the next four years, hopefully, this government will

continue to commit to building affordable housing in its term.

Does the

minister mean to say that in his existing budget now there are unallocated

dollars that could be awarded to societies for the development of affordable

housing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, to repeat what I said, this government is committed to

attempting to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable in society. We

have a budget allocation which we will use this year. We will be spending more

on housing in British Columbia this year than any government ever has before in

the history of this province. We will be spending more than even the former

government did with respect to housing.

We've made

a commitment. We've got the budget dollars to back it, and frankly, again, one

of the opportunities and responsibilities we have on the government side is to

ensure that every taxpayer dollar in this province is used to greatest and most

beneficial effect.

If the

member is trying to probe a future policy here, the answer is the same as she

would have given when she was on this side of the House; that is, that's

[ Page 1958 ]

future policy — unless I'm misunderstanding her question.

The

member's showing a degree of frustration across the floor, Mr. Chair, which

concerns me. I do want to make her happy and provide satisfactory answers, but

I'm not going to stray into the area of future policy in order to do it.

J. Kwan:

I wish the minister would be a little bit less suspicious. I'm simply asking

these questions straight up, with no hidden agenda whatsoever. I'm just trying

to get a sense of what is going on with this government around housing and its

budget related to that.

I'm drawing

on what the minister had said — most of it yesterday and some of it, I

suppose, earlier today. The minister fails to understand…. Maybe I'm not

clear. So let me just try this again.

I know the

minister is saying that this government is spending more money than any other

governments before. Well, yes, of course, because the fact of the matter is that

in the housing budget when you build a project, it has a life that carries on

for a minimum of 30 or 35 years. Those are subsidy dollars, and each year is

cumulative. I understand that. As you develop more housing, housing that was

committed and built under the previous government, those costs continue. I

understand that too. With these 700 units of housing that are proceeding out of

the 2,300 units of funding that were allocated and earmarked for housing under

the previous government, 700 of those will proceed. I understand that too. So of

course the dollars will continue to increase until the subsidy runs out and the

life of the project runs out, if you will. I understand that point.

[1525]

My point to

the minister is this. He was suggesting that B.C. Housing will continue to work

with groups to build partnerships to get housing, hopefully, developed in

British Columbia. Out of this year's budget — and given that it is a

three-year service plan; it's three years in the document that has been tabled

— and then for the next three years in terms of the service plan in terms of

this government's planning in the area of constructing new, affordable housing,

are we looking at…? Is there any more money in this year's budget for other

units that have not yet been allocated? If so, how much, and how many units are

we looking at?

Then the

other question is: for the next two years within the service plan, can the

community expect that there will be, at a minimum, 700 units of housing

constructed under this government?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member got it mostly right in her last comments. Most subsidy

agreements do run for 30 or 35 years. The great thing, of course, is that not

all the units were built in the last ten years, notwithstanding the member's

suggestion that they were. The last ten years perhaps seemed like 35 years, but

it was actually only ten years. We have opportunities as we move forward to try

to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable in society. I think we've

secured a healthy, responsible budget allocation for housing.

We are

going to continue to work very hard with all of our potential partners,

including some of the folks who are among the list of projects that did not

proceed yesterday. We'll continue to work with them, provided that we see their

goals lining up with our goals, provided we see evidence that strong

partnerships are being brought into the equation. I'm very optimistic that we

will see lots of new, affordable housing for British Columbians in the years

ahead.

J. Kwan:

The minister just cannot resist, I don't think — so far he hasn't been able to

demonstrate that he could — twisting my words and putting them out of context.

I don't think I ever said — and I stand corrected if I said — that housing

was only built in the last ten years. I don't think I ever said that, hon.

Chair.

I actually

know that CMHC, the federal government, before they pulled out of housing in

1993, contributed significantly to the pool of affordable housing in British

Columbia. Ever since they pulled out, advocates all across the land, across

Canada, have been trying to advocate for the federal government to come back to

the table. Just last year they were starting to signal that they were coming

back to the table with the SCPI grants, amongst others. For the minister to

suggest that somehow I thought all of the housing in British Columbia was built

in the last ten years…. That is absolutely incorrect. We'll check Hansard

on that, not to worry.

[1530]

The

minister evades the questions I've asked, though. I guess he's just too intent

on rhetoric. I'll ask the minister this question one more time. I'll just ask

one question at this point. We'll break it down so that I can get these answers

and get through these estimates.

I asked the

minister the question…. They've announced 700 units of affordable housing

approximately, and they have advised that they're continuing to work on

developing housing and that hopefully there'll be other projects announced.

Let's just

start with this year's budget. Are there any dollars left over that are not yet

allocated for the purposes of developing affordable housing? If yes, how much?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes.

J. Kwan:

It truly is one question at a time, then. How many dollars are left over for

the development of the affordable housing from this year?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We do have some funds remaining. We will be releasing further

details with respect to additional activities at the appropriate time.

J. Kwan:

Correct me if I'm wrong, minister. We're in the estimates of housing, and

within the estimates of housing we're trying to figure out how this spending is

going to take place within the ministry. The ministry

[ Page 1959 ]

has now announced 700 units. I'm not asking for specific details around what

units or what project or anything like that. I'm just wondering: within your

budget, how much money is left unallocated for housing? The minister said there

is money left over. How much? How many more units can British Columbians expect

would be developed in British Columbia in this year's budget?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We do have some residual funds in the budget for B.C. Housing.

Again, we are going to continue to work with our partners to explore what can be

done. Again, what will happen in the next weeks and months will depend on the

nature of the discussions that we have. We are always looking for opportunities

to work with people, to do more, whether it's through housing units or rental

supplements and so on. There are any number of opportunities that are available

to us, but, again, we have to work with people in order to move ahead. I can't

anticipate at this point every twist and turn that might occur in those

discussions, but obviously we are going to be looking forward to further

opportunities.

[1535]

J. Kwan:

Hon. Chair, I can't tell from this minister. Is it that he just doesn't know the

answer or that he just doesn't want to give it?

I don't

think there is some big secret around these kinds of things. You know, if

there's a budget, which the minister has, for housing and it will go to so many

units…. In previous years, as far as I can recollect — at least, certainly

within the period in which I served, in the last five years — when government

comes out to make an announcement around housing, usually around budget time,

they will say, "We are going to do 700 units; we're going to do 1,000

units, or 14,000" — whatever. They make an announcement like that so that

people know — right? Societies can prepare and try to sort of figure out

whether they want to try and access those funds to develop housing projects in

their society. It gives people a sense of what to shoot for — right? — and

whether or not they should be putting their energies there.

That's all

I'm trying to get at so that people in the public would know, in this open and

transparent government, what it is they can shoot for. If there are still

dollars in the budget, which the minister has said there would be, how many more

units can people anticipate they could apply for funding for to get projects

developed? That's all.

In past

practices, that's how it's been done. I'm just trying to get a sense, to give

some more hope out there in the broader community. You know, the minister often

accuses me of fearmongering. I'm trying to create hope in the community.

It's good

news; it actually really is. I'll help spread the word — honest, I will —

that there is more money within the government to do affordable housing:

"You can look forward to this many more units in your community, so get

working, guys, and get those partnerships happening, and so on and so

forth." That's all I'm trying to get at.

Maybe the

minister, if he just doesn't know the answer, can get up and say: "I don't

know the answer. Sorry, member." Or he can just be honest and share the

information.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Thank you. I'm glad I finally now understand the question. We want

to see societies, non-profits, come forward today if they wish. If they've got a

reasonable proposal to make to us in terms of the funding being targeted

appropriately, in terms of those important equity partnerships being in place,

we may be able to move their project ahead.

Again,

these things don't happen overnight. People are constantly in touch with B.C.

Housing. People should bring their ideas and their proposals forward. If they're

ready today, bring them forward today. As soon as we can fit their project

within our sustainable budget line, then we'll move. The member is asking me to

indulge in hypothetical exercises here. We don't know outcomes before the

discussions begin.

I have a

great belief in the people of British Columbia wanting to come forward with good

ideas and strong partnerships aimed at strengthening their communities. That's

what this is about. We encourage them to come forward today. Whether the project

is built this year, next year or the following year, we don't know until we work

through the project detail. That's why Shayne and his team at B.C. Housing have

been remarkably successful. They are very expert and very knowledgable at

working through those things. That is what I strongly encourage anyone who is

interested to do.

J. Kwan:

Quite honestly, the minister is being — what is the right word? — very

difficult, actually, in answering straight-up, straightforward questions. Maybe

this is where the minister doesn't understand, and perhaps I can explain it to

him. I came from the non-profit sector before I entered the dark side and became

a politician. I used to write proposals. Societies, generally speaking, never

have enough money to hire someone who will write proposals. Many of the staff

with societies and volunteers put their time in and pore over funding

applications and proposals that come forward, trying to create these partners,

trying to get a project up and running. They invest a lot of time, energy and

resources into that.

[1540]

Now, of

course, in an environment where you could write as many proposals as you want

and the government says: "There is no budget for this. Please

don't…." A case in point, as an example: if you send a proposal to the

government for even a fabulous project with all kinds of partners, but the

government only has a budget of, let's say, $2 million — I'm just using this

as an example — and your project costs, let's say, $4 million even in

partnerships with others…. Let's say the total cost of the project is — I

don't know — $6 million. There's no point, you see, in bringing a project like

that

[ Page 1960 ]

to the government's consideration. As I understand it, the signal's been sent

by this government that we're hell-bent on the bottom line, and very few things

will actually derail us in that direction. It is important for the societies to

know what it is they're looking at and what parameters they're looking for in

order to apply for these dollars.

I don't

think it's a secret. Or maybe it is in this minister's mind — that it somehow

is a big secret. For him to say that within his budget he has this much money

for unit allocations…. They have now announced 700 of those, and there's still

a portion of it left over. Yes, it's all dependent on partnerships, and so on

and so forth. How much is still left in the pot that people can work towards?

How many units are out there? If you're looking at the government only having,

let's say, another 50 units available in terms of funding for that, there's no

point for someone to get a site, as an example, and put a project forward that

has 75 or 100 units, because it's just a complete waste of their time.

I'm just

trying to get a sense here from the minister, and I wish the minister would

simply rise up and give a straight answer on those questions.

Hon. G.

Abbott: If the member is accusing me and the government of being fiscally

responsible, I guess we'll have to plead guilty on that count. It is, at

minimum, a refreshing change from what we had under ten years of NDP rule. Yeah,

we are fiscally responsible. What we have done is move from an atmosphere and an

environment of fiscal irresponsibility to fiscal responsibility. We have,

however — and again, I'm delighted to say this — notwithstanding the

difficult fiscal environment in which we exist….

If the

member had actually done her homework and looked at our three-year service plan,

she would see that the budget allocation rises every year for housing.

Obviously, we are committed to more housing in British Columbia. That is

entirely clear. If she looks at the three-year service plan, she'll get the

number for each year.

Now, I

don't want to be unfair to the member, but people don't decide to put in a

housing project today and expect that it's going to be built tomorrow. It

doesn't work that way. People have to work through, first of all, the parameters

around which government wants to target its funding. Again, we have talked about

that at length here — that we are going to be targeting the most vulnerable in

society. We're going to be entertaining proposals from non-profits, from

municipalities, from health authorities, from anyone with respect to things that

might be done in that regard. We look forward to seeing those.

First of

all, we have to see that the project meets the parameters. The second thing

we'll be looking is how strongly the proposal is partnered. If the proposal is

strongly partnered, it provides the government with much more flexibility around

the timing to proceed. In any event, whether the project is conceived today or

tomorrow or the next day, we have made a three-year commitment to a housing

budget. Obviously, we are encouraging British Columbians to come forward with

their ideas on how to strengthen housing for their communities and how to

strengthen the health, vigour and economic and social well-being of their

communities.

[1545]

J. Kwan:

I just want it on record for his staff's information. Earlier today, when we

began the estimates, the minister asked me how long I thought I was going to be

on the housing side. I advised the minister at that time that it would probably

be about two hours if the answers were forthcoming and that we could probably

move through the information and my questions at a fairly quick clip. It's

obvious to me that that projection is not going to be achieved, so just for the

minister's information and for his staff, I'm sure we'll be here until 6

o'clock. Then perhaps we'll back on Monday, as well, on the housing question.

On the

issue around how many units and all of those kinds of things, the minister still

hasn't provided the information for this year's budget. I don't know why that

is. I don't know if there's some sort of secret plan or if he doesn't know the

answer or if he just doesn't want to be forthcoming and transparent with British

Columbians on that question.

There is a

budget within B.C. Housing. Within that budget, about 700 units of affordable

housing has been allocated, so that budget has been targeted. Then I asked the

minister how much more is left over — how many more units we can expect down

the road in this year's budget — and still he refuses to give that answer. I

understand that in the process of creating partnerships…. In the previous

government, when you got more partners you could stretch those units bigger —

more units for British Columbia. I understand that totally.

I'm not

asking the minister to commit to saying they'll only do another 20 or another

ten or anything like that, but to just give a sense of what hope British

Columbians could have in the area of affordable housing in terms of new units

forthcoming, and he refuses. I don't know why he refuses to provide that answer.

I don't think it's a big secret.

Then I

asked the minister: in terms of the coming years in his service plan, what kind

of unit allocations can the public expect? Is it 700 units each year as a base?

Is that the base that people can anticipate? The minister didn't provide the

answer to that as well.

Fair

enough, the minister is saying that both my colleague and I — and we hear this

all the time in both Houses on estimates — should just pore through every

single page of documentation that comes through from the government. We admit

it; I admit it. There are only the two of us. We have to go through every set of

estimates in this House, in addition to bills. Sometimes bills and supplementary

estimates just get sprung on us ten minutes before we're in the House, and we do

the best we can to try and research the information and go through this process

and ask valid questions. Sometimes we might miss information. Sure, if you want

[ Page 1961 ]

criticize us for not spending enough time because there's only two of us and

we have to go through 28 sets of estimates in addition to bills that come

forward, I make no apologies for it.

The member

for Vancouver-Hastings and I are doing the best we can, and we're trying to get

answers for British Columbians. I'd like to remind the minister, as well, that

it isn't just us trying to find the answers to these questions. A lot of British

Columbians don't have the time themselves, either, to pore through the stacks

and stacks of documents that come through from government and to try and get

some quick answers. For those members of the community who might be watching,

this might actually be useful for them if the minister would just rise and give

a straightforward answer to these straightforward questions.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member doesn't have to apologize to me for the challenges they

face. The people of British Columbia made a choice back on May 16, 2001, about

who was going to represent constituencies across this province.

The last I

heard, at least, there are still only two Houses here: Committee A and Committee

B, the big House here. The member doesn't need to apologize. Even if neither of

them could get to a set of estimates, they don't need to apologize to me. That's

not a problem, as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to assist the member wherever

I can in terms of trying to bring her information up to date. That's great.

[1550]

I do want

to say this, though, and perhaps this will be helpful to the member. What we

have adopted is something other than the cookie-cutter programs we have seen in

the past. Obviously, we are going to be looking to more innovation, more

creativity and more flexibility as we develop new projects. These are familiar

themes which I have been articulating through these estimates.

I'm

delighted to hear that we're going to be able to continue on until 6 o'clock. I

know I personally wasn't going anywhere. Perhaps you were, Mr. Chair. I

certainly wasn't going to go anywhere. I love the housing area, and I'm pleased

to continue the discussion until six today. I guess if the member wants to, we

could go even longer. We could go through the weekend. That would be excellent.

I'd love that, personally. We could certainly go on to do it next week as well.

That would be excellent as well. Certainly, we'd welcome that.

We do need,

as we move forward with housing…. I know sometimes it's difficult for people

who have a particularly narrow vision to contemplate that there may be an

opportunity for broader innovation, flexibility and creativity in how we move

forward. It's not possible to say: "Well, if you've got X dollars, then

you're going to get X number of housing units or X amount of public good out of

that."

We have

moved away from a narrow approach. We are trying to embrace new ideas, with the

purpose of maximizing the housing value and the public good that comes from the

expenditure of every taxpayer dollar in this province.

I'll give

the member an example. We have recently been able to assist a housing

development in the city of Nelson. The assistance we've been able to provide was

not a subsidy. There was no subsidy involved. We were able to assist with their

financing. The housing project is going to be able to proceed as a result of

that.

That's an

example of a new approach, some new innovation. Indeed, as we move forward,

hopefully with many more projects in the future, we'll have an opportunity to

celebrate that innovation and the rewards that it can bring.

The

Chair: The member for…Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I'm going brain-dead

here myself.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, hon. Chair. There's often only myself or the member for

Vancouver-Hastings that rises up in this House and asks questions. In any event,

thank you.

The

minister is eager to engage in the estimates process for housing. So too am I.

It is a great area. It is an area I'm very passionate about. It's an area where

I see in my own riding literally thousands of people are in need of safe, secure

and affordable housing in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I represent

people who live in the poorest riding in all of Canada. The average income is

less than $20,000 a year. In an area known as the downtown east side, people

live in very substandard housing. They live in space generally spoken of as an

SRO — single-room occupancy. Children and families are living in this kind of

housing, not just singles.

It is,

generally speaking, a room that is 10 by 10. It doesn't have its own bathroom or

kitchen. If you're very lucky, you have a sink. If you're doubly lucky, you have

a hot plate. Those are the conditions that many people in my community live in.

Housing is

a very important issue for me as the MLA representing my community. I know that

as I travel throughout British Columbia, it's also a very important issue for

other communities as well.

[1555]

understand that there are situations whereby partnerships come forward with

substantive dollars that sometimes would allow for government not to pay the

subsidies. In fact, I know of one project in Vancouver where that did happen. It

was an innovation — no doubt about it; lots of creativity. I actually credit

the former chair of B.C. Housing, who's been very innovative around doing that

kind of work in bringing about those kinds of projects. I credit, actually, the

staff of B.C. Housing on that score as well. I know they work really hard to try

to materialize housing for people in British Columbia.

I asked the

minister a simple question, and he still didn't give me the answer. If he's not

comfortable giving how many units…. I tried asking this question in a number

of different ways. How many units can we still anticipate? He said: "Well,

you know, that would de-

[ Page 1962 ]

pend on what kind of partnerships." So I asked how much money has been

set aside still within this year's budget — not future policy but this year's

budget. How much money has not yet been allocated for the purpose of housing?

All he has to do is rise in this House and give that figure so that I get a

sense of what kind of hope could be anticipated by British Columbians who wish

to see housing develop in British Columbia in partnership with the provincial

government.

Again to

the minister: how many provincial dollars for safe, secure, affordable housing

construction development are allocated within this year's budget?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, the budget for B.C. Housing for this year and for the coming

two years is contained in the service plan as well. Further details are

available in the estimates.

Again, the

member talks about the challenge on the downtown east side particularly. There's

certainly no debate around that. We do find in that area some of the more

compelling challenges with respect to housing as well as other social issues.

I'm delighted, actually, that a number of the projects announced yesterday are

in that area. The Katherine Sanford Housing Society, a supported seniors

project; the Portland Hotel Society on Carrall Street; the St. James Community

Service Society on East 16th; the YWCA project on East Hastings — all are

projects that were announced yesterday.

Again, the

member doesn't seem to be getting this point, but I'm going to try once again. I

used the Nelson example. I want to give another example of where we can act as

facilitators for further housing through B.C. Housing. This is in the member's

riding. It's an SRO hotel. It was bought by the society — a 100-unit hotel,

downtown east side. Again, no subsidy from B.C. Housing but, again, an

innovative partnership where we have assisted with the financing.

There are

different ways we can do this. I know the member seems to be compelled to try to

drive everything into a certain set of silos, but that's not the way it's

working. We are going to celebrate innovation; we're going to celebrate

creativity and ingenuity. We are going to work very hard with our partners to

achieve successes. The member may want to dwell on the past, but we're looking

forward to the future. We know British Columbians are going to step forward, and

we are going to achieve great successes in partnership with British Columbians,

whether it's municipalities, other local governments, health authorities or

non-profits.

J. Kwan:

The minister still hasn't answered my question, and I know he's purposely not

answering that question. I don't know for what reason, other than to not be

transparent. Perhaps we have to read between the lines. Maybe there isn't really

any more money allocated for housing left over for this budget. It may be that

any project that is to be developed from B.C. Housing, from the provincial

government, would not be funded by the government at all. In fact, it would be

all these other partnerships that would take place. That's the only area where

British Columbians can see housing develop.

[1600]

Let me try

asking the minister this question. It seems that he's not prepared to share

numbers with anybody. Let me try this question. The units that were announced

yesterday…. Out of the 1,700 units, 1,000 have been cancelled. The minister

had announced 697 units of housing. How much was that in terms of the budget

line for the 697 units of affordable housing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The capital value of the 697 units, the 20 projects that were

announced yesterday, is approximately $100 million. The subsidy cost for those

units, once they are built and occupied, will be approximately $5 million

annually.

J. Kwan:

I just got this from my office — just a note. I'm going to share it with the

minister. Hopefully, it will assist us in moving forward.

The note

reads as follows: "A taxpayer who's watching has called in to say that

she's most annoyed that 'the minister is wasting my taxpayers' money in

ridiculous rhetoric. Why won't he just answer the question?' She wants it clear

that she is a member of neither party. She has also observed that 'the minister

is condescending and rude' and that this behaviour does not befit a minister of

the Crown. She wanted this information passed in to you, perhaps, for you to

raise it."

I'm sharing

this with the minister. I hope the minister will take this under advisement so

that we can indeed proceed….

Hon. G.

Abbott: Is it signed "Joy MacPhail"?

J. Kwan:

The minister says: "Is this signed by Joy MacPhail?" For the

minister's information, the member for Vancouver-Hastings is in the small House

going through the estimates of Energy and Mines. As is often the case between

the two of us…. There are the two of us, and we split ourselves between each

House to engage in the estimates process to try and find answers for British

Columbians and to ask questions of the government.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister says he's glad that I could show up for one set of the estimates.

Yes, both the member for Vancouver-Hastings and I try to split ourselves as best

we can to do the work that we've been elected to do, and that is to be the

opposition in this House. We try to show up whenever we can to carry on through

the estimates process, through bills, through all the different work that is

required of the members of the Legislature.

The

minister gave the information finally. At least I got some numbers from him. On

the 697 units of housing that were announced yesterday, about $100 million was

dedicated for capital, and about $5 million has been allocated for subsidy costs

annually. I understand

[ Page 1963 ]

from previous practices that those subsidy costs accumulate each year for, I

assume, 35 years. Is that the life of these projects that have been announced

— 35 years? Let's just start with that question first.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the question is that they are 60-year operating

agreements and 35-year subsidies.

J. Kwan:

I wonder if the minister could advise this House: how much money was

allocated on the capital side for this year's budget?

[1605]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, the capital value of the projects, as the member asked, is

$100 million. The government capital is zero. This is a P3 model that uses

private capital. The obligation of the government is the subsidy — the $5

million annual subsidy for 35 years.

J. Kwan:

I wonder if the minister could ask his staff to break down for me, then, for

this year's budget on the annual subsidies side…. The first year is $5

million, I take it, and then each year it accumulates — right? It's $5

million, and then it increases. How much in this year's budget has the minister

allocated for subsidy costs?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the question is $168 million in ongoing subsidies.

That wouldn't, of course, include the $5 million anticipated for the projects

announced yesterday.

J. Kwan:

Would the $163 million — $168 million minus $5 million — be for projects

previously allocated and completed, or would it include those that are under

construction and will be completed for this fiscal year?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The $168 million is the subsidy amount for those units that are

completed, obviously, whether in the past or whatever. Until the unit is built

and occupied, the subsidy amount does not apply.

J. Kwan:

Just to get it clear, the $168 million is for the projects that have been

completed. The ones that are under construction now…. Is the minister

anticipating that there are units that will be completed, so therefore their

subsidy would be required because they'll be completed and occupied within this

fiscal year? If so, how much is the minister anticipating? For the announcement

of the 700 units, the subsidies on those projects have not been included in this

year's budget because they have not yet materialized. They would not actually

come into the budget until after they've been completed.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I hope I'm understanding the member's question correctly. The $168

million does take account of the possibility of units that could be completed

and occupied in the current year. Again, that's not likely to be a large number,

given that all of the projects that were put on hold, effective last October,

were units that were not under construction at that point in time. Any project

— as we discussed last evening — that had begun construction, we have

allowed to proceed through to completion. When we're talking about the 697,

we're talking about units that may begin construction in the current

construction season. That's possible, and it is possible that some might even be

occupied at some point late in the current fiscal year, but it's not apt to be a

large figure.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

It will take me a moment to go through this, because the minister didn't give me

the information on that. I just have to look for it myself through the FOI

information that I've received. I have with me a list of projects that are under

construction. On that list we have — if you'll bear with me — the total

number of units that are under construction.

I'm sorry,

Mr. Speaker. I'm worried that if I don't get up and ask the question, a vote

will be passed without my getting the answers. I didn't want that to happen.

My document

doesn't give me a total sum of how many units are under construction right now

under the Homes B.C. program. Perhaps the staff could give me that number.

Perhaps they could give me the number of units that are under construction now

and the subsidies for those projects that are under construction.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Just so the member is clear, this is the provincial government's

commitment to new non-profit housing since October 2001. The new units, which we

announced yesterday, are 697. Units currently under construction are 1,383.

Units completed since October 2001 are 673 — for a total of 2,753.

J. Kwan:

Out of the 1,383 units that are under construction, how many of those units are

budgeted for the subsidy component? That is to say, it comes out of the $168

million of subsidies.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The staff don't have an exact figure with respect to that, but it's

anticipated that many of those 1,383 will in fact be in a position to begin to

have the subsidy agreement kick in. Provision for that has been made within the

$168 million.

J. Kwan:

The $168 million accounts for the ones under construction that would be

completed and occupied this year, so the subsidies would be covered and the ones

that have been completed prior to this year that are subsidized by government.

Does the $168 million include any other provisions?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Just so the member is clear, 673 of that total number of 2,753 have

been completed since October 2001. Yes, in their entirety, those are included in

the $168 million. Most of those 1,383 units that were currently under

construction as of October 2001 will be

[ Page 1964 ]

completed — not all, but most will be completed — and will exercise some

portion of a year's subsidy agreement. It's anticipated that some small number

of the 697 may be in a position to have their subsidy amount kick in as well.

Obviously, it's going to be a smaller number than the previous two categories.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

Of the $168 million that's dedicated for subsidy out of the minister's budget,

is there an amount targeted towards projects that are not yet announced or

allocated? I'm just trying to figure out whether there are any leftover dollars

out of those subsidy dollars other than what's been accounted for. That is the

completed projects, the ones that are under construction and will come into

occupancy this year. Out of the 697 units that were announced, some will be

completed. Are there any unaccounted-for leftover dollars there for other

projects perhaps?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer is no. Clearly, as we move forward, there won't be an

opportunity for any new project to be participating in a subsidy agreement in

this year. That's reasonably obvious at this point. That's within the $168

million. We do want to mention again the examples of the Nelson non-profit

society, which we assisted not with subsidies but with assistance on the

financing component, and the 100-unit SRO hotel in the downtown east side.

Again, it was not achieved through a commitment around a subsidy agreement but

through assistance in financing.

J. Kwan:

On the funding question, I know that the previous provincial government worked

hard to try and bring federal dollars back to the table on the issue around

housing. I know that this minister had gone to Ottawa, as well, and signed the

agreement with the federal government in dedicating dollars to housing. Could

the minister please advise the House how much money has been achieved in that

agreement with the federal government? Let me just start with that.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The federal-provincial affordable housing agreement which Minister

Anderson and I signed in December — British Columbia being the first province

to undertake an agreement with the federal government — provides $88.7 million

in federal funds over the next five years.

J. Kwan:

Is that $88.7 million for one year or for five years? I think it's for five

years, but I could be wrong on that.

Hon. G.

Abbott: It's a five-year agreement.

J. Kwan:

Then this number, perhaps, is wrong, because it's been speculated in the broader

community as well. Somehow the figure of $177.4 million over five years has

surfaced.

Could the

minister advise, if he knows, what this figure is referencing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: That's because it's a 50-50 provincial-federal cost-shared

agreement.

J. Kwan:

Then the dollars that the federal government is putting forward are

dollar-for-dollar matching with the province. That yields us $177.4 million over

five years. Could the minister tell this House the real figure of the provincial

contribution towards housing for this five-year period? It totals $88.7 million.

If you break that down into an annual amount, it comes to $17.1 million or so.

Could the minister tell us, from previous years, what was the amount contributed

by the province towards housing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm sorry. Perhaps I don't understand the question. Is the member

asking me what the former government spent on housing? Is that the question?

[1620]

J. Kwan:

Yes. I'm trying to draw a comparison in terms of the housing dollars that have

been dedicated towards housing. Out of this agreement, it's $88.7 million over

five years. It is cost-shared with the federal government, so the provincial

portion is $88.7. You break that down, divide that by 5, and it gives you about

$17.1 million and change. I'm just trying to compare what the trend looks like

in terms of affordable housing contributions from the provincial government.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member can go back and look at her own government's records. I'm

not about to do that. If she wants to look at her own government's record for

comparative purposes, she's welcome to do that, but we came here to debate the

estimates for 2002-03, and that's what we intend to do.

What the

member may not know, in terms of the federal-provincial agreement, is that one

of the reasons why British Columbia was ready, willing and able to step up to

the plate and match the federal government's dollars is that British Columbia

along with Quebec are the only two jurisdictions in Canada that have ongoing

program dollars to match the federal contribution. We are in fact looking at

$148 million in capital expenditure. We are not going to have any difficulty at

all in matching the federal contribution. The federal contribution is something

that is going to have a big impact in terms of improving the economics of a

whole bunch of projects.

Again,

having said this 25 times, I'll say it the twenty-sixth. The key to maximizing

every British Columbia taxpayer dollar is to ensure that every partner that

comes to the table brings resources. Now we've brought the federal government to

the table. Their $88.7 million makes a big difference in the affordability of

some of these projects. Again, I think the federal government very much shares

our view that we need to target our dollars to those that need housing the most

— those that are most vulnerable in our society.

It's a win

for us, it's a win for the federal government, and, most importantly, it's a win

for those British

[ Page 1965 ]

Columbians who will benefit from this housing in the years ahead.

J. Kwan:

Actually, I know that his staff knows the number even just for last year —

let's not go through too many years — in terms of what the contribution from

the province is towards housing. The minister's just refusing to give that

information. Yes, of course I can look it up. I can look back in my files to get

the information. I got notice last night that we would be dealing with the

housing estimates. My files are in my Vancouver office, and I couldn't get

access to them, so I don't have those figures in front of me. I was just trying

to get a simple answer from the minister, but he refuses to give it. Fair

enough. I'll look it up. I don't mind looking it up, even though I know that

staff, who are very diligent and have all these numbers in their heads, could

easily provide that information to the minister for him to share with the

members of this House.

What I'm

trying to get at on the federal contribution side is this. Maybe I can approach

it this way, then. To what extent is the federal government's contribution

responsible for the release of the approximately 700 units of housing that were

announced yesterday?

[1625]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Hopefully, this will be of assistance to the member. For fiscal

'01-02 the combined total — that is, B.C. Housing plus contribution from other

ministries related to housing — is $136 million. I believe that was the budget

figure from the former government. This year that combination is $142 million.

We're up net $6 million in terms of commitment around housing. Further to the

value of the federal contribution, $9 million approximately…. The contribution

of the federal government, in combination with the strengthened equity

partnership contributions, brought the partner side of the equation to nearly

$50 million.

J. Kwan:

Well, there now. It wasn't too difficult, was it, to provide the

information? I was just trying to get this information. It would really be a lot

simpler if the minister just actually gave the information when the question was

asked, so we don't have to ask it over and over again.

The figure

is that there is $6 million from the provincial contribution side and $9 million

from the federal side.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

That's the increase per year. Maybe I should just let the minister take the mike

and elaborate on that.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Once again, the budget figure for '01-02 — a combination of B.C.

Housing, which is the lion's share of it, plus about $12 million of other

ministry money that's dedicated to housing — brings the total to $136 million

in '01-02. The same apples-to-apples figure for '02-03 is $142 million, with

roughly the same distribution between B.C. Housing and ministries. Again, the

federal contribution on the projects announced yesterday is $9 million.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I heard all that information the first time around. The minister was in

his chair, and he was trying to say something beyond what he had just advised me

in the House. I thought he wanted to take the floor to express that, but he

didn't. He just wanted to reiterate the numbers. That's all right. I actually

thought he had something else to say, so I yielded the floor to him.

Then on the

federal contribution side it's $9 million and $6 million for the province. That

gives us $15 million in total for housing. The minister is shaking his head. He

can elaborate on that and correct me where I'm wrong.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There seems to be some fundamental confusion here. The member asked

me what the year-to-year budget increase for housing was in British Columbia. I

provided her with those figures: $136 million to $142 million. The member asked

me what the federal contribution to the projects yesterday was. It was $9

million. She has not asked what the provincial contribution was. You can't

assume that the year-to-year increase, budget to budget, reflects the amount

that applied to 20 projects that were announced yesterday. I don't understand

where the assumption or presumption around that would have flowed from.

J. Kwan:

I wasn't making that assumption at all. I understand that it is year to year

over five years in terms of the contributions from the federal government in

their agreement with the province. I understand that exactly. I'm trying to

clarify with the minister in terms of the provincial contribution. I thought I

did ask about the provincial contribution side — on the federal side and on

the provincial side. I thought I did ask that of the minister, but he's saying

that I didn't, for whatever reason.

[1630]

Of the

moneys that have been allocated for the units that were announced, $9 million is

from the federal side. In terms of the commitments from the federal government

— that $9 million — is that from the $88.7 million? Or is it from a

different program, called the SCPI program?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The money is from the federal-provincial affordable housing

agreement. SCPI money is separate from that. That's a different pot of federal

money.

J. Kwan:

The units that were announced yesterday — were there no SCPI dollars involved

in that? I thought there were.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There were some federal SCPI dollars on those projects that were

targeted to Homeless–At

[ Page 1966 ]

Risk. There were some federal SCPI dollars that went into those particular

projects. Staff don't have those precise figures here, but we'd be glad to get

them for the member if the member would like them.

J. Kwan:

Yes, actually, I would like to get the information in terms of the breakdown of

the projects. Perhaps the member could provide me all of this information for

all the projects — the breakdown of the federal contribution, the provincial

contribution, the private sector contribution, the community contribution, the

municipality contribution — so that I get a sense of how these partnerships

are indeed working in the broader community. I would appreciate it if we could

get that, perhaps, in the next couple of weeks. Is that reasonable?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The information the member seeks is detailed, but staff will

undertake to get her that detailed information on each of the projects as soon

as possible.

J. Kwan:

I'm just trying to get a sense from the minister of what kind of time line we're

looking at. A month, two months, three months, a week, two weeks? I assume the

minister and the staff probably have this information already, because that's

how they made a determination on which project to proceed with. It is based on

the partnership dollars. I imagine the information is already there, so it

shouldn't be too difficult to get.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Staff believe they will be able to put it into place within the next

couple of weeks.

J. Kwan:

Outside of the agreement that was signed that yields $88.7 million over five

years from the federal government, were there any other arrangements or

agreements with the federal government in bringing additional housing dollars,

whether it be for permanent housing or shelter dollars for British Columbia? If

so, how much and for what period of time, and how is the province contributing

to that? Or are we going to match those funds?

[1635]

Hon. G.

Abbott: We're not entirely sure whether we got the member's question right.

Just to be sure, there were no additional federal contributions to the projects

announced yesterday, apart from the ones we have discussed here previously: the

F-P dollars and the SCPI dollars. If the member's question was around the future

of federal contributions to the housing area, we do know that Human Resources

Development Canada is reviewing both the SCPI program and the homeless program,

as well as the RRAP program — the residential rehabilitation assistance

program. Those are under review, we understand, by HRDC. I'm not sure that was

what the member was asking.

J. Kwan:

I understand there are other federal agreements with the province in terms of

contribution towards housing. The $88.7 million is one of them that's been

announced publicly, but previously there were agreements, as well, in terms of

additional matching dollars from the province. Perhaps those agreements have now

been superseded by the $88.7 million. I'm not sure, so I'm just trying to get an

understanding on what other agreements exist with the provincial government and

the federal government on the issue of housing.

Some of

them may not be…. I know that the federal government is committed to building

not necessarily long-term housing but rather shelter, as an example. They've put

SCPI moneys into it and those kinds of things. I'm just wondering if there are

any other agreements that exist in trying to match and bring more dollars from

the federal government side to British Columbia.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The province receives, at least in '02-03, some $95 million from the

federal government for administering about 40 federal-provincial programs.

Again, we don't know the future of SCPI.

J. Kwan:

I gather that there are no other agreements, no other negotiations going on,

with the federal government right now in terms of additional dollars in the area

of housing outside of the $88.7 million.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The only other possibility in terms of discussion and negotiation is

around leaky condos.

J. Kwan:

I just want to get this clear in terms of the contributions from the federal

government. The minister said the contribution from the federal government in

this set of unit allocations is about $9 million. The provincial side is about

$6 million. It goes up annually. Well, the minister can clarify that for me,

because I'm unclear in terms of his hand signals from his chair. I can't read

his mind in terms of what he is trying to convey to me, so maybe he can explain

that. I'll yield the floor to him in a minute.

Just

looking at the $88.7 million, if you divide that by 5, that means that each

year's contribution is about $17.6 million on each side — right? If the

federal government's contribution so far has been $9 million, then we're looking

at a shortfall in terms of the contribution from the federal government side.

I'm just wondering: where has that money gone?

Hon. G.

Abbott: As I thought we had explained earlier, the federal government's

contribution comes in the form of $9 million in capital out of that pot of $88.7

million that's available over five years under the F-P agreement. The provincial

contribution comes in the form of a 35-year commitment to a $5 million annual

subsidy. So if we look at the net present value of that, in fact it is far in

excess of 50-50 in terms of funding for these projects.

J. Kwan:

The federal government's contribution is $88.7 million over five years. Is it

broken down — year

[ Page 1967 ]

1 you get $17.6 million, and year 2…? You get $17.6 million cumulatively as

such? So far we've accessed $9 million from that pot of $88.7 million over five

years. Is the government going to be using the $8.6 million that's left over

from the federal contribution for other projects? Do we get access to that this

year, or is it not meant to be divided by 5 so that each year the allocation or

the dollars from the federal government vary?

[1640]

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is considerable flexibility, and in fact that's one of the

provisions we negotiated with the federal government in terms of the drawdown

schedule around the $88.7 million. The money is reimbursed to the province as

the projects are undertaken. For example, with the announcement yesterday, we

would now be in a position to do a $9 million drawdown on those federal funds.

It's a five-year agreement, so as we secure partnerships, as we reach agreements

with respect to additional projects, we will see a gradual drawdown of that

$88.7 million over the five years.

J. Kwan:

This goes right to the heart of the question, which is why I'm trying to

understand the dollars: the federal contribution, the provincial contribution,

the matching dollars, how much is there, and so on — the questions that are

coming up, which people are wondering about because of that agreement.

People were

under the impression that with the 1,700 units of housing that have been frozen,

there are sufficient dollars with the federal contribution to actually have

these allocations made and honoured — not to have 1,000 units cancelled.

What it

seems to me is that the government has chosen not to allocate all of the dollars

from the federal government within that five-year span. The government may well

be saving the $8.6 million that's not yet consumed in the area of housing from

the federal government with this agreement out of the $88.7 million.

I'd also

like to ask the minister: are the federal dollars earmarked only for affordable

housing? Can it not be used for any other purposes?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is actually a detailed bilateral agreement between British

Columbia and the federal government as well as the overall framework agreement,

which we signed in Quebec last November with the federal government. How the

program is undertaken is determined by the content of those agreements.

The federal

dollars have the impact of bringing capital into play at the front end, thereby

improving the economics of the projects in question. They will allow us to build

more housing for more vulnerable people in British Columbia. If the member is

interested, she could go to the B.C. Housing website where we have in fact had

the federal-provincial agreement posted since December.

J. Kwan:

I just want a simple answer, and that is to say that the federal government's

contribution toward housing, the $88.7 million over five years, is earmarked for

housing only and cannot be used for any other purposes. That's all.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes, housing only.

J. Kwan:

Thank you. Thank you so much, hon. Chair. Boy….

Then, on

the question around the federal contribution, maybe the minister can advise. The

$88.7 million over five years — are those dollars just drawn and put into the

provincial government's account? Or is it in the federal government's account,

and when we draw down the money, they deduct it accordingly?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The agreement is between B.C. Housing and Canada Mortgage and

Housing Corporation. As the funds are expended, the agreement sees the dollars

flow from CMHC to B.C. Housing.

J. Kwan:

Just to explain for the minister why I asked this question. The $88.7 million

— if the federal government actually allocated those dollars to us and

transferred those funds into the government's account, B.C. Housing's account,

there's actually a big difference in terms of the interest. I know from

previously that in terms of looking at innovative housing initiatives, if you

can actually get the federal government to transfer those dollars to you into

the provincial government's account, you can perhaps actually maximize

opportunities for innovation in developing housing using the interest dollars. I

know that we explored those kinds of options a lot in the previous government. I

was just hoping that could be a possibility with the federal government's

dollars — earning their interest and making housing go a little bit further.

That's why I embarked on that question.

[1645]

The

minister said that the Homeless–At Risk Housing program is not cancelled, so

that's misinformation in the community around that. Is it anticipated that the

Homeless–At Risk Housing program will continue not just for this year but the

next two years too?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's suggestion with respect to the province enjoying the

benefit of the interest on the $88.7 million over a period of time is a great

suggestion. Unfortunately, it had already been anticipated by CMHC, and they,

probably for obvious reasons, would rather enjoy the interest themselves until

the drawdown is made than see the province enjoy it. That's part of the deal,

I'm afraid, that we entered into.

The

question around: will we still be including the homeless in our housing programs

for the future…? Yes, certainly we believe the homeless to be among the most

vulnerable in society, and we will continue to try to put together partnership

agreements that include the homeless. Again, if we look at the projects that

were approved yesterday, I'll make just a quick review of those projects that

were very much targeted to the homeless. Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation is a

Homeless–At

[ Page 1968 ]

Risk project. The YWCA project is a Homeless–At Risk project. The Nanaimo

Affordable Housing Society project is a Homeless–At Risk project. Options:

Services to Communities Society in Surrey is multi-service but also includes

Homeless–At Risk. So, certainly, yes, the homeless are among the vulnerable.

J. Kwan:

The Homeless–At Risk program, I take from the minister's answer, is going to

continue then. It's in place for this year. The allocations were made with some

of the projects that came out of the Homeless–At Risk program, but for the

next two years, where the government is continuing to provide for housing, then

the Homeless–At Risk program will stay intact, and that