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)

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Children's museum for Victoria

J. Bray

Mission school district

R. Hawes

Opportunities for northern and rural B.C.

R. Harris

Ministerial Statements

Softwood lumber exports to U.S.

Hon. G. Campbell

J. MacPhail

Oral Questions

U.S. softwood lumber negotiations

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Belsey

Withdrawal of services by physicians

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

Committee of Supply

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

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Abbott

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Neufeld

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

Hon. C. Clark

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

[ Page 2015 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

P. Wong:

It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House four distinguished guests in

the gallery: Mr. Li Yuan-Ming, who has just recently moved from the Chinese

embassy in Ireland to become the consul general of the People's Republic of

China in Vancouver. Accompanying him is deputy consul general Cui Huixin,

education consul Xu Lin and culture consul Zhou Yong. Will the House please make

them most welcome.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Santori: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce a good

friend and colleague of mine for many years in municipal politics. That's a

director and chairman of the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, Mr. Rick

Hardie. I would ask the House to make him feel welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'd like to introduce a constituent from Richmond, Pia Russell. I am

told that Pia is a world traveller and has just returned from Taiwan, where she

Hon. S.

Bond: I am very pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a group of

students here in the gallery. It is always great to have them in the precinct,

and I know that you will help me make them welcome: from Camosun College, Kam

Bhatti and Sandeep Nagra, and from the University of Victoria, Chris Lora, Sunny

Sundher and Darcy Bal. Would the House please make them welcome.

Chutter: It's my pleasure to introduce, from Lytton, the self-proclaimed hot

spot of Canada, Mayor Chris O'Connor.

Hon. G.

Hogg: There are two delightful young women here who have moved from Campbell

River. I'm sure their hearts are still in Campbell River, but they are now

living in Victoria, and one of them is working as the administrative coordinator

for the Minister of Children and Family Development. Would the House please

welcome Nicole Normand and her friend, Heather Wrightson.

J. Bray:

It's my pleasure to introduce four members of the Victoria community. They are

board members of the Children's Museum of Victoria Association: Patricia Lee,

Gary Ostro, Donald Shields and Linda Shephard. These four board members

represent many dedicated community leaders working towards the establishment of

the Victoria children's museum, and I ask that the House please make them very

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CHILDREN'S MUSEUM FOR VICTORIA

J. Bray:

I'm really excited today to advise the House about a new initiative gaining

momentum here in Victoria. I'm speaking about the potential founding of the

Victoria children's museum. The Children's Museum of Victoria Association, a

registered charity with a board of committed community members, has begun

developing plans and started fundraising for the first children's museum west of

Winnipeg.

Why a

children's museum? Children will benefit from a museum of their own where they

can learn about the world through hands-on experience. Imagine a place where

science, history and art all come alive and learning is fun. Families will

benefit from a special place to share the excitement of discovery. Schools will

benefit from a partner that can enrich classroom education. Tourists will

benefit from a place that the entire family can enjoy — the highlight of a

Vancouver Island family visit. We will all benefit from a place that celebrates

the joy of sharing and learning.

children's museum is a place where children and families can go to explore and

learn about the world from a child's perspective. In a traditional museum the

focus of an exhibit is on preservation, permanent collections and behind glass

displays with printed plaques explaining what the displayed object is about. For

a young child and even some adults, this type of presentation is dull and

doesn't meet the needs of how children learn.

Children

learn by doing. They want to touch everything — manipulate, explore and

experiment with their surroundings. All exhibits within a children's museum are

designed with this in mind. According to research, learning is most effective

when supported by active participation and hands-on experiences. Children are

natural explorers — touching, tasting, hearing and experiencing. It's the way

they learn. A children's museum is a place where learning and fun get all mixed

up.

Mr.

Speaker, we know that investing as a community in our young people pays huge

dividends down the road. As a parent of a toddler, I cannot think of a more

exciting community endeavour for all our children than a safe place for

learning, discovery and fun.

The

Children's Museum of Victoria Association is made up of members of our community

who care about children and who want to see our children thrive. They have my

support, and I ask the government to support this positive, exciting

undertaking.

[1410]

MISSION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Hawes: It's my pleasure today to stand and offer congratulations to Mission

school district 75.

[ Page 2016 ]

In spite of

the problems that we now have in our province and in spite of the full

maintaining of school budgets, there are challenges that all school boards are

facing. School district 75, however, has taken the situation they have and

decided to be absolutely non-political. They've said they have a job to do with

students, and they are willing to get on with that job.

We recently

passed Bill 28, which gave new tools and flexibility to school districts. The

Mission school district has embraced that new flexibility and taken action to be

the first in this province to move to year-round schooling. It's an opportunity

for students to get their education without the two and a half months off during

the summer. The school district has looked at this as a way that kids can better

retain what they've learned.

I'm very

proud that our school district in Mission has taken the initiative to use that

flexibility to make a better place for students and their parents. The choice is

now being given to students and parents, and only because that flexibility has

been offered to the school districts.

I'd like to

offer congratulations to both the chair and the members of the board of the

school district, as well as the administrator, the superintendent and all of

their staff. I think it's a wonderful move, and it's a great example of how

government working together with the school boards can make this a better place

for students.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

NORTHERN AND RURAL B.C.

Harris: It was interesting to see the media coverage after the last census

numbers came out recently. One story described it like this: the 2001 census

tells the tale of two British Columbias — a vibrant lower mainland still

experiencing strong population growth and an ailing northern rural region facing

the spectre of ghost towns.

The saddest

part of this coverage is that, in fact, it wasn't news to those of us that live

in northern and rural communities in British Columbia. This census has only

driven home and confirmed what every one of us who has lived beyond Hope has

always known.

We have

watched over the last ten years as policy decision after policy decision has

strangled our rural communities. We've seen friends and family pack up and move

away in search of work. While housing markets boom in the lower mainland,

families in rural B.C. watch their life savings dwindle away as communities

stagnate.

We've seen

our forest industry suffocated by red tape and regulation that soothes the

conscience of the south with little regard for the people of the north.

We've seen

a mining industry told to do business elsewhere, a technology industry ignored,

and we in rural B.C. have seen and now live with the results.

I am sure I

speak for all of my colleagues in the northern caucus when I say that one of the

prime motivations in seeking election or re-election was to create a new

atmosphere of opportunity in northern British Columbia. We know what the

problems are, and we are working hard with the government to find creative

solutions that will be lasting and durable.

We need to

build capacity. We need to present a united front. I know I'm running out of

time at this point and will talk about it more during my private member's

statement.

There is a

crisis in this province in the rural communities. Every member of this

Legislature needs to recognize and participate in reversing that trend of the

last decade. It is in fact the resources that reside in our regions of the

province that will be critical in restoring economic prosperity back to this

province.

I can tell

the House today that it can expect to hear a lot more from the northern caucus

in the days, weeks, months and years ahead, and for that I don't apologize.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Ministerial Statements

SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO U.S.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I rise today to speak about the brutal decision that was made last

week by the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose a 29 percent duty on our

softwood lumber exports.

It is a

punitive and outrageous action that will have heavy impacts on every single

citizen of the province of British Columbia. It has also generated fear and

frustration in communities across our province. But I want all British

Columbians to know that we are going to fight that decision legally, politically

and persistently, and we are going to win.

[1415]

That duty

is not just an assault on working families and forest communities across our

province; it is the most serious threat to Canada–U.S. relations in our time.

It is imposing a protectionist solution on the largest single trading initiative

in the world. A government that claimed to be for free trade has turned the

clock back to protectionism, and our challenge and our task is no smaller than

to get that government in the United States to look forward again, to think of

their consumers, to think of their workers and to know that we will not

sacrifice our jobs in this province to a small, protectionist band of lumber

barons in the United States.

The

President of the United States is currently going through Latin America and

espousing the benefits of free trade. Words mean nothing. There's only one thing

that counts: action. The government of the United States failed. They failed to

stand up for the principles which they espoused, and I want this House and the

people of British Columbia and Canada to know that we will not fail to stand up

for the principles that we espouse: free, open access to the American markets

and to all markets to benefit all workers in all jurisdictions.

The lumber

barons are fairly brazen — how competitive they are. They're afraid of

competition. They're afraid to stand up to the quality of our product, to the

[ Page 2017 ]

quality of our workmanship, to the quality of our workers in the province of

British Columbia. I know that as we move forward together as a province and as a

country, those lumber barons will fail. Their protectionist measures will fail,

because we intend to harness not just the talents of Canada and the provinces

and British Columbia but the talents of customers, of trade unionists, of

builders, of workers in the United States that say it's time for the American

government to put the interests of the public first, not those of a small

minority of lumber competitors that are not able to compete in the world of

today. We will defeat them.

What makes

this most frustrating, I'm sure, to workers across our province is that in the

wake of September 11, Canadian families from across this country reached out to

help their American friends. They understood that when your friend is in time of

need, you reach out and you help. The very families whose jobs are in jeopardy

today are the families who were holding bake sales so they could send resources

from their community down to the people in New York to offer support. They

reached out. Now our best friend has decided to slap those families in the face.

Hon. Speaker, that is not good enough. It's not good enough for us, it's not

good enough for the American people, and it's not good enough for the workers in

the province of British Columbia.

We must

move forward and demand not just a fair deal but a square deal for the people of

our province, for the workers of our province. I intend to work with the

Canadian government, with other provincial governments, with industry and with

the IWA to make sure that we speak with one united voice. I can tell you this,

hon. Speaker: everyone who was there, everyone who was part of this negotiation,

has said that the strength of the Canadian side was that we spoke with one

voice. The fact that there was not the political courage to stand up to a small

lobby in the United States was not the fault of the Canadian negotiators; it was

the fault of a political system in the United States that did not have the

courage to stand up to lobbyists in an election year.

[1420]

One of the

things we have to do now is map out a course that takes us through the next

months and the next years to make sure that when we do win this case — and we

will win this case — we have maintained and protected our valuable resource:

the workers of the province of British Columbia.

I want to

outline a number of initiatives that the government will take over the days and

weeks ahead to try and deal with this issue. First, I am going to call an

emergency summit on softwood. It will bring together the forest industry in

British Columbia, the IWA, provincial and federal governments, and

representatives of provincial and federal parties. I believe every British

Columbian should understand this: this is not an issue upon which we are divided

politically; this is an issue that we are united on. We are united behind the

workers and the communities in this province. We are united behind a solution,

and by being united, we are going to win this. The aim of the summit will be to

come up with a comprehensive and coordinated strategy that is reinforced by each

of those sectors: by industry, by other provinces, by the federal government, by

the IWA and by our own provincial government.

Second, we

will continue to work with the federal government to discuss options to create

immediate relief and support to help forest families through this difficult

period. I want to stress that we have been working with HRDC for some time to

deal with the challenges that are faced in transition as we go through the

difficult policy changes that we're all going to face in this province in

forestry, if it's going to become more competitive.

I talked

this morning and this afternoon with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of

Trade, the hon. Minister Pettigrew. They are aware of the fact that we are going

to continue to work with HRDC to try and focus our best efforts on providing the

families and forest industries and forest communities across this province with

the kind of support that they can expect and deserve.

I want to

be clear about one thing, though. We do not believe in subsidizing businesses.

This is about protecting families, and as we move forward and we develop and

finalize the strategy for doing that, it is important for us to remember and to

keep our eye focused on those families. It is very difficult to win an argument

that says we do not have a subsidized industry if we go out and subsidize the

industry. I think most people understand that, including those in the industry.

Our goal is to try and be sure that families have a sense of support, not just

We will

carry on with our fights at both the WTO and the NAFTA panel which has recently

been appointed. No matter how long it takes, we will pursue that endeavour. We

will move it as quickly as we can. Let's make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: the

challenge we face will remain that lumber lobby that tried to hold us up through

this last negotiation. The challenge will remain that lobby. They will try and

delay, they will try and put off, and they will try and hold up any proceedings

that we undertake. We will act as aggressively and proactively as we can to make

sure that this is resolved as quickly as possible, because we know that when our

case goes to the WTO and to NAFTA, we are going to win. We are going to have the

access to those markets that our workers and our communities deserve.

It's

necessary for us to understand that we are also going to have to fight this

politically. I noticed that on the weekend the IWA met, and they were going to

be dealing with some of their friends in the United States. We intend to work

with them. We intend to work with our industry. We intend to work with other

governments. But we intend to take our case to the consumers in the United

States. Thousands and thousands of homeowners are going to have homes put out of

their financial reach because of this protectionist decision by

[ Page 2018 ]

the Department of Commerce in the United States. We're going to talk to them.

We're going to talk to the builders who want to use our products because our

product is best. We're going to bring them together, and we're going to focus on

the very, very important concerns that people will have across the economy in

the United States.

At a time

when we're all trying to turn our economies around…. In fact, housing was

leading. Now, because of this protectionist measure, it is a tax on housing in

the United States. It is tax on home ownership in the United States. It is a tax

on homebuilders in the United States. We want to make sure that those people

understand the impacts of their government's decision on their lives, because we

believe they are on our side.

[1425]

Now,

some may say, Mr. Speaker, that we should have launched this earlier. You'll

recall that we did have discussions in the House about the issue of softwood

lumber last August. We pointed out that we did have a strategy that was set in

place to carry that political message home to the American consumer, to the

American homebuilders. I have had calls today from members of the American

homebuilders association saying that they are there with us; they are there for

us as we move forward.

After

September 11 we decided not to do that, and I believe that was the right

decision. We should remember that it's not our customers that are the problem;

it's the lack of political will and the lobbyists in the United States that are

the problem. Those are the people we have to defeat in this endeavour.

We will

continue to work with all concerned to make our forest industry more

competitive. We must carry on with our efforts to modernize our forest industry,

to eliminate unnecessary regulation. We must carry on to look at tenure reform

in the province of British Columbia. We must carry on to look at reforming our

stumpage system, as we said to British Columbians that we would prior to the

last election. We must carry on to work with first nations so they can have the

benefits of the forest industry that all other British Columbians share and look

forward to. We must carry on to develop a more competitive foundation upon which

to build our forestry future in this province.

I want the

word to go out across the province to each of those forest workers that in the

province of British Columbia, forestry, the forest industry, is a sunrise

industry with a bright future ahead of it, and we're going to work together to

make sure we deliver on that.

We will

work with our industry, with our workers, to diversify and expand our customer

base. In the fall we visited Shanghai, in China, and started the long process of

opening up that vast, vast marketplace to B.C. softwood. We have opportunities

in the subcontinent, in India, to equally expand the marketplace for our

softwood lumber. We have opportunities in Europe.

Remember,

if we've learned one message over the last few days, it's that you cannot rely

on your American customers to play by the rules. You cannot rely on our American

customers to treat us fairly. So we must rely on ourselves to go out and build

new customer bases, build new customer opportunities and expand our market share

in other marketplaces. Again, working together, not just with our federal

government but with forestry communities and with the forest industry across

this province, I know we can accelerate the expansion of our market share in

other jurisdictions, and we will work to do that with them, hon. Speaker.

Finally,

let me say this. I understand the frustration that people feel. I understand the

fear that many families are feeling right now. I understand the desire to be

able to strike back or lash out and find some quick solution to this problem.

Unfortunately, there is not a quick-fix solution to this problem. We are going

to have to work together to find mutual support, to move forward and to speak

with one voice. We should remember that in looking to save some jobs, we

shouldn't lose others. I don't think we should jeopardize jobs in parts of the

economy in the hopes that we can somehow bring the Americans to their knees.

Currently,

in Canada and the United States, there is a $90 billion benefit to Canada in

that trading relationship. Eighty-seven percent of our trade goes to the United

States; 25 percent of their trade comes back. So as we look at all the

opportunities as to how to pursue and how to go forward in this, I think we have

to be careful that we don't jeopardize one segment or one sector of the economy

at the expense of another.

What is

equally important is that not one British Columbian or one Canadian lose track

of the fact that the forest industry is the number one industry in British

Columbia. It has been throughout our history. It is today. It will be tomorrow.

It will be a decade from now. Working together, we can work through this

adversity. We will succeed in our endeavours, and our forest families and forest

communities will have a brighter, more secure future that they can all count on

and depend on.

[1430]

Hon.

Speaker, I ask all British Columbians to join with us as we go through this time

of trial. I want them all to know that we will do whatever is politically

possible and whatever is legally necessary to make sure we secure access to the

markets in the United States that rightfully belong to B.C. forest workers, B.C.

communities and B.C.'s industry.

Thank you,

hon. Speaker.

MacPhail: I rise today to join with the Premier in expressing the dismay and

the concern for the families and the communities who are so tragically and

devastatingly affected by the failure of any resolution for the softwood lumber

dispute.

I was

listening with interest to the Premier's remarks. I heard them for the first

time as he spoke them, and I have a few comments to make on the basis of his

remarks. I hope that we can actually learn from the

[ Page 2019 ]

failed negotiations. As a province and as a country, we do have an

opportunity to continue trying to resolve this dispute, at least for a few more

weeks. That's why I think it's so important that we learn from the past — what

exactly did happen during negotiations.

I know that

the breakdown in softwood lumber negotiations has left people very angry on both

sides of the border — and angry at each other. Canadian ministers and industry

leaders charge that the United States was dishonest and bargained in bad faith.

Frankly, in the United States they take that same position with the Canadian

negotiators.

I think, to

be fair, Canada does have reason to be angry. The U.S. duties that are now

imposed on Canadian shipments of softwood lumber arise from nothing more than

old-fashioned protectionism, as the Premier states. We know — and from day one

we've known this — that there's been no sound basis in law for that kind of

tariff.

But there

have been other acts that have failed us. As British Columbians, the North

American Free Trade Agreement has failed us. It has failed us desperately. I

think those dangers were clear to Canada when it was negotiated. Free trade —

I remember having the discussions in this chamber — dominated by one large

country will not work if protectionist-minded industries in that country, in

this case the United States, still have access to countervailing and

anti-dumping duties, as we've experienced over the weekend.

You know,

Canada was so intent on signing NAFTA that it deliberately concluded the

agreement without having resolved the matter of dispute resolutions,

notwithstanding the fact that it knew the consequences. As a province we have to

be prepared to understand that those dispute resolution mechanisms are not

available to us, as they should have been if Canada had pursued resolution on

those matters under NAFTA. NAFTA is working against us.

There were

elements demanded by the U.S. and principles upon which those demands were based

that would be harmful to our industry that were well known by Canada at the

start of the negotiations. Some were actually known by Canada to be absolute

non-starters. Instead, Canada and the provinces failed to clarify its principles

and to make clear to the United States at the outset which requirements were

workable and which were simply unworkable and unacceptable. Instead, Canada and,

I'm sorry to say, the provinces agreed to negotiate the very matters that it

should have known would inevitably lead to a stalemate. We need to learn from

that before we enter negotiations again.

[1435]

particular importance, there was the demand from the U.S. that forest policy

reform be on the table. The U.S. side was very clear from the beginning that it

wanted to end the system known as stumpage, where provinces collect fees for the

timber harvested. This system, as we all know, is at the very heart of the

charge that Canadian lumber is subsidized. Notwithstanding the fact that past

trade tribunals have clearly established that these fees do not involve a

subsidy, the provinces, particularly our province and Quebec, agreed to

negotiate a replacement for this system. More dangerously, they even asked the

United States what replacement policy it wanted, to which the United States

predictably demanded timber auctions.

We need to

learn from this, I say again, so that we don't repeat these mistakes if we get

to negotiate again. British Columbia and others agreed, thus creating the

impression amongst the Americans that the existing policy is faulty from a trade

compliance perspective and that the U.S. proposal was an appropriate position to

negotiate.

Perhaps

most telling of all was that Canada went into the negotiations completely naked

in terms of negotiating chips. I understand the Premier saying that we have a

$90 billion trade surplus, and therefore we have to proceed with caution, but

over the coming days the opposition will be discussing with this government the

negotiating chips that don't threaten our trade balance and don't threaten jobs

that now exist in this province.

Of course,

I totally agree that the best solution now is to go to the World Trade

Organization and deal with what instruments we do have available under the North

American Free Trade Agreement. Canada's case is a good one, and the U.S. case is

very, very weak. Canada, including the provinces, must now appear able and

willing to negotiate the situation that will get us to free trade in lumber. We

have to do a better job the next time around.

I don't

think it's any surprise that there's a feeling in some quarters in Canada that

both Canada and the provinces didn't do everything they could to stand up for

the forest workers and the communities in a serious and deliberate way. I know

that's the way communities are feeling today.

I urge the

Premier and his government this: if and when the British Columbia government

returns to the table, we must restructure negotiations. The principles upon

which negotiations are to be based must be made very clear by Canada. Canada

must be willing to use those things that will strengthen its hand at the table

and not play into the American agenda. Canada and the provinces have to be

serious about carrying through to the very end, if the U.S. remains

intransigent. That means that this government, if pushed, has to take a lead on

fixing NAFTA, because NAFTA as it stands now doesn't work for British Columbia.

I hope that

the government and the Premier will be mindful, in the interim, of the cuts that

are affecting communities beyond the softwood lumber dispute and that this

province takes a moment with its leadership to revisit the harm that we now can

undo in those forest-dependent communities even as we move forward — to have

solutions, as the Premier outlines, to deal with the immediate effects of the

softwood lumber dispute.

I say that

as the days unfold, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will do

everything we possibly can to learn from the mistakes and failures of the past

round and to proceed forward in a way that works for all British Columbians —

for those of us that

[ Page 2020 ]

own the resource and particularly for those communities that rely almost

solely on the benefits of those resources.

Oral Questions

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

MacPhail: Carrying on along that line, we know that there are many

communities that have been harmed and that are now deeply affected by the

failure of the softwood lumber dispute. Many of these families are facing

economic ruin.

[1440]

Clearly, as

I've just articulated, we have to regroup, and we have to develop new and

tougher negotiating strategies with our American counterparts. We can't just

repeat the mistakes of the past. We have to learn from the approach that didn't

work. Right now we ship millions of dollars' worth of raw logs south of the

border to be processed by American mills.

Has the

Minister of Forests considered telling the Americans who now receive those raw

logs free that as long as they impose unfair duties on our softwood, it's going

to cost them a hell of a lot more to get their hands on our raw logs?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It's my first opportunity to

provide a brief account of the extraordinary events of last week in Washington.

I'll do that and answer the member's question in the process. I think the member

knows that the team from British Columbia went to Washington to seek a deal,

admittedly a deal that made sense and worked in British Columbia but not a deal

at any cost. That was uppermost in our minds as the submission we received from

people who are feeling pain right now and have been feeling pain….

We worked

around the clock to try and get to that deal, but it became clear that there was

not a willing negotiating partner on the other side. For the Americans, there

was never an intention to get a deal. That was clear from their actions at the

table. It was clear that they have a President who, as the Premier says, talks

the talk but won't walk the walk when it comes to defending the principles of

free trade. That is unfortunate.

The member

identifies one potential lever. I think there are many. I think pursuing the

legal challenges, as the Premier has said, is paramount — WTO, NAFTA. I think

providing support…. Team Canada negotiated. We didn't get the result we

wanted, and now Team Canada needs to step up to the plate and provide the

support that those families are going to require to see us through this fight. I

think we have to renew our campaign in the United States. The issue the member

raises may well be part of that campaign.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, recently the Minister of Forests suggested linking our

support for the war in Afghanistan with the softwood lumber dispute. The Premier

referred to our support as Canadians that we gave to America post–September

11. But let me put this to the Minister of Forests: there is, as this government

knows, an issue that is very close to the heart of George W. Bush, the President

of the United States. That is that the President is desperate to get his hands

on Alaskan natural gas. He needs our cooperation. There is no way he can get

that Alaskan natural gas without cooperation from British Columbia. There are no

jobs that will be at risk by linking those two. The trade surplus is not at

risk.

To the

Minister of Forests: will the minister, if and when he returns to negotiations

with the United States — or today, as a matter of fact — make it very clear

to the Bush administration that as long as President Bush insists on supporting

unfair tariffs on our lumber products, he can expect no cooperation, zero

cooperation whatsoever, on any plans the Americans are cooking up to pipe

natural gas from Alaska through British Columbia?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The notion, I should say first of all, of returning to the

negotiating table — whilst not ruling that possibility out — is one I have

great difficulty contemplating. It's something like going back to a poker game

after you've found the other guy cheating. Until we get a genuine indication….

I think the strategy the Premier has laid out is going to be key. Until we get

some indication that the administration in the United States, President Bush,

actually intends to take action to defend the principles of free trade, we need

to consider seriously what is to be gained by re-engaging in an exercise that

was a travesty and a charade, Mr. Speaker.

[1445]

Imagine. At

the very time the President of the United States is down in Mexico, in

Monterrey, defending not just the principles of free trade generally but North

American free trade, his political henchmen back in Washington are sticking it

to British Columbia and sticking it to Canada. It made everyone in that room in

Washington sick to their stomachs to watch that unfold.

I think the

member points out with some validity the irony that would befall people who

contemplate the construction of a particular piece of infrastructure through a

town that has been decimated and left a ghost town because of protectionism on

the American side of the border.

I say this

to the member and to all members of the House: our challenge is to be smart, to

be resolute and to be united, and when we are those things, we will ultimately

be victorious.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplementary question.

MacPhail: I hope this Minister of Forests isn't ruling out any potential

strategy to assist the communi-

[ Page 2021 ]

ties, the workers and the families who are devastated by this softwood lumber

tariff. Every opportunity needs to be taken to assist those workers.

I say that

the federal and provincial governments need to develop a new negotiating

position with the Americans before the duties become final in early May. There

is an opportunity here to carry on with what the Premier says, to do everything

possible, but we also have to make sure in the meantime that forest workers and

their families are saved from economic ruin.

Today I

wrote to the federal Minister of Natural Resources asking the federal government

to consider a plan to provide repayable loans to companies to cover the cost of

the duty while we await the World Trade Organization ruling.

Along the

lines of doing everything possible for these communities, the workers and their

families, will the Minister of Forests support the opposition call for this plan

that will keep B.C. forest workers on the job, the communities strong and

families able to live?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm pleased that the member has taken the opportunity to engage

with Minister Dhaliwal, who has had some specific things to say in the past. We

are also working with him — have in the past and continue to do so — to

finalize a plan. It's a plan made necessary by virtue of the fact that our

forest-dependent communities and forest-dependent families are under attack by a

hostile foreign power. It's that simple.

The member

alludes to one strategy. The government needs, I think, first and foremost at a

time like this, to focus its resources on the people, the families, that are

impacted by this devastating trade sanction. In the days ahead I know and hope

that the member will work, as we will, with the IWA, with the industry and with

community organizations, so that we can focus in on where the need is greatest.

If we do that, we'll be able to support one another in the way that we need to,

to get through this challenge.

Belsey: Forest-dependent communities around this province have been

devastated by the collapse of the softwood lumber agreement. I have a question

for the Minister of Forests.

For many

months you have been negotiating in good faith with the Americans, yet the

Americans still imposed this 29 percent duty upon our lumber exports. This duty

will close mills and hurt families throughout my riding. Can the Minister of

Forests tell us what the causes were — why this collapse of these

negotiations?

[1450]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Protectionism — ugly, self-serving, destructive, duplicitous

protectionism — advocated by a small, admittedly powerful industry lobby and

embraced by a U.S. administration that has not the courage to stand up to that

lobby.

Our defence

of the principles of free trade will most certainly challenge us in the weeks

and months ahead, but as I said a few moments ago and the Premier emphasized, if

we remain resolute and united, we will meet and overcome this challenge as well.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast has a supplementary question.

Belsey: Free trade in lumber is in the best interests not only for British

Columbians and Canadians but also for Americans. Can the Minister of Forests

tell us what other steps — we talked about the gas pipeline in the northeast

— he is planning to use to continue this free trade fight?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Hon. Speaker, thanks to the member for the question.

In a sense,

we are back to where we were at the outset in this dispute. I think there are

essentially three tracks we need to follow. Obviously, pursuing the legal

avenues with all vigour — the WTO, NAFTA and the domestic court processes in

the U.S. — is going to be fundamental to ultimate victory. I think that in

addition, we need to elicit domestic support across Canada for the workers and

the families that are going to be impacted — provide that support while we

engage in this fight.

As the

Premier has again said, it is time for us to re-engage with the American public,

who need to understand that as a result of their President and their

administration's unwillingness to stand up to this domestic lumber lobby, they

will be paying more for housing. Many of them won't be able to afford housing.

We need to carry that message in ways that we had intended to prior to September

11 and, out of respect for what happened in the United States, chose not to.

Clearly, there is no appreciation on the American side for the steps we took

following the events of September 11, and it's time for us to be very active on

the domestic front within the United States.

WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES

BY PHYSICIANS

J. Kwan:

Forest workers and their families are suffering because the Americans are

negotiating in bad faith and refusing to honour signed agreements.

Well, today

we see the patients in British Columbia suffering also, because this government

is doing exactly the same thing with the health care professionals. Doctors in

Victoria today announced that they're cancelling elective surgeries as of April

1. The Premier met with the BCMA. That gave rise to this dispute.

To the

Premier: this government has been playing a game of chicken with the doctors,

and patients are losing. What plan does the Premier have to make sure these

surgeries are not cancelled?

Hon. G.

Campbell: What this government has been doing is trying to resuscitate a

health care system

[ Page 2022 ]

which was brought to its knees by that member's former government. As we

have…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …said in the past, our goal is to make sure we are focusing

health care resources on patients in the province. As the Minister of Health

Services has said in the past, he intends to continue to work with the BCMA, to

continue to work with doctors across this province to make sure that as we

reform the health care system, the critical component is always what is best for

patients — how do we provide patients with the care they need in the

communities where they live? That is our government's objective. It's our goal,

and it's what we intend to deliver on.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

This is what this government has done: by ripping up contracts, imposing

settlements, ignoring binding arbitration and cutting services, this government

has created an absolutely toxic environment in the health care system. Patients

are paying for it, and they're paying for this government's reckless approach.

This government's Minister of Health Services signed off on the arbitration

process. He said it had his 100 percent support. He can't blame anybody else

except himself.

[1455]

Again, to

the Premier: patients are demanding answers, and they're demanding answers now.

What plan does this government have to ensure that patients don't have their

surgeries cancelled? Or does he have a plan at all? All he can do is stand up in

this House and blame somebody else, and he has to start taking responsibility

for his actions.

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, let me be clear. I'm not looking around for someone to

blame for this. We all know who to blame for it. It's the previous government in

the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite asks: what has the government done? The

government has restructured the regionalization system so that we can focus

resources on patients — millions and millions of dollars on patients.

The

government for the first time ever is letting health professionals look at how

they can deliver services to patients in communities across the province. The

government has allocated 392 million additional dollars…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …to the doctors of British Columbia so that we can meet their

on-call requirements, their sessional and salaried physician requirements, their

fee-for-service requirements. All of those things are done because we know that

without quality health professionals, we won't have a quality health care

system. So, Mr. Speaker, we will have the top-paid physicians, the top-paid

nurses and the top-paid hospital workers working here in British Columbia on

behalf of patients in British Columbia.

[End

of question period.]

[1500]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information

of members we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines,

followed by the Ministry of Education. In Committee B, I call Committee of

Supply as well, and for the information of members we'll 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 3 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 19:

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

J. Kwan:

I have with me the press release and the signed document of the Canada–B.C.

affordable housing agreement. It's a five-year agreement, and if you break it

down, the $88.7 million from the federal government over five years averages out

to about 700 units of housing that the federal government will be contributing

to British Columbia for affordable housing over the next five years.

My first

question to the minister is: are the 700 units the government just announced two

weeks ago — those first 700 units under the federal-provincial agreement

signed in the December 18, 2001, agreement — the first 700 units that the

federal government is contributing under this agreement?

Hon. G.

Abbott: In answer to the member's question, $9 million of the $88.7 million

is used for the federal partnership contribution to the 700 units — or the 697

units, to be more precise — that were recently an-

[ Page 2023 ]

nounced. The balance of the federal funds will be used for other housing

initiatives over the next four years.

J. Kwan:

The agreement is effective January 1, 2001. Does that mean there would be

another 700 units then that the government will be approving after the April 1,

2002, time line?

Hon. G.

Abbott: In answer to the member's question, certainly there will be more

successful housing projects in the future. As I laid out over the last couple of

days that we have been debating this matter, we have developed in the ministry a

sustainable budget line for housing. The member can make reference to the

service plan that was released on January 17 to get the precise numbers.

Generally, on the ministry side, it's running in the neighbourhood of $131

million to $135 million.

We will

certainly have the capacity to be proceeding with more units in the years ahead.

The federal contribution, which is an average of $25,000 partnership

contribution per unit, will be most useful in achieving our housing goals as

well.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

What I was looking for is to see whether or not after April 1, 2002, for this

year's fiscal, there would be additional housing units that would be announced.

I assume from the minister, with this federal-provincial agreement where it is

over five years….The agreement was signed in December of last year, 2001. If

you break down the $88.7 million at $25,000 per unit, it averages about 700

units a year. It may be that the government is not going to proceed with all 700

each year consecutively per se, but rather they will mix up the units over the

next five years. Is it safe to say, then, that for April 1, 2002, there will be

additional units being announced by this government?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's general sense of this is correct, I think, if we're

reading her correctly. Again, I think we've emphasized this at a number of

points. Given that we are building a partnership model that includes not only

the federal government but also local governments, health authorities,

non-profits and perhaps even in some instances the private sector, we will be

examining proposals as they move forward. One can't say, given that we are

building these partnerships on a daily basis, precisely what the rollout will

be. I'm certain the member will be satisfied with it as it occurs.

Kwan: We already differ in terms of our priority for housing, to be honest,

minister. Early on in the debate, as we engaged in the debate, the Liberal

government had cancelled 1,000 units of affordable housing. I differ on that

perspective. I don't think government should have cancelled 1,000 units of

affordable housing. We see 1,000 units lost now in the housing sector in the

broader community, which is in great need of housing. Yes, the government has

come forward with 700 units of affordable housing, which they announced two

weeks ago, but I think the government should have proceeded with the 1,000 units

instead.

Having said

that, it would appear that the answer is yes to my question: "Will there be

additional units after April 1, 2002?" I think the minister's answer is

yes, there will be units approved after April 1, 2002. How many remains a

question. I assume that under the federal-provincial affordable housing

agreement, federal dollars will be transferred into additional units after April

1, 2002.

If you use

the numbers that are being put forward by the federal government on the amount

of dollars they have put toward housing under this affordable housing agreement

with the province, on the average of $25,000 per unit, you're looking at about

700 units on average, give or take, per year. One could assume that by the end

of this fiscal year, we will be able to see about 1,400 units of housing out of

the 3,500 units committed by the federal government. I would assume that is

correct. While you may not be proceeding with exactly 700 at this point and it

may fluctuate within the year, if you're using the assumption that those are the

numbers we're working with, then one could assume that we'd be looking at about

1,400 units of housing out of the 3,500. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Abbott: First, to address the

preamble from the member, it is correct. Of

the 1,702 units that were placed under review — again, we discussed this quite

thoroughly the other day — 697 will proceed, as was announced two weeks ago

now. There are about 1,000 units that will not be proceeding at this time.

It's our

anticipation and certainly the anticipation of B.C. Housing that in the longer

run, a number of those projects…. I think there are 16 or 17 projects that

encapsulate the 1,002. We anticipate that a number of those will in fact

proceed. We have issued a challenge, as I described before, to our partners to

see if there are ways in which those projects can be brought within our

sustainable budget line. It's absolutely important that we have a sustainable

housing program in British Columbia.

[1510]

What we

can't do…. It's all well and good for the member to get up and say we should

do everything. The challenge we have is that we've got to bring back some fiscal

discipline here in British Columbia. We have to find ways to get our fiscal

house in order, to move away from the serious, serious economic and fiscal

situation we face in British Columbia. As I noted in the House two weeks ago

now, the budget line which I inherited around housing would have seen us move,

all things being equal, from a budget of $126 million in fiscal '01-02 to $170

million in '04-05. That simply is not a budget line that is sustainable in any

fiscal environment, never mind the difficult, seriously constrained fiscal times

we live in today.

I do think

we have made a great achievement in developing a sustainable budget line that

runs, as the service plan notes, between roughly $131 million and $135 million

for this ministry, complemented by additional housing investment from other

ministries. That's a great achievement and certainly underlines the great

importance that this government attaches to finding

[ Page 2024 ]

housing alternatives for those who are most vulnerable in our society.

To address

again the member's point around whether there will be units proceeding, we can't

say with certainty that there will be 600, 700 or 800 in any given fiscal year.

What we do is develop sustainable partnerships with our partners — federal and

local governments, health authorities, non-profits, possibly the private sector,

and so on. If you do the simple math of $88.7 million divided by $25,000, it

does yield about 3,500 units, which would be 700 times five.

We talked

about this the last time we debated this. There are many occasions when B.C.

Housing can provide a facilitation and assistance role in projects. We talked

about one in the member's own riding the last day, and we also talked about a

project in Nelson where financing assistance was all that was required to get a

local housing project going.

There's a

lot of different things we can do, and we hope to maximize, in every sense, the

value of every taxpayer's dollar that's expended on housing. We intend to make

the best use possible of the federal funds, as well, so there is much that can

be done.

J. Kwan:

The minister doesn't like to use units. That's okay. The $9 million that's been

contributed by the federal government will divide up at $25,000 a unit, so it's

about 600 units instead of 700. It's about 600 units, then, that the federal

government has contributed under this agreement. Is that right?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The agreement we have with the federal government, the Canada-B.C.

affordable housing agreement, provides for an average of $25,000 per unit. When

we use less, obviously that allows us to do more units. There is no obligation

that it be precisely $25,000, and we will work to ensure that we get the maximum

number of housing units, generally, from both provincial taxpayer dollars and

from the agreement dollars of $88.7 million.

J. Kwan:

The announcement that was made two weeks ago…. Were those the first

contributions towards the housing agreement that the federal government has

made?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes.

[1515]

J. Kwan:

The minister talked about partnerships and that it would be mandatory for

partnerships to take place before any other affordable housing projects were to

be approved by government. I've heard that the new policy of the Liberal

government is that B.C. Housing would not deal with a non-profit group unless

they came forward with free land. Is that the new Liberal government policy on

affordable housing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The new partnership model is certainly mandatory equity. Whether in

every instance it would be land or not…. We would have to look at the

proposals that are brought before us. There are many different ways in which the

partnership equity can be brought to the project.

J. Kwan:

I'm glad to hear that societies are not required to bring land to the table

before they're considered. I've heard that ministry staff from B.C. Housing have

been telling non-profit groups that they have to bring free land forward for

their proposal to be considered. I'm glad that is not the policy. I'm sure the

minister will advise his staff to stop telling non-profit groups that their

projects won't be considered unless they have free land on the table.

I'm glad I

could have that confirmation from the minister, because it's an important point,

and it's been under discussion by many of the groups out in the community who

are concerned around that.

The

minister also talked about the list of projects that have been cancelled in the

community. The minister talks about how those projects may well proceed — or

at least some of them may well proceed. When can the community expect a

response, then, from the minister that some of these projects may be proceeding?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Just so we're clear around the point with respect to land, again,

there is no obligation that societies provide land. Typically, land is one of

the ways in which partnership equity is demonstrated. It frequently is something

that's very important to the economics of a project. I don't want the member to

go away thinking it's not important. Typically, it is very important, but we

certainly are open to instances where partnership equity is provided in ways

other than land. I don't want to theoretically dismiss those possibilities,

because. again, we want to be open as an administration to innovation and

flexibility with respect to that.

In terms of

when…. Is it 16 or 17 projects that didn't proceed? It's 1,002 units, in any

event — the 17 projects. We have already initiated discussions with those 17.

Again, it is difficult, when one is engaged in a discussion, to know when that

discussion will bear fruit. We will be working with those 17 to look at whether,

first of all, the projects they are proposing meet the new direction of housing

in British Columbia, which is to meet the needs of the most vulnerable.

Secondly,

we will have to be working with them on an ongoing basis to look at the

partnership equity which they are bringing to the table. It's the combination of

those two things which will be the measure of success and will in large measure

determine when we can make any further announcements with respect to those

projects.

[1520]

J. Kwan:

Yes, I did misunderstand the point that the government is now going to require

mandatory equity on affordable housing projects. That does differ, though, from

the requirement, the mandatory application, of land and free land only. My

concern is that I've

[ Page 2025 ]

heard from the community that community non-profit groups are being told by

staff from B.C. Housing that they need to come to the table with free land. I'm

glad to hear that is not the mandatory issue. In fact, yes, you need to come the

table with equity, but sometimes it's land and sometimes it's not. I'm glad to

hear the minister clarify the point that non-profit groups don't necessarily

have to come to the table with free land before their proposal is considered. I

would hope that the ministry staff would stop telling non-profit groups that,

because there is a lot of concern out there around this issue. I've been advised

by community groups that they've been told by ministry staff that they can only

come to the table if they have free land. I'm glad the minister has clarified

that point.

The

minister talked about that they will take some time to go through the 1,002

units that have been cancelled to see which ones meet the criteria. If they meet

the criteria, both on the equity envelope side and on the vulnerability side in

terms of…. I think the minister used the words "the most

vulnerable." Can the minister advise the House what he means by the most

vulnerable? What kind of categories are we looking at?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We've discussed this earlier in the estimates at some length as

well. Some of the principal groups considered in that description would be, for

example, the frail elderly who, in the absence of appropriate housing

opportunities, might find themselves inappropriately in acute care beds or

residential care beds. As well, the mentally ill are a group that we certainly

need to consider as among the most vulnerable. The developmentally disabled and

vulnerable families — a woman, for example, and a child or children coming out

of a violent or abusive relationship — would, I think, certainly be among the

vulnerable — and the homeless as well.

J. Kwan:

The minister talked about the frail and elderly, the mentally ill, etc. —

people who clearly would need some assistance to live independently in

affordable housing units. Yet, at the same time, the Ministry of Health Services

is cutting back on home support for individuals who are living independently. In

fact, when I travelled up to Williams Lake — I guess it will be three weeks

ago now — and visited a seniors home there, the seniors were just telling me

that the government has implemented the home support cuts by a significant

amount. In many of the instances, they told me that they were only able to

access personal support. There's no more support for shopping, cleaning, cooking

and all of those things that make independent living essential for the frail and

elderly, people with disabilities, illnesses and so on.

I'm

wondering whether or not the minister has any plans to address this issue, or

maybe he has already spoken with the Minister of Health Services. When the

Ministry of Health Services estimates come up, I'll be sure to ask those

questions, because those two things go hand in hand. We can't have one ministry

agency providing for housing and to support the frail and elderly to live

independently, but at the same time home support services are being cut, which

will jeopardize their ability to live independently.

Hon. G.

Abbott: This ministry is certainly looking forward to working with the

Health ministries with respect to the very considerable challenges we have with

respect to the frail elderly and other groups, which the ministry has

responsibility for. I'd welcome your guidance, hon. Chair, but I think the

member's question is clearly one that she should direct to the Minister of

Health Services at the appropriate time in the estimates of that ministry.

[1525]

J. Kwan:

Yes, I will be asking the Minister of Health Services those questions. I'm

curious, though — from this minister, who is developing housing…. Part of

the goal is, as he said, to provide housing for those who are frail, who are

vulnerable. For them to live independently, they actually need the support of

Health Services in the area of home support. Those supports are being cut. As we

speak now, they are being cut. When I spoke with this one senior…. Actually,

about eight of them that I spoke with all told me essentially the same thing:

their home support hours have been cut by two-thirds. They're reduced down to

about one hour's worth of home support, and they're utilizing that towards their

personal care. In many of the instances, the seniors are talking about that

assistance for them to take a bath. There's nobody there to assist them with

cooking, cleaning, shopping and all the other elements that are essential to

independent living.

I certainly

hope that the minister has taken this issue into consideration because with all

that home support, the supportive housing units that would be there for these

seniors, for the people who need home support, would be compromised severely. I

worry that people will be sent to the hospital as opposed to being able to stay

in their own homes, which is why I raise this point.

Let me talk

about the list of cancelled projects for just a moment here. A couple of weeks

ago we engaged in the issue around compensation. The minister was uncomfortable

in providing the information to me. He has outright refused to do that. Let me

ask the minister this question: when the negotiations are completed, will the

minister then commit to providing a breakdown of the mitigation package that the

government has provided to those societies that had their units cancelled?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes.

J. Kwan:

I appreciate that. If the minister could provide that information as soon as

it's available, when the negotiations are complete and the mitigation packages

are complete for each of the housing societies that had their housing projects

cancelled….

I'd like to

ask the minister some questions around the status of some of the projects. We

touched on a

[ Page 2026 ]

particular one two weeks ago when we were debating these estimates. The one

that I'm particularly interested in, of course — although I'm interested in

all of them because they provide important affordable housing in all the

communities — is one that's of significance in my own community of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: the Woodwards project.

The

Woodwards co-op was slated and approved to develop 226 units of affordable

housing under the family and the LIUS component of the housing project. I wonder

if the minister can tell us what the status of the Woodwards project is. What is

the vision of the government for this project?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to provide the member with some comment with respect to

the Woodwards Building and the Woodwards project. Certainly, we know from the

city of Vancouver that, from their perspective, the Woodwards Building is a very

important piece in terms of the housing challenge that faces Vancouver and,

additionally, a very important piece in terms of the economic and social

revitalization of the downtown east side of Vancouver. We are working

intensively with the city of Vancouver to try to develop a proposal that is

going to work for that building.

The

original proposal — which, as we've noted, will not be proceeding — combined

commercial with housing. In fact, there was a considerable interest from Simon

Fraser University, as well, in doing something innovative with that. While it

had many beneficial aspects to it, the cost for that project is in the $90

million range and simply cannot work in the current fiscal context.

[1530]

We are

working, as I noted, with the city of Vancouver and with others to develop a

fiscally responsible proposal for the Woodwards Building. We believe that a

strong private-public partnership is needed and that we will be able to develop

a project which not only is fiscally sustainable but which also provides

affordable housing for some citizens in that area.

J. Kwan:

Indeed, the Woodwards housing project is one that has been cancelled by this

announcement from the minister a couple of weeks ago. I know that in speaking

with Mayor Philip Owen prior to the election, he was very supportive of the

development of Woodwards, in that it was not only important from the point of

view of providing cooperative housing that would see a range of people with

different incomes living in the project but also to see the revitalization of

the community impacting the downtown east side, the Gastown community, the

International Village area, the Chinatown area and the Victory Square area so

that the entire three-, four-, five- or six-mile radius around the Woodwards

Building would see significant economic and cultural revitalization in the area.

Mayor Owen was very supportive of the Woodwards project, and our government

worked with them in trying to see how we could see that project come about.

Partnered

with that, of course, was the SFU component which would bring an arts precinct

to the downtown core, offering educational opportunities not just to the

downtown east side community but to the broader community as well. SFU has said

that it was their first priority in terms of capital investments from the

provincial government with that institution.

The

minister is now saying that's all gone, so that's completely by the wayside. Is

the minister saying that the SFU arts precinct is no longer on the table for

consideration within the Woodwards development? And when the minister says that

on the housing component…. Is he suggesting that there would still be

affordable housing, and that is still the vision of government to see affordable

housing within the Woodwards project under the co-op model?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The SFU component of the previous project is off the table to the

extent that Simon Fraser, if they want to proceed with it, has to find some

capital to become a part of the project. We would continue to welcome Simon

Fraser as a potential partner, but we're not excluding any potential partners at

this point in the project.

Again, I

know Mayor Owen has been supportive of the revitalization of the Woodwards

Building, and we share that with him. I know that the city of Vancouver is

looking for opportunities to become a strong partner with us in a project in

that building, but it has to be a project that's going to work from a fiscal

perspective. We are not going to be building the fast ferries of affordable

housing in the Woodwards Building. We are going to have a project which can work

for all of the partners, for the city of Vancouver and for those who need

affordable housing in the neighbourhood. We'll be entertaining proposals from

any potential partners who can bring some resources to the table.

J. Kwan:

The minister was trying to infer that the Woodwards project, if it proceeded —

that the government will somehow be building the fast ferries of housing in the

downtown east side…. I'd like to remind the minister it's the same staff that

he praises highly, who are sitting with him right now, who worked with the

previous government in that proposal development and in coming to the plans that

they have recommended to the previous government on the Woodwards project. I'd

just like to remind the minister of that.

[1535]

I still

speak highly of the staff that were there, because I think they did an excellent

job, irrespective of their political masters, in terms of ensuring that housing

is delivered in a way that is fiscally and socially responsible. I'd like to

remind the minister of that simple fact.

There is no

doubt about the significance of the Woodwards project. What SFU was going to

bring to the table, while it's not a capital contribution, was the operating

dollars of the arts precinct in the downtown core. That would save the

government in the Ministry

[ Page 2027 ]

of Advanced Education significant dollars in operating the building. SFU was

going to solely fundraise for that entire component, so, yes, the partnerships

worked in different ways. It wasn't necessarily capital, but it was operating

that was going to make a difference for the long-term sustainability of the

Woodwards project.

Now that

SFU is off the table, as confirmed by the minister, I ask the minister whether

or not affordable housing is still going to be part of the vision of this

government for the Woodwards project. Previously it was the co-op model. Is that

model still being considered by this government? Is affordable housing still a

component of the future of the Woodwards Building?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the latter point is yes. I noted in a previous answer

that affordable housing does continue to be a goal in any future project that's

undertaken in the Woodwards Building.

As regards

Simon Fraser University, again I'll reiterate the point: we certainly welcome

any thoughts, any proposals Simon Fraser may want to make with respect to the

Woodwards Building. It's certainly our understanding that the $40 million that

Simon Fraser would have needed to raise for this…. We understand it was pretty

much all public dollars rather than private dollars that have been raised for

that purpose.

Again,

while we welcome them, we can't be directing our potential partners to do this

or that. All of our potential partners are going to have to move forward in the

knowledge that they need to bring new resources, new partnership equity, to the

table to make the project work.

J. Kwan:

The SFU proposal, at least when I was with government…. Yes, the capital

dollars were to come from the capital envelope of Advanced Education for SFU,

but the operating dollars for the facility, for the institution, once it's

completed…. All of the operating was to be paid for by SFU. That makes the

sustainability of the Woodwards project viable in the long term. As you know,

hon. Chair, it isn't the issue around the capital investment per se, but rather

it's the long-term operating that will make the difference. SFU was going to

bring the operating dollars to the table, and that makes the Woodwards project

viable on a long-term, sustainable basis. Is it the intent of government to sell

off the affordable housing component, or is it the intent of government to

maintain that as part of its work under B.C. Housing?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We have no plans for that, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan:

When the minister says he has no plan for that, that is to sell the housing

component of the Woodwards project. Am I correct in understanding that?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer is correct. The affordable housing component we would not

be selling off. It would be market housing in that case.

J. Kwan:

I'm glad to have that clarification from the minister. That's exactly where I'm

going — to make sure that it is not the vision of this government to forgo the

affordable housing component of the Woodwards project and see it go market. The

minister has confirmed that, so I'm pleased around that. I would urge the

minister, though, to go back and check with Advanced Education on the SFU

partnership component. This is actually very important for the viability of the

Woodwards project.

[1540]

understanding was that SFU was to come to the table and provide for all

operational dollars for the arts precinct with the Woodwards development. If

that is the case, that's significant savings for the government on the whole,

albeit in a different government envelope — significant savings for the

government on the operating front with respect to its operating dollars and

operating budget for Advanced Education. Perhaps that development could still

proceed. Perhaps that development, as envisioned, could still proceed. I'm not

suggesting that other partners shouldn't be brought to the table. I know that

B.C. Housing staff, when we were in government, were working very hard to try

and bring other private partners to the table for the Woodwards project, to make

it viable for the community economically and culturally and of course, most

important of all, to make the community stable once again. The Woodwards

Building is seen to be an icon, if you will, or a landmark, if you will, to

provide stability for the residents in that community and for the businesses in

that community.

When can we

expect the work of the Woodwards project, in terms of creation of partnerships,

to be completed? Is there a broad time line that the minister is looking at —

half a year, a year?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, just to address the member's

preamble, in theory Simon Fraser

would have brought $40 million to $45 million in new capital in the previous

project. That never advanced beyond the stage of theory from anything we have

seen on the housing project side of this equation.

In terms of

when something will be an announceable for Woodwards, again, it's very difficult

to predict when we remain in discussions with potential partners on the project.

I know that with the former government, one of the things they always did early

in negotiations was set out a date when they wanted to conclude them, thereby

always placing themselves in the worst possible bargaining position as those

discussions proceeded.

We're not

going to do that. We're going to work with our partners, whether it's the city

of Vancouver or the greater Vancouver housing authority or the private sector

— whoever our potential partners may be. Those discussions continue as we

speak. They will continue, and they'll continue until they reach fruition, which

will be a fiscally sustainable project that will work for the city of Vancouver,

work for the downtown east

[ Page 2028 ]

side and certainly work for the many people who will enjoy a revitalized

Woodwards Building.

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps wanting to imply that somehow the previous government was

fiscally irresponsible pertaining to the Woodwards project, in the development.

Again, I remind the minister that the same set of staff that the previous

government had been working with, the current government is working with now in

terms of developing the Woodwards project. Of course, on the fiscal side, with

all due respect, yes, the market has changed since that time, but the deals that

were put on the table and negotiated with the previous government were sound,

fiscally responsible deals. I hope the minister will take time to review that

information and talk with his staff to get clarification on the fiscal side of

the Woodwards project.

The

minister said he would not sell off the housing component of the Woodwards

project. Will the minister, then, also advise the House if it is the

government's intention to sell off the commercial side of the Woodwards project?

Are there plans to do that?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, to address the

preamble to the question, yes indeed, we do

still have the same excellent, professional, highly competent staff that the

previous administration enjoyed. However, we do have a new and improved group of

politicians who are leading the housing area now. I think we're all probably

relieved with respect to that.

[1545]

In terms of

the commercial component in the Woodwards Building, as has always been the case,

including in the original project, the intention has always been for the sale of

the commercial portions of that project.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps the minister himself and his Liberal cronies would be the ones that

are actually relieved by the fact that they're at the helm, because the Tenants

Rights Action Coalition, the community group that deals with affordable housing

issues for the province, has this to say about the minister's announcement of

cancelling a thousand units of affordable housing. This was sent on March 13,

2002. The headline is: "Liberals Cancel 1,000 Units of Affordable Housing

While Wait-lists Grow." Taking a paragraph from the press release, it

reads:

"That

the B.C. Liberals are going ahead with 700 units show that they understand

housing is a priority for British Columbians and is a core need. However,

housing groups are alarmed that 1,000 units appear to have been lost. This

decision may mean that important projects like the Woodwards co-op would not

go ahead. 'This would not only mean an increase in the number of homeless

but would also negatively impact communities like the downtown east side,

where safe and affordable housing is key to solving other problems,' said

Tom Laviolet of the Carnegie Community Action Project. 'It is widely

acknowledged that B.C.'s past commitment to building non-profit and co-op

housing has prevented the significant number of visible homeless that other

provinces have experienced.'"

I would ask

the minister to please not take too much comfort in his decision to cancel a

thousand units of affordable housing, because that's left a thousand people,

feasibly, or perhaps more who would otherwise get affordable housing from this

province and who will now not be able to because of the cancellation of those

units. The Tenants Rights Action Coalition surely has a different message for

the minister on that score.

The

minister talks about private partnerships, and I think he said the private

component of the Woodwards project will be looking for partners, but not…. I'm

sorry, I didn't catch whether or not the minister said whether they'd be selling

parts of the land space, the air space, for private development. Will they be

selling it off, or are they looking at a leasehold arrangement, or are they

looking at all the combinations? I'm sorry. Maybe the minister did answer, but I

didn't catch it.

The other

question I have for the minister is about the private side. I've had people

approach me — film industry representatives — who are interested in becoming

involved with the Woodwards project, perhaps putting forward investment dollars,

because they actually see that project as a critical piece to the development of

the film industry for British Columbia.

Has the

minister engaged in any discussions with the film industry on that front?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member references the comments of Vanessa Geary and the TRAC

organization. The other thing I recall from the media interviews with respect to

this was, I think, a sense of relief and appreciation on behalf of that

organization that this government had authorized the completion of about 2,000

housing units that were under construction in British Columbia at the time. I

put the 1,702 under review last October. So certainly, in terms of balance, I

think…. We've had a very good relationship with Vanessa and her organization.

I certainly intend to continue to enjoy a good relationship with the

organization. I thought their comments, while appearing one-sided from the

member's comments, were actually pretty balanced. I do look forward to working

with them and with the non-profit societies, and so on, in trying to achieve

their objectives in the future.

[1550]

In terms of

the broader issue of exactly what might happen in the Woodwards Building, one of

the keys to developing a project that's going to work for the province in a

fiscally sustainable way is to be flexible and innovative in the kinds of things

that we would look at.

If the film

industry, the commercial sector, the market housing sector, the non-profit

housing sector or any of those groups and others want to come forward with

innovative proposals for the Woodwards Building, we welcome them. We're going to

work with the city of Vancouver particularly on this, but certainly not

exclusively on this. A range of partners could come

[ Page 2029 ]

into play on the Woodwards Building, and we welcome the thoughts and the

proposals of all of them.

In relation

to the film industry, I'm advised that the film industry has at least some space

in the Woodwards Building. We are currently engaged in discussions around

longer-term leases with the film industry. That's a good example of the kind of

flexibility and innovation we might bring to bear in making this very important

piece of the revitalization of downtown Vancouver, particularly the downtown

east side of Vancouver, a reality.

J. Kwan:

I don't doubt that the Tenants Rights Action Coalition would want to work

cooperatively with any government that wants to provide for and develop

affordable housing. They're strong advocates on behalf of British Columbians in

the areas of affordable housing and tenants' rights. They are a welcome voice, I

think, for British Columbians in this context.

I don't

doubt for a minute that they would want to work cooperatively with government,

but I hope the minister will take to heart what they have said to the

government. The headline of the press release that they have sent out reads:

"Liberals Cancel 1,000 Units of Affordable Housing While Wait-lists

Grow."

I can read

the whole press release onto the record, but I presume that I don't need to. It

does recognize that the government is proceeding with 700 units from the frozen

1,700 units, but then it goes on to talk about 1,000 units that the government

has cancelled and their concern around that.

The reason

I raise this is that while the minister says he values the work of the Tenants

Rights Action Coalition and will work cooperatively with TRAC, I hope he shows

his sentiments not just through words but rather through action.

The

minister celebrates that he's able to maintain 700 units of the 1,700 units of

affordable housing that were approved, allocated and funded by the previous

government, but that celebration stops short at 1,000 units of lost affordable

housing. We need, and the minister needs, to be reminded of that.

I hope he

will go to the cabinet table and advocate for these units to be reinstated. Not

only that, but I hope new affordable housing units will be announced in the

future — not the unfreezing of the 1,700 units, of which 700 will proceed and

1,000 are being cancelled, but rather that the Liberal government will approve

new affordable housing units and inject them into the housing system in British

Columbia to reduce the 10,000 people already on the wait-list. The list is still

growing, as the days and the years continue, of the shortage of affordable

housing that is critically needed throughout British Columbia.

The film

industry on the Woodwards project. I'm glad that the film industry is leasing

space at the Woodwards project, because they have mentioned to me on numerous

occasions their interest in the project.

The reason

I ask is simply this: if the minister is not already engaged in those

discussions with the film industry, I have some names to forward to make sure

that engagement is in fact in place and to create and enhance the partnership

opportunities to make the Woodwards project viable. I have already asked some of

these folks to contact B.C. Housing; I'm not sure if they have.

It sounds

like maybe they did, and I'm glad, because I think that is an important

industry. It's one that actually does a lot of work in the downtown east side

community. The Woodwards project is one that I know they are interested in, and

perhaps some investment dollars could be sought from that.

[1555]

The

minister has not answered the question of whether or not the government is

looking at selling off any of the air parcels, air space, of the Woodwards

project. I assume the answer is yes, given his vague words around flexibility.

That seems to be the choice of words with this government: access and

flexibility. I assume that the answer is yes.

There's no

hidden agenda around this question. I'm just curious. Are air parcels available

to be sold? Is that the intention of this government with the Woodwards project?

If so, there may well be others who would like to come forward, if that's the

intent of government — to invite participation from that point of view. If

that's not on the agenda, then simply say so, and make sure that people

understand that it's the leasehold investment that the government is looking at

and to invite participants to come forward on that front.

Previously,

in speaking with the federal government around the Woodwards project, the

federal government had also expressed keen interest, especially in relation to

the Vancouver agreement development, in investing some dollars into the

Woodwards project. Has the minister spoken with the federal government in terms

of federal dollars being invested into the Woodwards project?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are, I guess, a few aspects to the question that the member

puts forward. First of all, I just want to be very clear about this. We've

talked about how the downstream subsidy arrangement works on these projects. The

1,702 units that the member said the previous government funded…. That's

incorrect; they did not. The subsidies don't kick in until the projects are

completed and the units are occupied. It's only at that point that the

contractual subsidies are engaged. That's true for any of the projects that we

have completed in the last several months or a year, as well as the 700 that are

coming on stream as a consequence of the decision that was announced a couple of

weeks ago. I think that's an important point to note.

I don't

want to revisit some of the previous rhetorical debate that we had around….

You know, it doesn't really matter who announces a project. Rather, it's more

important to know who's going to pay for it, and that's us. It's even more

important to note that in fact, it's the taxpayer of British Columbia — not

B.C. Liberals, not NDP — who pays for these things. It's the hard-pressed

taxpayer of British Columbia.

[ Page 2030 ]

The

member's second question around the air parcels. It has always been the

proposal, including in the original project, that the air parcels be sold.

That's a part of the project. Again, we are looking for new, innovative

possibilities and new, innovative partnerships to make this project work for

British Columbians and for Vancouverites.

Yes, we

have had discussions with the federal government with respect to the Woodwards

Building. We are going to need to engage the energies and the resources of a

range of partners, including the federal government as represented by Canada

Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There have been discussions with them.

The key

here is public-private partnership. This is a very big project, a very important

project. We're going to have a project which works both socially and

economically when it is concluded.

J. Kwan:

The one piece I'd like to add to the minister's statement is that yes, under

the previous administration, the dollars don't roll out for the projects until

they are completed, until the subsidies are required when occupancy takes place.

The fact of the matter is that the previous government, in its approval of the

1,700 units of affordable housing, had gone through all of the processes around

that in terms of Treasury Board approvals, and so on and so forth. Those dollars

are meant to be there for affordable housing. It was accounted for in that

regard.

[1600]

Yes, I

acknowledge the fact that when dollars are being spent in housing and, for that

matter, any government program, those are taxpayers' dollars. There's no doubt

about it. And you know what? The majority of people in British Columbia support

the investment of government in affordable housing. Polls have been done in that

regard. British Columbians understand the need for affordable housing and the

investment from government into it, and 91 percent of the people that were

surveyed support continued provincial investment in affordable housing.

I think

British Columbians more and more are coming to understand, as well, that housing

is part of the preventative arm of health care costs, criminal justice costs and

other costs that other systems within government would have to carry. They

understand. That is why they understand that investment. The previous government

understood that as well. That's why there were strong commitments from the

previous government in the area of housing.

I hope this

government will come to a realization that the investment is sound. The minister

keeps saying that housing is not sustainable somehow. The question is: can we

afford not to build affordable housing in British Columbia? It's not a question

of whether we should build housing at all. We should definitely be building

housing. The question more to the point is: can we afford not to invest in

affordable housing in British Columbia? The costs will come back to haunt us, as

we see in the health care system and in other areas within the government.

The

minister says he has spoken with CMHC on the Woodwards project and their

partnership, perhaps, with them on it. Is that discussed under the Vancouver

agreement initiative, or is it just a housing initiative that the minister is

engaging in those discussions?

Hon. G.

Abbott: To address the member's

preamble and the contention that in fact

they had funded this, let's keep it simple. There's a big difference between

ordering a meal and paying for it. This is a government which rightly takes

account of its ability to pay for a meal before it orders it up. The previous

administration was great for ordering up big steak dinners but never giving, I

don't think, proper due to the concern of the average taxpayer in having to pay

for that.

I've been

through this a few times now, but I'm always happy to revisit it for the

edification of the member. The budget line which I inherited upon becoming

minister responsible for housing was going to see the budget expenditure line

rise from $126 million in fiscal '01-02 to $170 million in fiscal '04-05. As we

look at this in terms of not ordering up a meal we can't pay for, we have worked

very hard, and we have developed both a model and a sustainable budget line

which will ensure that we will able to meet some of the needs, at least, of the

most vulnerable in society, and we will be able to do it in a fiscally

sustainable and responsible manner.

We had our

discussion early on about the importance of housing to health, and I agree.

There is no question that safe, secure, affordable housing is key to the health

of British Columbians. We do intend to address that challenge on the non-market

side, which we've been talking about, through program dollars targeted to the

most vulnerable in society — the frail elderly and so on, as we talked about

previously — and also address the very critical need for more market rental

housing in British Columbia. Again — and I dealt with this at some length a

couple of weeks ago — we need to eliminate barriers to investment in market

housing, and we need to get rid of regulations which inhibit or constrain

investment in new market housing.

[1605]

J. Kwan:

If the minister wants to engage in debate about what we can and cannot afford,

we can launch once again into the whole debate about the big tax breaks that

this government has given to the wealthiest British Columbians and the big

corporations before they even looked at the books. If the minister wants me to

embark on that road, we certainly can. We've been there before, and I'm happy to

travel that road once again. Let's just be clear on the question around

affordability and ordering up a meal whether or not you can afford to pay it.

The fact of

the matter is: the $2 billion tax breaks that this government had given before

they even looked at the books could well have paid for the housing units that

we're talking about — the thousand units

[ Page 2031 ]

that have been cancelled. The minister knows that; I know the minister knows

that. If the minister wants to challenge me to engage in that debate, we could,

or we can stay focused and engage in the housing estimates. I'm flexible, to use

the words of this government. I am flexible, and I can meet that challenge if

the minister wishes to embark on that debate as well.

In terms of

the status of the Woodwards project, I'm wondering: has the government paid the

Woodwards co-op society the project development funds for them to continue to

work on the development of the Woodwards initiative?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Like the member, I would delight, actually, in talking about how the

tax cuts which have been initiated in British Columbia — I think courageously

— by this government have been a tremendous advance in our opportunities to

provide market rental housing in British Columbia among many other things. I

don't think it's any accident that we have seen both housing construction and

housing sales really take off since the election of our government in May of

2001. In fact, what we have seen is British Columbia leading the nation once

again with respect to housing sales and housing construction.

Obviously,

that's reflective of the confidence that has been instilled in the public of

British Columbia by again seeing some prospect of being rewarded for their wages

rather than the old Albanian socialism-in-one-country route of the former

administration, where every dollar was plucked out of the taxpayer's pocket just

as quickly as it went into it. Now people again have an opportunity to work hard

and be rewarded for their effort here in British Columbia.

I am

completely proud of the tax cuts that have been undertaken. It will be a

critical element in leading us out of the grim morass that the former government

brought us to in their ten years of incompetence and mismanagement. If she wants

to engage on tax cuts, I'm very happy to do that. I hate to say this because

you've scolded me before, Mr. Chair, about my rhetorical flights around fast

ferries, but that might be another little element that I'd want to inject into

the discussion. I know the member opposite delights in those kinds of

discussions of that particular element too. We can do it all here, I know, but

I'm going to be guided by you, because you bring that sober kind of demeanour to

the House that's so important in keeping us all in line, so I celebrate that as

well.

In terms of

the member's question around the cooperative society, we certainly look forward

to working and consulting with the cooperative society and indeed others that

may have some constructive ideas for the future of the Woodwards Building.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

The minister talks about the tax debate. Let me just make one point around that.

The fact of the matter is that the previous government brought in the lowest tax

rates for the lowest-income British Columbians. The minister knows that. He

knows that the difference between the previous administration and this new-era

Liberal government is that they have chosen to give tax breaks to the wealthiest

British Columbians and the biggest corporations. Who's paying for those? The

people who would lose out on the housing — those 1,000 cancelled units of

affordable housing that this government keeps on saying they can't afford to

sustain — are the people who are paying for it. They're not the only ones. The

list goes on and on and on. At the risk of disembarking on the housing

estimates, I won't go on with that list. The fact of the matter on the tax rates

issue is that the lowest tax rates were already afforded to the lowest income

brackets by the previous administration.

The

minister talked about the society, the Woodwards Cooperative Housing

Association, and whether or not the government is working with them. I asked the

question of whether or not the government had provided the project development

funds to them. Has that been paid to the society? That was my specific question.

A simple yes or no on that question will suffice.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, just for the edification of the member, in terms of tax cuts,

I'm delighted and proud to be part of a government that provided a 25 percent

tax cut for all British Columbians, regardless of what income level they are at.

While it may be inconsistent with the Albanian model of socialism in one

country, providing a tax break for higher-income earners is clearly a critical

piece in revitalizing investment in the province. I know the member

fundamentally agrees with that. She is still seized of a notion of class

conflict and class division that I think is better suited to the nineteenth

century rather than the twenty-first, but that's part of their ideology. I

suppose one has to respect that they continue to be gripped by that particularly

outmoded view of the world.

I'm also

happy to note, particularly given the member's comments, that British Columbia

now has the lowest base personal income tax for those British Columbians who

earn less than $60,000 — the lowest in Canada. The commitment we have shown

for those people is absolutely remarkable.

In terms of

the question of how many housing units this or that would buy, if we look at the

fast ferries project — which I know the member is still very proud of — in

our estimate that would have produced something like 5,000 new units of housing

had it been directed that way instead of the rather less productive way that it

was.

In terms of

the society, we don't anticipate that there will be any need for additional

provincial support with respect to ongoing consultation with that group. We are

looking forward to constructive proposals from all corners. Certainly, we will

be intensively evaluating those proposals as they come forward.

J. Kwan:

You know that the minister is running for cover when he starts to call me names.

He likes to invoke the notion that I have a socialist approach when I

[ Page 2032 ]

advocate for housing. You know he is running for cover when he invokes

name-calling.

[1615]

I've said

this before. If the minister wants to call me a socialist because I advocate

strongly for safe, secure, affordable housing for all British Columbians, go

ahead. Call me any other name. I couldn't care less what you call me. For any

other advocate who's out there trying to advocate for safe, secure, affordable

housing, if you want to attach them with yet another name, go ahead and do that

too. If that's the belief that they have and this minister takes issue with it,

and by taking issue with it, he's going to call them all kinds of different

names, go ahead and do that. If it makes the minister happy, if it makes him

chuckle, smile and be happy, go ahead and do that, because I know the

difference.

Yes, I

advocate. I proudly advocate for safe, secure, affordable housing. There's no

doubt about that, hon. Chair. When I first came here with my family, I lived in

a basement suite — 700 square feet, a family of eight. Safe, secure housing

was not always an option for me and my family. I understand what that's like and

how it feels to be in a situation where, in one day, you may find yourself out

there on the street, homeless. I know what that feels like. I have lived that

experience, so I know what it feels like for British Columbians who are

struggling now to find safe, secure, affordable housing.

Yes, I'm a

strong advocate, and I am proud to be a strong advocate for safe, secure,

affordable housing for all British Columbians. For a province as rich as ours, I

do believe there is no reason — no reason at all — why anybody should be

sleeping under a bridge. There are no reasons.

If the

minister delights in the idea that somehow I have this ideology within me and

delights in calling me a socialist or any other name, go ahead. If it makes you

happy, attach any name you want because, quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Neither, I think, would the advocates who are out there doing this day in and

day out.

I don't

think anybody who sees a person who sleeps on the street would say: "Gee,

you know, if we provided a housing unit for that person, those socialists are

going to damn the entire province." I highly doubt that British Columbians

will have those thoughts cross their minds. I think that by and large, British

Columbians are compassionate people. The thing that makes us distinctive as

Canadians is the fact that we value our compassion. We want to share what we

have with others, collectively — not just to say, "We can hoard

everything for ourselves," but rather to say: "Make sure everybody

else has equal access and opportunities as well." There, too, their quality

of life improves.

If that

ideology offends this minister, I make no apologies for it, because I do believe

that all British Columbians should have equal rights and equal access and, in

the area of housing, safe, secure, affordable housing. That is my fundamental

belief.

It makes

not just social sense; it makes economic sense too. It saves government money.

On average, 33 percent more is spent for those who are homeless in the areas of

health care, criminal justice and social services. If they don't have housing,

it increases other costs for government. It makes financial sense to invest in

safe, secure, affordable housing.

In terms of

the tax scheme, I support progressive tax schemes, not regressive tax schemes. I

don't support taking moneys away from people who need it the most to pay it to

the people who need it the least. If we can afford to — great. Pay everybody.

Give everybody a huge tax break. If you're faced with a financial crunch, then I

would advocate not to take it from the people who can least afford it. That,

too, is my ideology. Yes, I believe in that, and I'm proud of those beliefs.

On the

housing question, we were just canvassing the status of the Woodwards project in

terms of what's going to happen there and whether or not affordable housing

would be kept. I'm glad to hear that the affordable housing scheme is still

intact, by and large, although the time line is fuzzied. There's no time line

around that.

[1620]

The number

of units targeted for the Woodwards project, which was, I believe, 226 units of

co-op housing — is it still the intent of government to see the Woodwards

project be developed with some 200 units under this perhaps revised scheme that

the government's looking at?

Hon. G.

Abbott: It's always delightful and remarkable to see how, through these very

complex and circuitous routes, we arrive at agreement and the estimates become,

effectively, a kind of love-in around certain ideas. I think that's very good.

Certainly, like the member opposite, we are strong supporters of safe, secure,

affordable housing. We believe, as well, that housing is a key determinant in

the health of British Columbians. Certainly, the policies we've undertaken are

reflective of that.

Where I

guess we differ is around, for example, the importance of having a healthy,

dynamic, vibrant investment climate where people will want to invest their

capital, their energy, their ideas and their efforts in affordable housing —

market rental housing, in fact. That, we believe, is critical if we are to

address the needs of many British Columbians as they attempt to secure what's

fundamental in everyone's lives: safe, secure and affordable housing. We believe

that the government alone cannot provide for the housing of all its citizens. We

need to have a dynamic, attractive marketplace in which people will want to

invest in affordable market rental housing. It is only through that route that

we will ever be able to meet the market, to meet the housing demands of British

Columbians.

Also,

through the both important and absolutely vital step of tax cuts and the program

we have set out in the housing area, I believe we have achieved that difficult

and occasionally elusive balance between economic and social justice. I think

that has been, to date, an achievement of this government. I'm sure we will

[ Page 2033 ]

look forward to achieving even greater things in the years ahead through the

economic stimulus that was added by tax cuts and the very judicious, very

careful, very cautious expenditure of every single tax dollar we take from the

pockets of British Columbia's taxpayers. I'm very optimistic on that count.

I think the

member is trying to ask me what exactly Woodwards will look like after we have

completed a partnership agreement. Again, it perhaps shouldn't come as any

surprise that the exact complexion of the project or the development will be

very much dependent on the partners that come into play with respect to it and

the resources those partners bring to the table. Again, we are open to flexible,

innovative ideas on how to achieve the successful redevelopment and

revitalization of the Woodwards Building. We don't know exactly what it's going

to look like, but that's no different than any other project, whether it's

market or non-market. We will dot the i's and cross the t's as we conclude those

agreements with our public and private sector partners.

J. Kwan:

The minister would have you believe that under the previous administration,

affordable housing in British Columbia was developed without partnerships. If

the minister checks with his staff, he'll know that the 700 units of affordable

housing he announced were projects developed under the previous government with

extensive partnerships in a variety of ways, whether it be with local

government, church groups, non-profit societies, the aboriginal community,

health authorities and so on. Those partnerships were there, and yes, we ought

to continue to work towards developing those partnerships. There's no doubt

about that.

[1625]

The

Woodwards project, I gather from the minister, is one that this government is

committed to. He has said they're not going to sell the land. He has said

they're going to see affordable housing there. It's not going to be market

housing. On the commercial side, they're looking at a variety of partners,

whether it be leasehold or a share in ownership. Those will be the things the

provincial government is looking at, and I'm glad. I'm glad the government is

not planning on selling Woodwards, and I'm glad the minister is not planning on

bringing market housing to the Woodwards project. I think the co-op model is one

that is sound. It would bring mixed housing into the community and revitalize

the community, so I'm pleased to hear that from the minister.

I would

offer this as well. If there is any place where I could be of assistance to make

the Woodwards project come together for the community, irrespective of party

lines, I want to extend my hand to the minister to work with him to develop the

Woodwards project, to see it as a positive contribution for every single member

of the community. As the minister knows, it is a very important project in my

riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I'd like

now to turn to another project in the community that is of significance in my

riding. That is the CBA project, the Chinese Benevolent Association. I see that

the project has been cancelled. Could the minister advise of the status of the

CBA project?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Just to clarify the point around the sale of the Woodwards Building,

the member is taking some liberties there with my comments. There has always

been, even in the original proposal, a part of the project which was

market-oriented and involved market-commercial components. The intention was

always to sell those portions to help finance other parts of the project. The

affordable housing side, again, to be clear, will in all likelihood be done

through a non-profit sponsorship by a society. We remain open to that. Perhaps

the member understood that. I just wanted to make sure the record reflected

that.

In terms of

the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver and their proposal, I'm advised

that the equity contributions that were brought by the partners in that case

simply didn't measure up to the partnership equity that was brought into play in

the 20 projects we announced would proceed.

J. Kwan:

Does that mean that the CBA project is now dead, completely gone for

consideration?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Like other projects that were not proceeding, the Chinese Benevolent

Association certainly can go back to the health authorities, the city of

Vancouver and other partners they had in the project and see if they can

strengthen the proposal that they could bring to B.C. Housing. Again, this is no

different than any other project that did not proceed. We've put out the

challenge to find ways to strengthen the proposals, and we welcome continuing

discussions with them.

J. Kwan:

Were there any projects on the list of cancelled projects that brought equity to

the table but were not awarded units?

[1630]

Hon. G.

Abbott: All of the projects brought some equity to the table. Comparatively,

though…. There is a continuum here, from some projects which I think are

relatively close to being approvable to a number where the equity contribution

is very slim. You can't generalize on those 17 projects. I think that in one or

two cases, in fact, the housing societies themselves asked for the approval from

B.C. Housing to be withdrawn — either because they didn't feel that they were

ready to proceed at this time or whatever. But typically, there is a kind of

continuum from those who are near to being in a position for approval to those

who are a long distance from it.

J. Kwan:

Is there a minimum threshold of some sort for the equity? The minister said that

virtually all projects brought some sort of equity to the table.

I recognize

that sometimes societies come forward and ask for their projects to be

withdrawn. I've seen

[ Page 2034 ]

that before. The minister keeps on mentioning that. I understand that happens

from time to time. But is there some sort of minimum threshold, then, in terms

of equity before the minister would consider their project for approval?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is no strict rule around how a project would be partnered. In

different parts of the province, for example, land values can be quite

different. They can be quite different between the north and downtown Vancouver

— a big difference.

Where I

think some generality might be attached to how we proceed is, again, going back

to the issue of how these projects will be funded. This is the case in the

former government's day, as in ours; the projects provincially are funded by

ongoing subsidies of the units involved. What we have to look at, both at B.C.

Housing and in the ministry, is the units that are being delivered and at what

downstream subsidy cost. Again, they have to fit within our sustainable funding

envelope.

[T. Christensen in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

Welcome. I think this is my first time having you as the Chair in this House. I

think we had you in the other House for a short period of time.

The

minister says that there's no minimum threshold. I understand that, because

different communities have, perhaps, different land values, and the contribution

from a particular society for a particular project may vary. But is there then a

percentage of equity within the entire project that would be taken into

consideration? Is there some sort of ballpark that the government is looking at?

Hon. G.

Abbott: No, there is no arbitrary percentage figure attached to this. Again,

we have to measure need and demand within the communities and weigh that against

the partnership equity which is engaged in any given project.

J. Kwan:

In terms of targets within housing initiatives, I know that from time to time,

governments look at targets — as an example, towards women. Governments would

want to develop affordable housing that's targeted for women only or for the

aboriginal community — those kinds of things. I know some of the projects that

were approved from the 700 units that were announced a couple of weeks ago

included those kinds of targets. Is it the government's intention to still

continue with such targets?

[1635]

Hon. G.

Abbott: To answer the member's question, yes, we believe that the resources

of government need to be targeted to those who are most vulnerable in our

society. Again, politics is the allocation of scarce resources. What we are

doing here is ensuring that every taxpayer dollar that we secure is maximized in

terms of its public benefit, particularly for those who are most vulnerable in

our society. We have talked at some length about that.

reference a couple of the projects which we authorized to proceed almost two

weeks ago now, the YWCA project on East Hastings in Vancouver is a remarkable

project in terms of the funding that was raised. I think it's a very remarkable

project and obviously very much targeted to women at risk. Similarly, among the

20 that were authorized to proceed is the Lu'Ma Native Housing Society on East

8th Avenue in Vancouver — again targeted, obviously, to first nations. Where

those kind of innovative partnerships come to us, it's very, very enticing and

positive — the kind of proposals that are put forward.

I think one

of the best of the projects that we approved close to two weeks ago was the

Salvation Army, B.C. South Division project on Homer Street — 30 units. The

partnership equity that came to the table there was remarkable for those 200

units — about $14 million to $15 million in partnership equity brought to bear

in a project that cost us around $17 million to $18 million. For the provincial

cost of about $3 million, we secure affordable housing, or temporary housing at

least, for the homeless at risk and those making the transition from being

homeless-at-risk to secure, affordable housing — whether in the market or

non-market sector. That Salvation Army project is an absolutely remarkable one,

as well, in terms of the partnership equity that is brought to bear to achieve

the social good.

Those three

projects are among the best examples of how the province can target its dollars

strategically with the private sector, the non-profits, the health authorities,

and so on, to ensure that we get the maximum bang, the maximum public good, from

every taxpayer dollar that we expend.

J. Kwan:

I just want to go back to the Woodwards project for one minute — thinking back

to the comments from the minister. The minister advised that the affordable

housing component will likely be proceeding with a non-profit society. Right

now, as I understand it, the Woodwards co-op, as a society, is working on the

development of the Woodwards project.

Is it the

government's intention that the society would actually change? Is that what the

minister was referring to, or is it just that he was already referring to the

Woodwards housing co-op?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We cannot nor will we tell the non-profit sector what they should do

in terms of proposals. I really want to emphasize this, as I have previously. We

are looking for new, innovative proposals from the non-profit sector. We're not

saying that the cooperative association was out of the picture at all. We hope

they remain very much engaged.

J. Kwan:

Is it the intent of government to invite other non-profits to see whether or not

they'd be interested in developing or being a sponsor group for the Woodwards

co-op?

[ Page 2035 ]

[1640]

Hon. G.

Abbott: We do intend to continue to work with the Woodwards co-op on this

project. Again, we aren't excluding anyone from the discussions of the future of

the Woodwards Building. I'm sure the member would not want us to exclude anyone

from the discussions of the future of the Woodwards Building. I don't know how

many different ways I can say this, but we don't know exactly what the outcome

of our discussions will be with respect to the Woodwards Building. If we knew

precisely what the outcome of the discussions was going to be, we wouldn't have

to have the discussions because we'd already know the outcome. The very nature

of discussions is that you consider innovative proposals and try to make them

work from both an economic and a social perspective.

We do hope

that we can continue to work with the Woodwards cooperative, but at this point

we are not excluding anyone from the discussion of the future of the Woodwards

Building.

J. Kwan:

When the minister says they're not excluding anyone from the discussion of the

Woodwards project, is he talking about the affordable housing component? I'm

just trying to get clarification on this, because right now there already is a

non-profit society working on the Woodwards affordable housing component. They

are called the Woodwards Cooperative Housing Society.

Now, on the

private component, yes, I understand that the government will be looking for the

creation of partnerships on that front. I completely understand that, but for

the sponsoring society for the Woodwards co-op, what is the intent of the

government? Is it that the Woodwards Cooperative Housing Society themselves have

decided to pull out and say: "Hey, we can't handle this project, and we're

going to hand it off to somebody else"?

Am I

understanding correctly? Is it not the intent of government to say to the

sponsoring society that we're now going to open up the process for other housing

societies to see whether or not they want to sponsor the Woodwards affordable

housing development?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I want to get some understanding of what the member is saying here.

Is the member saying that if other community groups or other housing societies

come forward with ideas, we should exclude them and should not talk to them? Is

that what's being asked here?

J. Kwan:

I'm asking the minister his intention with respect to that. Is it the

government's intention to say that the Woodwards development on the affordable

housing side is now opened up for every sponsoring society to come forward wit