Hansard -- Tuesday, March 2, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 21, No. 4 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		8941
	Toni Onley
	Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members		8941

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8941
	Multicultural Helping House and mentoring program
	P. Wong
	Charitable status of hunting and angling organizations
	B. Bennett
	Government initiatives and economic development in Burnaby
	J. Nuraney

Oral Questions		8942
	B.C. Rail privatization process and police investigation
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Hon. G. Collins
	Police investigation of government officials
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Lillooet LRMP review
	D. Chutter
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Sale of fast ferries
	M. Hunter
	Hon. K. Falcon

Tabling Documents		8946
	Public Service Benefit Plan Act, report for year ending March 31, 2003
	Hon. J. Murray

Committee of Supply		8946
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)
	B. Locke
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. Kwan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8968
	Estimates: Ministry of Finance
	Hon. G. Collins
	B. Kerr
	A. van Iersel
	J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell: Yesterday I know we were all saddened to learn of the loss of Toni Onley, who died engaging in one of the great loves of his life, actually — flying. Toni was a true and exceptional talent. He took the watercolour art form to new heights and new levels in expressing not just the natural beauty of our surroundings but the connection between people and their environment. He helped us see our province and its landscapes, in all their purity and shapes and light and shadows, with fresh eyes.

Toni first came to B.C. in 1955 and eventually settled in Vancouver. It was here in B.C. that he acquired his passion for flying and where he travelled all over the province to view and to paint our landscapes. He was honoured with the Order of Canada in 1999.

As always in these times of loss, our thoughts and prayers go out to the family, including his two children, Lynn and James. We have all been enriched by Toni Onley's talents, and today we'd like to say thank you to his family for sharing him with us. On behalf of the Legislature, I would hope that we can send our condolences and our prayers and thoughts to the family.

W. Cobb: It's my pleasure today to introduce some very hard-working, progressive mayors from throughout B.C. They are the regional co-chairs for the Council of Resource Communities. With us today are Mayor Gerry Furney from Port McNeill; Mayor Herb Pond from Prince Rupert; Mayor Colin Kinsley from Prince George; Mayor Ross Priest from Cranbrook; and their executive assistant, the urban cowboy Bruce Rosenheart. Please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: On behalf of my colleague the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman, I am pleased to introduce 52 grade 5 students visiting the Legislature today. They're accompanied by a number of parents and their teachers, Ms. J. Lander and Ms. Patricia Skjolde. I ask the House to please make them all welcome.

H. Bloy: It is my honour to introduce a friend today. I met him in the business world a number of years ago, and a friendship developed. He's come here today to celebrate his birthday. He's a retired chartered accountant. Would the House please make Bruce Maybank welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's again my pleasure today to introduce some people from my constituency, Fort St. John — three lovely young ladies that are advancing their education down here in Victoria: my daughter Kathryn Currie and her friends, Lexie Kosick and Harmony Hubley. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Belsey: I would like to point out that the now-famous north coast seafood dinner is being prepared this evening. We have four of the guests — the cooks — that have joined us in the gallery. I would like to introduce Judy Fraser, Vince Aramari, Debbie Tiapolis and Steve Smith — the cooks. So the louder we clap, probably the warmer it will be tonight.

W. McMahon: I am pleased to introduce to the House the 2004 legislative interns with the government caucus. They include Lesley Clayton and Joanna Ellis from UVic; Chris Ferronato, Nathan McDonald and Paul Rushton from SFU; Tara Shirley from UBC; and Regan Garbutt from UNBC. We look forward to sharing this unique and exciting experience with them. I ask you to join me in making them very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Joining us in the gallery today are two young women that I would like to introduce. The first is Alison Leontaridis, who is my legislative assistant and that for the member adjacent to me. She is joined here by her sister Jacquelyn Neary, who is a student in Vancouver. Would the House please make them both welcome.

P. Wong: The Multicultural Helping House Society is an incredible group in my riding that is dedicated to improving the lives of new immigrants in B.C. They have programs and services aimed at helping new residents fit into the social, economic and cultural fabric of our province through language assistance, training and employment counselling.

Recently the group was granted startup funding from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to launch the Bamboo Network mentoring program. This initiative pairs B.C. mentors, in a wide range of professions, with new immigrants. New residents can learn about certification and qualifications required for employment and workplace culture, and can better understand the many other features unique to Canadian and British Columbia business.

Over 50 immigrant engineers have applied for this mentorship program, and 16 have now been paired with the nine mentors from B.C. Hydro. During each month, between a mentor and a protégé…. There must be at least two interactions or meetings over a period of six months.

I would like to congratulate the staff and volunteers at the Multicultural Helping House for their vision and dedication and extend my appreciation to the volunteer mentors at B.C. Hydro who have committed their time and expertise. The Bamboo Network in particular is a wonderful opportunity to showcase the compassion and commitment of British Columbians, while providing unique opportunities for job shadowing and knowledge sharing. I wish to see this program extended to other businesses and Crown corporations. This will strengthen the social and economic aspects of British Columbia, and immigrants will have opportunities to use their considerable skills and contribute to our province.

B. Bennett: Yet another new band of environmentalists, the Charity Action Team, just announced that they don't believe hunting and fishing groups should be charities. Apparently, some environmental groups such as the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and Fur-Bearer Defenders have had their charitable status revoked because they are too political. This group is allegedly scandalized by the fact that blue-collar organizations such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation have charitable status while they do not.

Let me explain today, on behalf of the hunters and anglers of B.C., why they do deserve charitable status. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, the B.C. Conservation Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Ducks Unlimited raise millions of dollars every year for conservation projects around the province. Hunters and anglers put their money where their mouth is for charitable purposes. They don't use their donations to blackmail forest companies, to attend protests around the world or to hurt forest workers and their families. Hunters and anglers are often the only ones who volunteer to assist wildlife during severe winters and disease cycles and to help with labour-intensive habitat restoration projects.

There's also the provincial government's own habitat conservation trust fund, which injects $5 million annually into conservation projects around the province. The HCTF raises its $5 million annually not from donations paid by preservationists but from hunters, anglers, trappers and guide-outfitters who voluntarily fund the HCTF through their licence and tag fees.

This so-called Charity Action Team is promoting the fabrication that hunters and anglers are not conservationists, even though Albert Schweitzer and many other conservationists have said for years that removing excess animals from burgeoning wildlife populations is an essential component of successful wildlife management.

Let us here today applaud the hunting and angling groups in British Columbia for their apolitical charitable efforts to improve our natural environment.

J. Nuraney: Two and a half years ago our Premier shared his vision of how he would like to see our province return to the days of prosperity and bring itself to speed with the modern age of technology. He laid out his plans and worked on initiatives like the Premier's Technology Council, the B.C. Progress Board, the provincial congress, openness in government and the process of inclusiveness. His promise of fiscal responsibility was evidenced by the balanced budget introduced to this House on February 17. To resurrect our province from the depths of despondency to that of buoyancy took hard work, cooperation and good sense.

Our measures are beginning to pay off. We are today leading in job growth, volume of new investment and consumer confidence. This feeling of optimism is throughout our province and also permeates my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. Housing starts and the housing market in my area are seeing unprecedented activity. Metrotown, the largest shopping centre in B.C. and the second largest in Canada, has entered into a second phase of redevelopment, investing over $80 million. This will create 50,000 square feet more retail space with great entrepreneurial and job opportunities.

Electronic Arts, a world leader in the entertainment field, just announced today that they will expand their facility to virtually double their present state by building another 172,000 square feet and creating almost 2,000 new jobs.

BCIT, a very progressive institute of higher learning, continues to expand. They are laying the foundation for excellence in applied science. A $65 million facility is being built for aerospace and aviation programs. This facility will be operated with the cooperation of Embry-Riddle, the world's largest university specializing in aviation and aerospace.

These are some of the activities taking place in our province as a result of our government's sound policies. Confidence has returned to our province, and I can assure you that the best is yet to come.

J. Kwan: Here's what we know from the release of a summary of the search warrants. In the course of a proceeds-of-crime and corruption investigation involving the Minister of Finance's top political aide, David Basi, the RCMP uncovered a conspiracy involving Mr. Basi; the ministerial assistant to the Minister of Transportation, Bob Virk; and well-known Liberal insider and lobbyist Erik Bornman. That conspiracy offered personal benefit in return for inside access to information related to the privatization of B.C. Rail.

Soon after the raids were executed, the Solicitor General assured the public that the integrity of the B.C. Rail deal was in no way compromised. How can he possibly stand by that statement today?

Hon. R. Coleman: I am disappointed that the member, who would have read the summary of the warrants today, chooses to use the names of people when the warrants actually only refer to "Official 1," "Official 2" and "L 1." They do not refer to any names.

The fact of the matter is that I know the B.C. Rail deal was processed properly through the executive council of this government, and I have all the confidence in the world that deal was done properly.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The fact is that today's stunning revelations go to the heart of the integrity of this government. The fairness report proves nothing. The police had the fairness report and still sought a warrant and raided the Legislature. Clearly, there is much more to this story than the whitewash reports tell us.

Indeed, the report itself speaks of leaks and potential competitive advantage. We've raised that in this House before. The former minister wouldn't answer them then. Perhaps the new Minister of Transportation has the courage to tell this House: what was the source of those leaks, and what did they contain?

Hon. G. Collins: I think it's fair to say that we're not about to try and go through the allegations that are made by the members opposite and try them on the floor of the House. The judge in the case has determined what information is appropriate to make available to the public.

Hon. G. Collins: The judge in the case has determined what's appropriate to make available to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note…. If you read the summary carefully, you will note that the individuals referred to…. Particularly "L 1" has been publicly speculated and has in fact, I think, spoken to the media, and has been identified as somebody supporting one of the unsuccessful proponents in the B.C. Rail transaction. There is no suggestion whatsoever nor has there been over the last couple of months….

Hon. G. Collins: There has been no allegation or suggestion over the last couple of months that in any way did the successful proponent receive any sort of additional information that would compromise the transaction. They won because they had the best proposal.

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

J. Kwan: The reality is that the fairness report speaks of leaks and potential competitive advantage. What we're seeking is for the government to release what was leaked and what was in that information that raises the issue around competitive advantage.

The deal has been under a cloud from the beginning, and now it is the subject of a criminal investigation involving top political staff and insiders. Two of the bidders complained before the deal was signed that it was fixed. CP and Omnitrax took their complaints directly to the Premier — long before the police raided this building.

The public has the right to know. Will the Premier immediately release those letters? Will he advise this House today which bid on the sale of B.C. Rail David Basi was peddling?

Hon. G. Collins: I think one can look at the summary that's been presented by the court and determine that the area of concern to the investigators is potential discussions between the officials and the lobbyists — the representative of Omnitrax, one of the unsuccessful proponents. That can be gleaned fairly clearly from the summary that's been presented here.

I think one can do that and deal with what has been publicly discussed already over the last couple of months. It's pretty clear that they were not the successful proponent. They did not win. The successful proponent was CN, and there is no inference in this. There is no allegation that one can glean from the summary that CN in any way received any beneficial information.

The transaction was done with CN because they had the best proponent. That was a decision of all of cabinet, and government has not been advised that that is anything different.

J. MacPhail: Interesting that the Premier won't stand up and answer these questions, that he puts up the very person whose office is tainted by this.

What we do know is that the fairness report said that there were leaks and that there was allegation of a competitive advantage, and this government wouldn't release it. We also know that this government's top political aide to the Minister of Finance is being charged with influence-peddling. David Basi is…

When his office was raided, the Minister of Finance told the public that Mr. Basi was not involved in government business, including the B.C. Rail deal. We now know that isn't true. Indeed, according to the police, the alleged corruption in the Finance minister's office is tied directly to the sale of B.C. Rail and other government business. This went on right under the nose of the Minister of Finance, and he claims to know nothing.

Will he do the right thing today? Instead of just saying, "Oh, we didn't give it to the bid that was influence peddling," will he do the right thing and resign?

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think there you've just seen a shameful exhibition of allegations on the floor of this House for which there's no basis in fact, and the member should be ashamed. She has taken, I think, a five- or six-page document and created a house of cards.

The reality is that the investigation is ongoing. It will continue until it reaches a conclusion. I think it's important for the member to refer to page 5 of the summary that was printed today. It says: "Further review of documents seized and further investigation may demonstrate no persons have committed a criminal offence." She should keep that in mind when she makes her comments in this House as well as outside.

J. MacPhail: It was the Solicitor General that stood in this Legislature and said it's not surprising that organized crime has penetrated the Legislature. Did the Minister of Finance berate the Solicitor General for saying that? Absolutely not, because he knows that the Solicitor General had full knowledge of what was in the search warrants when he made that statement. The Solicitor General said that statement with full knowledge of what's in the search warrants, and now the Minister of Finance is trying to pooh-pooh the summary of information based on those warrants.

In opposition, that Minister of Finance called for the resignation of countless ministers on matters of much less significance. On a regular basis he did do that.

The Minister of Finance still claims to be ignorant of what was going on in his office with his chief political aide, an aide he personally hired. Mr. Speaker, ignorance is not a defence. The minister needs to take responsibility for the corruption that took place right under his nose.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order. Does the member have a question? Please put it.

The Liberals' New Era document, page 33, says: "A Gordon Campbell government will serve you and all British Columbians with honour, respect and integrity." If the Finance minister…. The shame of it is that they don't even understand what that means, Mr. Speaker.

J. MacPhail: If the Finance minister believes those words, he has no choice but to resign. Will he resign today?

Hon. G. Collins: Contrary to the rants and raves of the member and the screeching opposite, there are allegations that have been made. There is an investigation underway. The member is aware of that. If she would read the summary again on page 5, she will see that what was stated two months ago continues to be stated today: "No provincial or federal elected officials or ministers of the Crown are…." Mr. Speaker, it says….

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should be careful of the allegations that she makes. There is an investigation underway. She should await the results of those investigations. I know her preference would be that we could execute people on her demand, but that's not likely to happen. Mr. Speaker, page 5 of the summary, if the member takes the time to read it, states — and I'll read it for her: "No provincial or federal elected officials or ministers of the Crown are targets of the investigation." We continue to run this government…

Hon. G. Collins: …with honesty and integrity, which is what we were elected to do.

D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. In 2001, on the eve of the election call, the NDP cherry-picked a protected area from within the Lillooet LRMP and imposed it on the local community without consensus and without the support of my constituents. Now Carole James and the NDP have the nerve…

D. Chutter: …to falsely suggest that this government is carrying on backroom deals to allow mining in the South Chilcotin Mountains Park.

D. Chutter: Can the minister give my constituents, and especially Carole James and the NDP, the real facts about the Lillooet LRMP review that is currently underway?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is in the NDP, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a very long tradition of revisionist history, and we've seen the latest chapter of it here today in the Legislature. Really, whether it's the fast ferries or the Lillooet LRMP, the NDP has an affection for revisionist history that I think would make Stalin blush. Carole James certainly may be a new leader for the NDP, but she's certainly following the old tradition of imposing the NDP will on communities in this province.

There clearly was no consensus around the 2001 Lillooet LRMP. Communities were not on side. First nations were not on side. You don't have to take my word on that. I've got a couple of sources here, which I'll quickly note. First, a letter from Chris O'Connor, the mayor of Lytton, who says: "NDP leader Carole James's suggestion that communities and stakeholders came to a consensus regarding the Lillooet LRMP and the creation of the South Chilcotin protected area is a complete slap in the face and a betrayal of our communities."

Further, even closer to home, I have a quote here from the former MLA for Yale-Lillooet and former NDP cabinet minister, Harry Lali, back in 2001. Mr. Lali says: "There's absolutely no reason for this decision to have been made now. There was no consensus at the LRMP table. There was no consensus in cabinet, and there was no consensus in the cabinet committee that reviewed it. The Premier" — and the reference is to Mr. Dosanjh — "made the decision himself in a desperate attempt to gain green votes in urban B.C. at the expense of rural B.C. He buckled under…."

M. Hunter: Somewhere in his response, the minister mentioned fast ferries. How prescient, Mr. Speaker, because that's what I want to ask the Minister of Transportation. The B.C. shipyard workers union is starting to complain about the resale again of these vessels that disgraced the waterfront of Nanaimo for so many months. I want to ask the Minister of Transportation to assure this House that better offers for the sale of those ferries were not overlooked.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you very much, member. It will be no surprise in this House that taxpayers took a $460 million bath on those fast ferries. We had to spend $10 million leaving them sitting in the harbour while we tried to sell them. You know, the frustrating part about this is that there were actually two offers — two offers — that came to the previous government with relation to the fast ferries. In 1999 an offer of $210 million was made to those members.

To all members: we will continue with question period when we have order in this chamber.

Hon. K. Falcon: I was trying to say that the previous NDP government had rejected two potential offers for those fast ferries. In 1999 an offer of $210 million was rejected by those members over there. In early 2001 the member for Vancouver-Hastings actually rejected an $88 million offer — an $88 million offer that could have helped recoup some of the costs. We found ourselves in a position where for three years we tried to sell these boats around the world, and all we were able to get after three years…

Hon. K. Falcon: …of flogging these boats around the world was $19 million. That is the loss that British Columbians have to take because of those people sitting across the way.

Hon. J. Murray: I wish to table a report pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ended March 31, 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply in this chamber as well as Committee A.

B. Locke: One of the challenges we face in Surrey is significant growth. In fact, our community is growing by approximately 12,000 to 15,000 people a year. That's equivalent to adding a whole new town every single year. Can the minister tell me how the medical system is planning to address the significant growth?

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, if you go back a couple of years under the previous government, they had a very ad hoc system of allocating funding to the various health authorities around the province. It was particularly unfair to those health authorities that were experiencing very rapid growth, because it was locked into a base budget that…. Really, nobody that I have ever talked to has been able to explain the basis for those global budgets that were put in place in those days. Certainly, that process did not recognize the very rapid growth rates in some parts of the province.

What we did upon forming government in 2001 was bring in what is referred to as a population needs–based formula. Once we have determined what the allocation is for the budget for our regional health programs in the province, that is divided up in a way that ensures fairness throughout the province. It's not just a case of taking the number of residents of a health authority and dividing it up on a per-capita basis. We actually factor in the various cost drivers that will drive up the cost of a health care system in any particular region. We factor in demographics; we factor in rate of population growth. For example, we factor in the number of seniors, because we know that seniors are higher consumers of health care than younger populations. We also factor in, for example, the number of residents of a particular region who have to access care in a different health authority.

In the case of the Fraser health authority, where the member is from, they actually have the highest percentage of care for residents of that health authority being delivered in other health authorities. In the case of the Fraser health authority, it's typically because a lot of people work in Vancouver coastal and access their doctor's and specialist's care and other health care services in the Vancouver coastal region. All of those things get taken into consideration, but the good thing about this model is that as populations grow, we can actually be flexible and ensure that they get a proportionately larger share of the allocation to reflect the fact that their population is growing rapidly.

B. Locke: Surrey Memorial Hospital is noted to be the busiest ER in British Columbia and the second busiest in the entire country. Can the minister confirm that the ER at Surrey will be expanded to meet the growing needs in our community? If there's a time frame, I'd be interested in knowing that as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I think we almost have to go back and look at a bit of a historical perspective on this. Under the previous government, they actually had two separate budgets. One was an operating budget for the health authorities, and the other was the capital budget. I heard frequent complaints before the election from health administrators in the province who really didn't feel the ministry was being sensitive to local needs when it came to what priorities should be given to various capital projects.

One of the things we have done is combine the capital budgets with the operating budgets and allow the health authorities their own flexibility to choose their priorities. What we're saying to them is that they have to, within their financial means and their projected budgets, be able to manage their debt-servicing costs. As there is a need identified — for example, it may well be a future expansion of the emergency rooms at Surrey Memorial Hospital…. If the health authority was to determine that that need is there, then they have the flexibility within their operations and their budgets to put whatever priority they think is most appropriate to those capital needs in the province.

We also have underway, under the direction of the provincial health services authority, a review of emergency services in the province to determine how we can make sure that the needs of residents get met. In the past, I think, too often we have looked at each emergency room as an island unto itself. What we really need is a coordinated network of care that factors in the ambulance service, what capacity there is at a facility at any one point in time, and the other resources and access to specialists and things like that, which various hospitals will have. I think we're moving from a system that was, first of all, one in which capital dollars were not necessarily pinpointing local priorities but also a system that was very fragmented to one that is going to be better coordinated, with flexi-

bility at the health authority level to meet the needs and priorities of their citizens.

B. Locke: One of the difficulties our ER faces is congestion in the wards. That's due to patients not being able to be moved from the ER into the wards. In addition, a lot of the patients that probably should have palliative care are not getting that. I'm wondering if there is any way of alleviating that problem so that patients could be moved out of the ER and into palliative care to relieve some of the pressure on the ER.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, with regard to the palliative care programs, the Fraser health authority has a very good program that it is developing. Clearly, that is a need that is across the province. The Fraser health authority, for example, just opened a new 16-bed hospice unit in Burnaby at St. Michael's hospital and has reconfigured the existing Burnaby Hospital palliative unit to a regional referral centre for tertiary palliative care. That's 11 beds in that facility.

With regard to the alternate level care bed-days, I guess the Fraser health authority actually has the biggest challenge, but I think what's important is that they're making progress. For each of the last three years they have actually seen the number of acute care beds tied up with patients who should be in some other level of care, which is how we define ALC or alternate level care beds…. For each of the last three years we have seen that rate coming down in the Fraser health authority. But when we were elected as government, at that point they had over 20 percent of their bed-days being tied up with ALC patients, which is by far the highest in the province. As I say, in each of the subsequent years we have seen them make some progress to getting the number of ALC bed-days down to more appropriate levels.

B. Locke: One of the other challenges that the ER faces is people going to the ER that may be able to get help elsewhere. I wonder if there's any consideration of some kind of education to the public to help them redirect their care needs to maybe their own GP or a clinic or something like that so that they're not plugging up the ER.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are a couple of things on that particular subject area. First of all, we are expanding the use of the NurseLine and the public awareness of the NurseLine. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in the last year alone the use of the B.C. NurseLine has gone up by over 50 percent. This is, I think, an important resource for the public. What it does is allow the public access to information to help them make their medical decisions, short of going to the emergency rooms. It's been a huge benefit in alleviating pressure from the emergency rooms, and we will continue to build upon that and build public awareness of that.

Also, we are working through some of the primary care initiatives to try to encourage models that extend the hours of operation of access to GPs throughout the province. We have a $20 million fund that has been put in place to try to enhance primary care. We have a group which is known as the general practice services committee, which is looking at some of those options. There's good cooperation among the doctors and government and the health authorities to try to make sure that there are more options for residents of the province outside of the emergency rooms.

B. Locke: It seems to me that general practitioners are the unsung heroes of the medical system. Certainly, I know my own doctor is my own hero. Having a family doctor can save the system by delivering solid, personalized care right in the doctor's office. While I appreciate the need for walk-in clinics, it concerns me that walk-in clinic doctors generally receive equal or greater remuneration than GPs do. Can the minister comment on this issue and if there has been any discussion or plans for any discussion with the BCMA with regard to changing the way these two different doctors are paid?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I mentioned earlier the GP services committee and that $20 million allocation. They are looking for ways to encourage full-service family practice using that fund, specifically, but also how to encourage more graduating doctors to go into full-service family practice. That is certainly a focus of the primary care transition projects across the province. Also, we've had good discussions with the B.C. Medical Association around how to encourage full-service family practice. There is a report that was done recently by the BCMA around primary care reform, which has been very helpful and certainly a document that the ministry is looking at in terms of how we can use it and move forward on this. Also, with regard to the expansion of the medical school in B.C., we are developing a model that will in fact encourage physicians to look at community care.

Just one other thing to point out. B.C. has one of the best population-to-physician ratios, generally speaking, but in particular with regard to rural communities in the province where we in fact have the lowest number of patients per physician of any province in Canada. I think it shows that we're on the right track. Also, if you look at the recommended ratio of the number of GPs to population, we have a better ratio than most other provinces in Canada, and we are below what the Canadian Medical Association has indicated as being the preferred ratio for Canada as a whole.

B. Locke: Surrey has witnessed some new building of long-term care facilities. However, we've also seen a couple of them closed. One is Shirley Dean, and another one was a private facility.

Can the minister explain why these facilities are closing and if there are any additional new long-term care facilities in the works for Surrey?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, we undertook an inventory of long-term care facilities around the province as a government — I believe it was done through B.C. Buildings Corporation, if my memory is right — to do an audit or an assessment of existing facilities in terms of which ones had outlived their usefulness, which ones were too old to meet needs, which ones were lacking in just design to meet the needs of residents. Based on that review, there are some facilities that are being phased out, mostly because they no longer meet the needs in that particular community.

In exchange, there's a whole bunch of new facilities that are being developed. For example, in Chilliwack there are 40 new assisted-living facilities at the Waverly project and new residential care beds being opened at McIntosh. There are new assisted-living supplements at Logan Manor in Agassiz. If you look at Surrey in particular, which I know the member is interested in, there are 60 new residential care beds opened at Guildford Seniors, 60 new residential care beds opened at Morgan Place and 84 independent living spaces opened since January 2001 in Surrey. In White Rock — new beds opening at Evergreen Cottages. Let me see if I can find some other examples here — new assisted-living developments in Chilliwack and Delta and new assisted-living spaces at Hawthorne lodge in Port Coquitlam.

There are lots of examples, and I know that the Fraser health authority has lots more in the planning stages now to make sure that those needs get met. Yes, there are some facilities that are being phased out because they no longer meet needs. In place, we're putting in new places that are modern. They are designed for a modern style of care, which really maximizes the independence of seniors when that's appropriate and makes sure that they get the health care services they need depending on their particular and individual needs.

B. Locke: Some people are concerned that changes to privatized services at Surrey Memorial will compromise patient care. Can the minister tell me what the experiences of other jurisdictions are with respect to privatized security, food services, cleaning and laundry?

Hon. C. Hansen: As we have pursued options for getting a more cost-effective delivery of services in the health care sector, one of the things that we are absolutely committed to is that we will not compromise the quality of services that are needed by patients in the province.

If you start looking at some of the other facilities that have contracted out security services, for example…. What we've seen as a result of that is we're getting more hours of coverage and more comprehensive coverage than we were under the old model. One example is the contracting-out of housekeeping services at Vancouver General Hospital. I was talking to a nurse who has worked in Vancouver General Hospital for 15 years, and she told me that in all that period of time, she has never seen the place cleaner than it is today.

We have put in place the kind of guarantees that we require to make sure the standards are not compromised. Indeed, in many cases we're seeing that these private sector providers are providing an even better service than was in place prior.

B. Locke: Many people from Surrey, including myself, went to St. Mary's Hospital for eye surgeries, especially cataracts. Can the minister please tell me what plans are in place for Surrey patients requiring eye surgeries, now that St. Mary's is closing?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I just want to say that St. Mary's Hospital has a tremendous and very proud history, and one that I know — in the discussions that I and other officials in the ministry have had with the Sisters of Providence, who are the owners of St. Mary's Hospital…. It's one thing that the sisters are very proud of. As we have been working with them on the moving of some of these services to other facilities, it's certainly a history that we want to make sure is celebrated.

I think what is key is not around the bricks and mortar of how health services are delivered, but it's the services themselves that are important. As we move forward, we are making sure that the individual patients who were to have had procedures performed at St. Mary's Hospital during these coming weeks and months get their needs met, and they will get met in other facilities. In the case of eye surgery, some of the services that previously would have been provided at St. Mary's have now been shifted to Burnaby Hospital. There are also some services that would go to Surrey Memorial, and indeed there may be other facilities. I think the bottom line is that the needs of the patients are going to get met, because we are expanding the services that are provided in other neighbouring facilities.

Just one other thing on that subject of St. Mary's. It is important to point out that of all the patients that came to get care at St. Mary's over the past year or the most recent year that was completed, only 17 percent of those residents actually lived in New Westminster. What we had was that 83 percent of the patients who came to St. Mary's were in fact from other cities and other municipalities around the Fraser Valley and had to travel to New Westminster to get care. What we're doing now is expanding the services that can be provided in the hospitals that in many cases are closer to where, in fact, the patients actually live. I'm sure the constituents of the member will be benefiting by the relocation of some of those services to a facility closer to their home.

B. Locke: There's still a considerable challenge for people to contact MSP by telephone. I wonder if the minister can tell me and my constituents what the ministry is doing to help alleviate that problem and that frustration of getting through to MSP by phone.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a subject area where I think all of us in this chamber have received numerous com-

plaints from our constituents with regard to the time it takes to get something as basic as an application for premium assistance processed. Clearly, those are all circumstances where people, I think, are entitled to timely service. It has been a problem that has gone on for years, and it's not the fault of those who work in the ministry to try to pump this paper through.

The problem is that we're working on technology that is grossly out of date. This has been a paper-based system that really has made very few changes from 30 years ago. As we know, the whole technology of how business is done has changed phenomenally, and we need to make sure we take advantage of some of those new computer technologies.

What we are in the middle of right now is looking at a private sector partner who can bring some of those technology solutions to this file so that in fact we can speed up the time it takes for individuals to get answers, speed up the time it takes for applications to be processed and speed up the time just to get a response to a telephone inquiry. Those are all underway now. It's my understanding that the process of identifying a private sector partner has now narrowed it down to two companies. I expect that by roughly the end of March or hopefully not later than the end of April, we will have been able to finalize the private sector company that we wish to partner with.

I hope that in the very near future, certainly by the end of this year, the public is going to be able to see a considerable change in the amount of time it takes them to get information processed and other information from what we refer to as the health benefits office of the ministry.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery we have visitors from St. Andrew's Regional High School, a class of grade 11 students. There are 24 of them, two adults and Mrs. Paul, their teacher. I understand they've had a tour, and they're here to watch the session. I am introducing them on behalf of my colleague the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services, the member for Saanich South, who could not be here today. She wanted to ensure that they were indeed welcomed to this chamber. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Locke: There seems to be some confusion in Surrey with regard to elective surgeries and about cancellations of elective surgeries. Can the minister confirm the number of elective surgeries that have been cancelled at Surrey Memorial — outside of those that happened during the job action time? How many have been cancelled over the last two and a half years?

Hon. C. Hansen: I do not have at my disposal the exact numbers that the member is looking for, but certainly when we did have the job actions that took place — I guess it would be just under two years ago now or a year and a half ago — that did result in the cancellation of thousands of elective surgeries. That really does slow down the system, and it takes a long, long time to ever try to catch up. I would say that even after this point, we probably haven't caught up from the number of surgeries that we lost during that period of time — in certain areas, at least.

We are undergoing a process now, which is being led by the provincial health services authority, to do what is referred to as a surgical review to try to make sure that patients get access to care based on their individual priorities. We know that when a patient has been booked for elective surgery, the wait time for that surgery varies depending on the individual circumstances. We rely on the individual doctors to determine the priority with which their patients should get access to that care.

The individual surgeons and other specialists are allocated operating room time or diagnostic time. They have to determine which of their patients should be getting the priority for accessing that in a way that makes sure they meet their needs. This is an area that I think all provinces are wrestling with. We're trying to find ways to make sure that we do get appropriate and timely access to elective surgeries, but that is not an exact science. A lot of work is being done on it. I think we're making some progress as a result of the leadership from the PHSA.

B. Locke: Operating room availability is also a challenge at SMH. I know there have been some new operating rooms developed there. I wonder if the minister can outline them and address what's being done to alleviate that concern.

Hon. C. Hansen: When it comes to operating room capacity in the Fraser health authority, we recently just opened…. In fact, I guess it was October 20 of just last year that the fifth operating room at Eagle Ridge Hospital was put into service. Very soon we expect to be opening a sixth operating room at Eagle Ridge. That is a direct result of shifting some of the services that used to be provided at St. Mary's Hospital, freeing up some of those financial resources to make sure we can actually meet the needs of patients in the communities where they live.

Specifically with regard to Surrey Memorial Hospital, which I know the member is interested in, I don't have any information at my fingertips with regard to the capacity in that emergency room. I do know that there was a very exciting project that was opened re-

cently with Surrey Memorial with regard to the computer technology that was being brought into the operating rooms. It was absolute state of the art. I know that across Canada, others are looking at that technology as a model. I think it's certainly part of what the future operating room is going to look like, but that future operating room is here and now and is being used in Surrey Memorial Hospital.

B. Locke: This is my last question. There is no doubt that anaesthesiologists are highly trained, highly skilled doctors and in short supply. Can the minister tell me what is being done to attract and train more?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a fair amount underway to recognize that there is a shortage of anaesthetists certainly across Canada and, I believe, really throughout North America. That is a challenge we're facing. We recognized those pressures in the last increases that were provided as part of the $392 million increase we put in place for physician services in the province. The anaesthetists actually got an above-average percentage increase in their fee-for-service payments. In fact, it went up by 24 percent as a result of that last round of increases for doctors.

When it comes to the service agreements — and these are for the anaesthetists in the province that would not be working on fee-for-service but on a service agreement — we now have a comparable increase, which is also somewhere in the range of about a 24 percent increase over what was there before, to bring them up to a current level of about $235,000 to $294,000. That is the range for those particular individuals.

Certainly, the UBC medical school is recognizing the need for educating more anaesthetists as we go forward. They are in fact developing programs to encourage more medical students to go into anaesthesiology as a career.

I think on a bunch of fronts we're trying to meet those needs. While we are facing shortages continentwide, I think we are certainly paying our anaesthetists well, and that alone will help make sure the needs get met.

The Chair: We're just going to have a very short five-minute recess, so we'll be resuming in five minutes.

J. Kwan: Just prior to the break, I was canvassing with the minister about the 5,000 new beds commitment. I was asking him for the breakdown of those 5,000 beds. How many new beds have been created and under what categories? Perhaps the minister can provide that information now.

Hon. C. Hansen: At this point I don't have the kind of precise numbers that I think the member is looking for. What I want to share with her are some things that actually show that we are heading into the right direction and that we're confident we're going to be able to achieve the numbers we have targeted.

As we were discussing this morning, when it comes to the supportive housing, we need to be able to determine which ones actually have a care component that would fit into the definitions we discussed this morning.

Actually, I was trying to pull out the numbers. I remember seeing this chart recently, and it actually gave the summaries. Realizing that the way it is formatted, what I have in front of me doesn't allow me to pull those numbers out quickly, but there is…. I know I can tell you the numbers that are coming out of the health authorities, for example, around assisted-living projects. But as I mentioned this morning, it is not just the health authorities that are part of meeting this objective. It is B.C. Housing that's part of that, and we've also got all kinds of other community not-for-profit and private initiatives in the province that aren't directly connected to a health authority initiative.

The numbers that I think may give the member some comfort are a survey that's done by CMHC to give…. The reason I point to this one is that it gives an arm's-length indicator — not our data, but in fact CMHC's data — around the net increase of beds. What they point to in…. From year 2001 to 2003 there has been a net increase of 1,046 under the title of care facilities. Under the subject area of congregate residences, which includes both congregate housing and assisted living, the net increase from 2001 to 2003 is 3,149.

Now, I'm the first one to admit that we can't count all of that congregate housing, because not all of them will have a care component to them. I apologize that I don't have that tally ready at my fingertips here. I know we did talk about this before, this morning, and I thought I would have that specific tally. But those numbers, I think, give at least some independent reassurance, aside from what we have internally, that indicate that, in fact, CMHC recognizes there is a net increase. If you project some of the new projects that are coming on stream, we are quite confident that we are going to be reaching those targets.

J. Kwan: I could appreciate the minister may not have the information readily at this moment. Estimates debate for health will continue on, I'm sure, for a few days if not longer than that. At some point — perhaps tomorrow, if we go back to health estimates — if the minister can bring that information forward, that would be much appreciated. I can then build my questions based on what I have received from the minister with that. I'll set that aside for one moment in terms of those numbers, and I'll wait for the minister's information tomorrow.

Let me go back to the definitions question, because I want to make sure we're going to be comparing ap-

ples to apples in terms of the increase in beds we're talking about. The minister earlier today has basically redefined long-term care and intermediate care, suggesting that the three conditions that must be met will fit into that definition. It being purpose-built, having the right design for providing health services, and that the people living in those units would have 24-hour access to health care — those were the three conditions set.

If the minister can advise me, then, how that definition the minister is now using has changed from the previous definition of intermediate care — level 1, level 2, level 3 — as well as long-term and extended care. I just want to become completely clear so that we know what we're talking about.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, first of all, if the member goes back and checks the record from this morning…. When she set out those three conditions of the definition…. I did come back and clarify that when we talk about…. Yes, we are talking about a facility that has a health care component to it within the scope of what we used to know as intermediate or long-term care and that, secondly, this be purpose-built housing. We're not counting the family home just because a community care nurse goes in and visits from time to time.

The third point, I think, is the one that's important, because the clarification that I gave after she set out those earlier today was that we will determine the degree to which there needs to be health care coverage based on the needs of the patient. We're not saying there's going to be a registered nurse sitting outside the patient's door 24 hours a day. We are saying that based on the individual's assessment, there would be access to that care. I did make that clarification earlier today.

I do have the definition that comes out of the home and community care policy manual setting out the criteria for the different levels of care — IC 1, IC 2, IC 3 — as we discussed this morning. Maybe what I should do is give…. I was going to say it's about nine pages altogether. In fact, just on IC 1 alone there are, I think, three pages. What was just handed to me is a summary, which might be a little bit better to work from.

Definition of IC level 1. Clients are reasonably independent but often need a moderate amount of help with bathing, dressing and housekeeping. A typical client may be a slow-moving arthritic person who requires a walker to mobilize independently or someone needing specific nursing care to help change a surgical dressing or manage a catheter or ostomy apparatus. I can go into more detail if the member wants, or if she wants a copy of all nine pages, I'd be pleased to provide that for her.

Intermediate care level 2. Clients can mobilize but require heavier care or supervision requiring professional support. Clients may require daily supervision with dressings, colostomy, oxygen therapy, etc., rather than on occasion. A typical client may be living with Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis and need more prompting and supervision around transferring related to physical frailty and greater input to maintain hygiene and have their daily living needs met, such as feeding and dressing. A client with a dementia will need considerable directional assistance and supervision.

Intermediate level 3. There are both behavioral and physical IC 3 clients. Behavioral clients assessed at this level are often coping with significant psychogeriatric issues resulting in severe behavioral problems and requiring high input. These persons usually require facility placement. Clients with severe physical deficits at the IC 3 level require ongoing direction, supervision and assistance with the activities of daily living.

I can go on to extended care if…. Let me read in extended care just for the record here as well. This level of care recognizes persons with a severe chronic disability that have functional deficits requiring 24-hour-a-day care, professional nursing services and ongoing medical supervision. Traditionally, the complexity of care issues has necessitated facility placement for this client. Clients are generally wheelchair dependent and unable to mobilize independently with or without aids and require professional and non-professional care.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister. Yes, I would appreciate the long version of the definitions as well as the short version. If the minister can make that available at the end of today's debate for our office, that would be great. I can then look at it after we adjourn from here.

Okay, so on that basis, the definitions the minister had put on record for levels 1, 2 and 3 and extended care…. Is the government still using those definitions for assessment and the terminologies associated with it? Or has that changed also?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is actually going through a transition now. There are new tools that have been developed. In fact, they're based on a project that was piloted in North Vancouver, which really is becoming a standard not just across B.C. but indeed across Canada as an assessment tool used by community care nurses to assess the needs of an individual who is developing some health or medical dependencies.

The terms IC 1, IC 2, IC 3 are still used in much of the industry today, but there are new definitions being developed that are far more refined that I think will ensure consistency across the province in definitions. Those tools are being used increasingly. Right now we're in a world where some are still using the old model and some are using the new model.

If the member is interested, I will also be pleased to provide her with the new definitions that we're moving towards as well as those old definitions, which are being phased out.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would be interested in the new definitions. The reason why, of course, is that I want to compare the old definitions versus the new definitions and whether the level of care has changed. If so, in

what ways? Then we are actually going to be comparing apples to apples rather than apples to oranges so that we know what we're talking about — which I know is a bit trying sometimes, particularly in the House. That would be appreciated.

For the time being, could the minister just give me a quick summary of what the new definitions are and a quick overview of what those definitions are so that we can carry on debate for the purposes of discussion?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I have with me right now that I could share with her are some examples around what they refer to as complex care groupings, for example. We used to refer to this generally speaking as extended care in the past, but because there are…. Maybe I shouldn't try to say it's a direct parallel. I will read you a couple of the new definitions around complex care groupings.

Group A is a person who has severe behavioral problems on a continuous basis. The person may or may not be independently mobile. Assessment indicators for this grouping include that the person may endanger their own life; exhibit destructive, aggressive or violent behaviours; exhibit antisocial behaviours; require a behaviour modification program on a time-limited or highly structured basis; be psychiatrically handicapped with one or more severe behavioral problems which make a person unable to function in a supported housing, assisted-living or group home setting. That would be what we would refer to as group A within that complex care grouping.

Group B is a person who has cognitive impairment ranging from moderate to severe but who is socially appropriate. The person may or may not be independently mobile with use of ambulatory aids. Then it lists some of the specific indicators under that group.

Under the third group, group C, would be a person who has cognitive impairment ranging from moderate to severe but who is socially inappropriate. The person may or may not be independently mobile with assistance. Again, it runs through more detail.

Group D would be a person who is physically dependent but cognitively intact with medical needs that require professional nursing and whose condition requires a planned program to retain or improve functional ability. Again, it goes into a bit more detail.

Group E is a person who is clinically complex — for example, a person who has multiple disabilities and/or medical problems that require professional nursing care or who has complex medical conditions that require monitoring and specialized skilled care. Again, more detail.

I think the point is that we are refining this more. It's not simply a catch-all phrase like "extended care." We are really trying to be more specific to the individual needs of the patient so that they can be placed appropriately to get the services they need and also so that these definitions and the application of them are in fact consistent regardless as to whether you are living in Dawson Creek or whether you are living in downtown Victoria.

J. Kwan: What it sounds like to me is that the complex care groupings A to E are individuals that require perhaps more assistance. Generally speaking — and I think the minister has stated as well — they're almost an equivalent to what was formerly defined as the extended care. That sort of deals with the extended care piece.

What about intermediate care levels 1, 2 and 3? What is the new terminology now being used for these three groups?

Hon. C. Hansen: We were actually just looking at some of the documents, which I don't think answer the question the member is asking. The one document I do have here is that one around the definitions, the complex care groupings. I will have to undertake to get the information that she is looking for regarding the other levels of care in terms of assisted living, but I don't have that right at my fingertips. I apologize.

J. Kwan: If we could get that information, is it reasonable to expect it by the end of today?

J. Kwan: It is reasonable. Then we can carry on debate, if we go back to health estimates tomorrow, with all the definitions the minister will pass on to my office.

Let me ask the minister this question: what is the terminology "residential care"? What does that refer to? That's new terminology, as I understand.

In fact, as we were debating this, this morning, we received an e-mail from a group that advised us that…. It was ELMS, actually, who were watching the debate. They advised that the terms "intermediate care" and "extended care" have now been dismantled by the government. In fact, there was a memo sent out in September at a place called the Overlander Residential Care Hospital, which prohibited the staff from using either term in writing or in oral communications. The group that had used "residential care" in their terminology had been prohibited from using it.

I'm sorry. The group that used the term "extended care" had been prohibited from using it, and they've now been told they have to use the term "residential care." In fact, there was a memo going out to that effect telling folks that the registration categories for intermediate and extended care are no longer valid, that the new terminology is "residential care" and that therefore people were to use that term.

Hon. C. Hansen: The first thing I want to point out is probably the definitions we want to be using going forward. Those are the definitions contained in the

Community Care and Assisted Living Act, which I think probably will help to guide us and give clarity moving forward.

In the policy manual there is actually a reference to what residential care services may include. I will just read it to the member. "Residential care services may be provided in various types of residential care facilities, which include intermediate care facilities, private hospitals, multilevel care funded facilities, extended care hospitals or units, and acute care hospital beds designated for long-term care." Then the second general category would be family care homes. The other general category would be group homes, where residential care services may be provided.

Residential care is a much broader term, which I don't think is particularly new. I think it has been around for some time, but it gets used in different aspects. I think if you look down the list of the kind of residential care facilities that may provide residential care services, we are going through a change in trying to get some consistency around the terminology that is used. For example, I know that the term "private hospital" is one that is often confused and that we have private hospitals that are long-term care facilities. Some people think that maybe they provide a broader range of services that we tend to think of from our acute care hospitals.

I think we do have some challenges in terms of the kind of definitions that have been used in the past, but what we're trying to move towards are the definitions used in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. As to why a facility would put out a directive around the use of the term "extended care," I'm not aware of that kind of detail. The only thing that can come to my mind is that we are trying to move to more consistent definitions to be used across the province, and those are the definitions in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act.

J. Kwan: It appears to me that the directive to change the language stems from government policy changes, as the minister had identified himself that they are going through a process of phasing out the language that was used before — intermediate care levels 1, 2 and 3 and extended care to complex care groups to…. I don't know what levels 1, 2 and 3 are being replaced with. We will get that information when we get it. I think that's where it stems from, and that's how people are being told that they should no longer use these terminologies.

Irrespective of terminologies, what is behind the terminologies and how they are defined becomes critical so that we can, again, know that we're talking about apples and apples and oranges and oranges. It seems to me, though, in this instance the information the minister provided around residential care really deals with intermediate care facilities — or sort of a replacement word for intermediate care. Certainly, it doesn't seem to me to replace extended care, because extended care seems to me to fall under the categories of complex care groups. So that's something to note.

Now, having established the terminology changes — and we'll get more information later today — could the minister advise, using the definitions that the minister and the ministry now use, how many beds there were in 2001 — the beds that used to be referred to as extended care, intermediate care, levels 1, 2 and 3, etc., which are now referred to as something else? How many beds were there, under this new set of definitions that the ministry is now using, in 2001?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I've got is a slide that is a table that shows the total number of bed-days broken down by the various levels. The best I can do at this stage for the member is to approximate…. This is how those 25,000 beds that we were talking about this morning are broken down. I'm just trying to get a rough estimate. I would say that this particular bar graph…. About 30 percent would be at the IC 2 level. About another 35 percent would be at the IC 3 level, and the remaining 35 percent would be at the extended care level.

J. Kwan: Could the minister also give me the approximate actual numbers of the 25,000? I can work it out — 30, 35, 35. It would just save me the trouble of having to do it.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will endeavour to get the numbers that were used to calculate this bar chart. I should also point out that there is actually a very small number of beds — barely makes the chart — in the IC 1 level as of 2001.

I think the other thing that's important to point out is that we need to also focus on the patients, not just the beds. I think what's important is how we are meeting the needs of those individual patients, and that's really what we're talking about in this transition. It's not just change and definition for change's sake; it's change that actually can better meet the needs of individual patients, which has the sensitivity towards their needs instead of some of the classifications and categorizations that we have used in the past.

J. Kwan: I would agree with the minister. It is about meeting the patients' or the communities' needs. What I'm worried about is that as extended care, intermediate care, long-term care homes are being shut down, we are losing those beds, and the replacement may not meet the same levels of need that the community is requiring.

A case in point would be Comox, I believe. In the community of Comox extended care beds are in such need that the health authority is utilizing a hotel — I believe it is the Ramada hotel — to provide for services for the people who are in need. It is important to make sure that what is being provided actually meets the needs of the community absolutely.

It's also important to compare the government's commitment to developing 5,000 new extended and intermediate care beds — that those beds are actually

being met by the actions of this government not just through the change of terminology but rather the needs associated with what was defined as extended and long-term care beds and replaced with these new beds under new terminology…. But they have to be equal in level of service; they can't be lesser in terms of level of service. Therefore, getting the benchmark of what was in 2001, what we started with, and then comparing it to the future of what new beds are being added would be critical. Hence, I ask the question of how many beds were there in 2001.

Now, when the minister said 25,000, and he confirmed that earlier today, that is still the correct number — roughly 25,000 as the base number. Is that 25,000 defined under the new definitions that the government is utilizing, or is that defined under the old definitions?

Hon. C. Hansen: The commitment that we made to British Columbians is a net increase of 5,000 intermediate and long-term care beds, so what we will measure ourselves against are the definitions that were in place for intermediate and long-term care in 2001. It's not a case of saying that we're suddenly going to transfer everything over to these new definitions. We're going to be held accountable for the commitment that we made based on the definitions that were in place at the time. We will certainly live up to that.

I think one of the things the member said that I do have to take issue with was when she said that the number — I forgot if she used the words "complex care" or "extended care" — of high-level care beds should at least increase. That's not necessarily in the best interests of the communities and the patients that are being served. We have seen all kinds of cases where individuals were put into what used to be known as extended care before they were ready for that, when they still had some independence that should have been nurtured and supported. They went into a purely and totally dependent environment. What we find in those situations is those individuals will deteriorate quickly to the level of care that they're put into. We are trying to make sure around the province that we have an appropriate level of beds for the varying degrees of dependence and independence of our seniors as they advance in years.

The member referred to the Comox Valley, which is my hometown, and I stay familiar with some of the things happening there. For example, I'll read you these bullets on the Comox Valley: 328 residential care beds as of April of 2002. And 13 assisted-living beds are already occupied. There's a conversion of 100 intermediate care beds to 200 complex care beds on one site and 76 beds being converted to 66 beds on another, to total 291 complex care beds. There is a decommissioning of 27 intermediate care beds, replaced with 75 assisted-living units. Total spaces in 2006 that are possible with the existing funding will be 379. The community is expecting funding for an additional 40 complex care beds to address ALC pressures at St. Joseph's Hospital. That's one community alone.

Are we talking about some beds being decommissioned? Yes, because of the particular circumstances around that facility, but we're also talking about a whole bunch of new facilities that are being developed or converted or renovated. I think this is all good news for the seniors that are living in the Comox Valley — that there are going to be some exciting new options for them. I think that's the key word around all of this — options to actually meet the individual needs of seniors depending on their particular circumstances and their need for independence versus their need for ongoing health care support. That's the goal, and I think the Comox Valley is a perfect example of a community where we're making progress towards that objective.

J. Kwan: Well, I wanted to ensure — and the minister has actually committed on record now — that the comparison of the 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds would be to the same standards, no matter how the definitions are being used or redefined right now, in terms of what those 5,000 new beds would be. That is important, and the standard of care is important insofar as what was then and how it was defined and what it is now and how it is being newly defined. That's important to establish.

When I said that the extended care beds that are needed…. As I mentioned earlier, this morning, the idea of the extended care beds is to alleviate the pressures in the emergency rooms and hospitals, and I think that need is still in existence. That need hasn't disappeared. The continuum of different levels of facilities for seniors is still needed. I appreciate that, but I do want to make sure that the government does not replace with lesser-supported beds to what was in place, which had a higher level of support, because then it is not comparing apples to apples in terms of what the government's action is.

That's why I ask about the baseline of 2,500. The government has now committed that it will replace the same levels of health care facilities to that which was in place before. That is good. That's good to know, so we can use that as a measurement.

Now, with respect to the notion that the government is trying to assess seniors appropriately so that seniors will get put into appropriate support services and the right kinds of beds, etc., I can appreciate that. Can the minister advise, then: is the assessment being used completely health related, or are there other measures that the government is using to determine whether or not a senior should go from intermediate care to, let's say, assisted living?

Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to come back to a comment that the member made earlier, before she went on to a new subject. She was talking about that there shouldn't be any lesser beds; I forgot the way she termed it. I think if you went to talk to a senior who was given the choice at a stage in their life where they may need extra help but still had the capacity for some independence…. If you gave them the choice of a bed

where they would have 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week nursing care, a totally dependent model where they really could not enjoy whatever independence they were capable of, and compare that to the option of assisted living — where they've got their own apartment-like suite, where they get meals that are prepared for them down the hall, where they can socialize with other members, have a sense of independence and still have some opportunity to have independence in their own apartment or their own unit with a small fridge or a small cooking unit and things like that — I think many seniors who still have a capacity for independence would say that the assisted-living model is the preferable model.

I think one of the things that frightened a lot of the seniors in the past was when they were faced with the prospect that the only alternative to the family home was to go into that totally dependent nursing home model we knew of in the past. To say that we are going to have as many beds in that 24-7 model as we had before would not be meeting the needs of seniors. What we need are the new options — the new assisted-living models and supportive housing models — that I think seniors who can enjoy independence find much, much more attractive. I think the commitment we've made is based on that benchmark we talked about earlier of 25,000 beds that were there as of 2001. We will, by the end of 2006, have a net increase of 5,000 beds in this province that meet that range of needs. I think that's the important thing to be kept in mind.

With regard to the kind of assessments that are done to determine at what level an individual would be placed, I can just give you a sense of the kind of assessment done by our community care nurses or others that will work with individuals in this regard. I'll just read out some of the assessments. I think it's a total of about a six- or seven-page assessment document, but I'll just read out some of the titles: cognitive patterns, for example; communication; hearing patterns; vision patterns; social functioning; mood and behaviour patterns; informal support services, which include a whole range of aspects of their daily living; physical functioning; continence in the last seven days; disease diagnoses; health conditions and preventative health measures; dental status and oral health; skin condition; environmental assessment; service utilization. These are all the different categories that are part of the assessment tools that are done.

Medications are another area that is looked at in that assessment. It is quite comprehensive, and it certainly does include a full range of the challenges that seniors may be facing.

If I can read one other…. This refers to: "The interRAI assessment tools are a standardized comprehensive family of tools that have been developed by an international group of researchers and used in over 30 countries." Currently in Canada, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon are in various stages of implementing the interRAI home care and residential care tools. In British Columbia the health authorities will be implementing this new home care and residential care assessment process over the next few years as outlined in the performance agreements.

J. Kwan: In the long list of things for evaluation in determining whether or not a person should go from intermediate care to assisted living, is the person's financial situation taken into consideration?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is no. When we are doing an assessment to determine the level of need that an individual has, it is not based on their income status. I think once they are placed — if they are placed, say, in an assisted-living environment — then the degree to which there is financial support from government for those needs is income-based. For those seniors on low income, they do get far more financial support from government for those needs than a senior with a very high income in any one year.

J. Kwan: It's interesting, because I've got an e-mail here which advises that it has been this organization's experience that those who go from intermediate care to assisted living… It's based largely on fiscal criteria — i.e., those with greater financial resources are very much encouraged to take the assisted-living route. In fact, those seniors have been singled out to even receive physical therapy in order for them to be at a health care level where they can live in assisted-living facilities, and it goes on to highlight a particular case.

Then, the other criterion for determination is the dementia assessments, it advises in this e-mail. It states that it has been their experience that seniors from intermediate care are being assessed as having high levels of dementia in order that they may fit into what the government now calls complex care. Maybe, first, the minister can shed some light on this issue. Again, the e-mail came this morning as a result of our debate this morning. People who have been watching and the organization who has written to us advise us that it's been their experience that fiscal criteria are the major influencing factor in deciding whether or not a person should go from intermediate care to assisted living.

Hon. C. Hansen: Without more detail with regard to that e-mail the member has received, I'm at a loss as to how to answer that particular case. I guess it comes back to…. The interRAI tools we have put in place are not in any way dependent on the income level of the individual being assessed. If there is a case where somebody is trying to put somebody in a different classification because of their income level, I would certainly be interested in learning more details of it. The whole purpose of the standardized classification around the province is to bring consistency based on the individual needs of the person, not based on their financial needs.

J. Kwan: I'm just checking with my staff to see whether or not I can put this information with the names of the organizations and the individuals impacted on the record publicly. I haven't obtained that assurance just yet, so I'm a little bit reluctant to do that, for confidentiality reasons. I wouldn't want to do that unless I have the authorization to do so.

However, I want to be very clear. The information we've received from this organization is that seniors are being assessed largely based on financial situations as opposed to their care needs. This is the information we've received, so I'll probably come back to it. I suspect that the people who e-mailed us would want this information on the record, and I'll come back to it. But it's good to actually have the minister say on record that financial considerations would not be part of the assessment. Then in the situations where that is happening and where that information comes forward and we're able to bring that to the minister's attention without jeopardizing confidentiality, we certainly will be doing so.

Let me ask the other question in this e-mail, which contained the criterion of dementia as the assessment tool. Again, the e-mail advises that it's been their experience that seniors from intermediate care are being assessed as having high levels of dementia in order that they may fit into what the government now calls complex care. Is that the case?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I think I mentioned earlier, this assessment tool is meant to be objective. It is meant to bring standardization around these. I think, even as I read out earlier some of the definitions around the groupings within complex care, just that little summary that I read gives some indication of the detail to which they have refined these definitions to try to get that standardization. The ones that are doing these assessments are well-trained community nurses who have specific orientation around how to undertake these assessments so there is consistency throughout the province.

Certainly, if anybody has any evidence that there is subjectivity being brought into these assessments, I would be pleased to hear about it because we clearly are trying to get to a model that brings certainty and consistency within those refined definitions to make sure we've got a standardized process around the province.

J. Kwan: Is it fair enough to say that given the reclassifications that the government is embarking on, the complex care group is the one group and the other one, I assume, is assisted living? Is it fair to say, then, there are basically two groupings to which individuals could fit under — either assisted living or the complex care group category?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what the member is starting to look at is: what are the housing needs, and how do those get met? Assisted living is a housing model that has a health care component to it. When you start looking at the interRAI tools that are being used, what they will do is evaluate the needs of the individual.

At the end of the day, how those needs get met could be in a variety of ways. You could wind up with an individual who is in one of the complex care groupings but can still stay in the family home and be supported in the family home in a way that makes sure that their needs get met. In other situations, it may be that that individual's circumstances require more security, more secure care — perhaps because of a dementia, for example.

If you start looking at individuals who would have assessments that would be less than complex care, there's a whole range of different classifications that they could fit in, each of which will then drive the kind of support that they would get. That support can be provided in a variety of settings. It could be in the family home. It could be in a supportive-housing environment. It could be in an assisted-living environment. Really, the assessment doesn't, at the end of it, come up with a result that says: "Oh, that person is eligible for an assisted-living unit." What it does is assess their individual needs, and then they work with the individual and the family to determine what kind of a housing placement is most appropriate for them. It really is individualized — trying to look at the individual needs, the individual capacity for independence and the kinds of supports that that individual may require.

J. Kwan: There used to be these categories: intermediate care level 1, level 2 and level 3, supportive housing, assisted living, long-term care or extended care. That used to be the spectrum. Now, as things are being redefined — and I haven't got all the terminologies before me — what I do know so far is that there's a grouping called the complex care grouping. Then there is, I presume, a grouping called the assisted-living grouping.

Now, the minister says there is a range of classifications. What is that range of classifications that's being used now by this government?

I'm just going to add to that, because I only know of two right now, and those are assisted living and the complex care groupings. Supportive housing I'm not considering as part of the groupings, because supportive housing…. Well, no. I should actually consider supportive housing as part of the classification, because the minister said earlier of supportive housing that there are some that would fit into the 5,000 new beds and there are some that would not.

Okay, so there are three categories: supportive housing, assisted living and complex care groups. Am I missing any other categories?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what's important is to come…. I think we're confusing two things here. One is the care needs for the individual and the degree to which they have lost their independence — the degree

to which they need supports. That's what these tools — the interRAI tools — are all about. I think the member may be getting confused by trying to stay in a housing model. There are two things here. One is the kind of housing that is appropriate for seniors, and the other is the kind of care and support they need. Those are two very separate things.

If I could just read a definition as to the transition that is taking place: "The Ministry of Health Services identified the need for an improved, reliable and valid assessment tool to replace the 20-year-old long-term care assessment form. In January of 2002 the Ministry of Health Services mandated the interRAI home care (MDS-HC) and residential care (MDS 2.0)." Those are the two assessment tools that have been mandated as the new standard for the province.

Now, if an individual is assessed under the basis of the home care tool, they could still wind up in a range of different housing environments. They could wind up at home with home care support, they could wind up in supportive housing with home care support, or they could wind up in assisted living with home care support — all coming out of this assessment tool.

In the case of the residential care assessment tool, that would actually look at the kind of facility care that may be required because of the particular circumstances of the individuals. I think we've got to recognize that we have to look at care, and that can be anything from lower levels of care right through to dementia care, which could all be provided in the individual's family home, or it could be provided in supportive housing or assisted living or, indeed, in a complex care setting.

There are two things. One is the assessment tools to determine the level of support that is required, and the other is the housing options that may be available to them. I think we have to be careful not to confuse the two.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm trying not to confuse the two in terms of housing options versus health care options.

The minister says that perhaps under the assisted-living model, if home support is needed for the individual and where home support is provided for, then the senior or the person could continue to live independently because all they need is home support. Then maybe the minister can tell me first: in the situation where home support is needed for the person to live independently, is that considered assisted living? Under what category does that situation fall?

Hon. C. Hansen: You could have an individual who is provided with home support in a range of facilities. As I say, it could be the family home, but it could also be assisted living. There's a whole range of options. It is the care component that is driven by these assessment tools, and that care can be provided anywhere — well, not anywhere, but in a variety of circumstances that may meet the individual needs of that senior. What comes out of the assessment tool, in terms of the kind of home support or home care that may be required, does not in itself dictate the kind of housing option that is necessary.

J. Kwan: Yes, I can appreciate that home support could be given in any situation, whether it be assisted living or in the person's own home or whatever the case may be. Well, then let me try and recast my question. What is deemed to be assisted living?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is defined, actually, in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act as well. Just to give a bit of a background, which is probably not in the same kind of legalese as it would be in the act itself: "Assisted living means a housing arrangement that consists of the following three elements…. "

I'm just trying to see if this may, in fact, be a better one to read out. Yeah, this may be a bit more concise:

J. Kwan: The 5,000 new beds — that would include assisted-living housing units under the definition the minister has just put out? Am I right in understanding that assisted-living units, utilizing this definition, will be included in the composition of the 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds?

J. Kwan: The minister doesn't have the numbers of how he's broken it down. He's going to provide that to me, in terms of what those 5,000 new beds would look like and what it consists of to date — not by 2006 but to date. He's going to provide me with that information. Okay.

Let me just follow up with this, and then I want to go back to the Comox situation. I know we sort of entered into that discussion briefly, but I want to come back to that. Let me follow up with this line of questioning around the breakdown of what has been built to date of those 5,000 beds. The former minister of state for seniors had advised that 811 residential care beds have opened since June of 2001; 429 assisted-living units have been provided; 173 independent supportive housing units and 479 rent supplements. And 1,941

independent living units have been requested, but they're not yet ready. That totals 3,833.

Are these numbers still valid? Can the minister provide me, then, with the update of these numbers in these categories since estimates debate of last year?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as we were talking this morning, it's at any point, at any particular snapshot in time, looking at all of the various players across government that are part of meeting this commitment…. It's difficult to get that snapshot in time, so I'm not sure what particular numbers the previous minister may have been referring to at the time.

Again, I just want to remind the member of our discussion this morning, where it's not…. You know, we at no time in 2001 said that by 2006 there's going to be X number of these beds, X number of those beds and X number of those beds. What we're doing is saying we need to meet the needs of individual communities, and some of that changes. A direction that may be looking at going into complex care beds may in fact realize that actually the real community need is for other levels. So we are trying to be flexible in that regard.

I think if you look at this one data…. I just want to make sure I know what I'm looking at here. In terms of assisted-living units, for example, from 2001…. I'm trying to think when this would be current as of — updated as of last October. Assisted-living units that had been opened since the middle of 2001 were 668; assisted units that are in planning or in construction, 2,696. If you look at independent housing units that have opened since the middle of 2001, it was 288; the independent housing units, planned or in construction, 302. Residential care units — a net change of 596.

Again, this is within the specific health sector where some of these projects have a subsidized component to them. But you know, in addition, this would include some of the work being done by B.C. Housing but would not include a lot of the initiatives that are underway around the province where community groups and private sector developers are building facilities and then designing them in a way that would provide for those assisted-living needs. In many cases, the health authorities are looking at some of those projects as options to provide for the needs in those particular communities as well. So there may well be some mix of funded and unfunded beds in some of these facilities as we go forward.

Those numbers that I just read out do give you a sense of the information that is provided by the health authorities. Actually, just to refine that, it's information provided by the health authorities that was updated in October 2003 and updated in February 2004 with information provided by B.C. Housing. That gives a bit of an indication of some of the progress that we're making to date on this file.

J. Kwan: The information that I'm putting forward from the former minister of state for seniors came out of estimates debate on May 26 and 27, where I was exploring with the minister in detail about the 5,000-bed commitment. What the minister had provided was the breakdown of 811 residential care beds that have opened since June 2001. The 429 assisted-living units, 173 independent supportive-housing units, 479 rent supplements and 1,941 more independent living units have been requested but not yet readied, which brings it to a total of 3,833.

I'm using that as a base — as a record — to ask these questions in terms of what the update is, and I'm confused as to the information that the minister had provided. Let me just try and go through that.

The minister advises that the residential care beds are now at 596. That would appear to me as a reduction of beds, because what the former minister had advised last year in estimates debate was 811. Maybe just let me take these step by step. Let me just stop there on the residential care beds, and maybe the minister can clarify for me. Is it an actual reduction from 811 to 596?

I want to be very clear, Mr. Chair. In these questions, I'm not saying that the minister or this government had committed by the year 2004 that out of the 5,000 new beds, they would have built this many. I just want to ask: how's it going? Because 2006 was the commitment that 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds will be built by and will be available in the community.

We're now at 2004, and I'm just wondering: how's it going, and how many have you built under that new-era commitment?

Hon. C. Hansen: It has just been pointed out to me that actually I was reading off of the wrong line here. I'd better be really clear in the numbers that I'm giving her. This is residential care beds opened since June 2001 — a total of 885. The assisted-living units opened since June 2001 is 668. The independent housing units opened since June 2001 is 288.

J. Kwan: Okay, that makes sense. So it's not a reduction in beds; it's actually an increase in beds to 885.

Now, the former minister also provided information with respect to rent supplements. She advised that 479 rent supplements are existing. I just want to make sure that we're, again, comparing apples to apples. When we talk about rent supplements, we're talking about rent supplements to units that provide for or meet that minimum definition that the minister had stated. That is: (a) that it's design built; and (b) that it provides for 24-hour care, as it is required by the individual living there — that it provides for access to 24-hour care, I should say; and (c) that it is designed to meet the health care needs. Those were the three conditions. Am I right in understanding that the rent supplements that are included in this list by the former minister of state for seniors — that those rent supplement units include those conditions?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I want to come back to something the member said again. I'm not sure where

she got this notion of 5,000 beds all having a 24-hour-a-day component to them. I might have to take responsibility for that. It might be something I said that got misinterpreted. When we're talking about our 5,000 beds, we're talking about a care component addressed to meet the individual needs of the resident. It is not necessarily 24 hours a day, but it is the appropriate amount of care to meet those individual needs.

When we look at rent supplements, there are two ways that the needs of an individual can be met in a facility that is not 100 percent owned by, let's say, a health authority. That is that the health authority may go in and contract for a certain number of beds in that facility. Once the resident is placed in that facility, the owner of that complex gets their monthly pay for that unit from the health authority. Then the health authority, in turn, may recoup a certain percentage of that from the individual based on the income test for the individual.

In a rent supplement model, it would be a situation where it is the resident who is in fact renting the housing component of that and the care component that may come along with it, but government is providing a subsidy based on the financial needs of that particular individual.

When it comes back to our whole goal of 5,000 additional beds, we would only be counting those rent supplements where there is in fact a health care component that is provided along the lines that we talked about earlier today.

J. Kwan: No, I just want to be clear. The 5,000 new beds that I'm using to measure the government's commitment is based on what the New Era document says, and that is 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds. I never said that it was required that it have 24-hour nursing care or anything like that, but using the old definition of what was intermediate and long-term care beds, that's the measurement I'm using to hold the government to account. I want to be clear about that, which is why we canvassed for hours, it seems like, this morning and later on today about the definition — so that we're again comparing apples to apples. That's where I'm using those 5,000 new beds measurement — where that's coming from.

The minister clarified, on the rent supplement side, that the rent supplements must have a health care component to them. Earlier today I asked the minister what he deemed to be a health care component. He advised that there are three things it must provide: (1) that it is purpose-built; (2) that it has the ability to provide health services, that it is designed to provide health services; and (3) that the persons living in it would have 24-hour supports to meet their health care needs. Those are the exact words the minister said. I want to make sure — and I think it's been confirmed by the minister — that those rent supplements, in fact, meet those three conditions. Let me just stop there and get that confirmation.

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the rent supplements, in order to qualify for the funding that has been available — this is the portion of the 3,500 units being provided through Independent Living B.C. — those rent subsidy units must have a care component to them. That is one of the requirements.

With regard to the three elements the member keeps coming back to, yes, we are talking about facilities that are built to provide care for seniors, and we are talking about facilities that are built with the intention of having a care component to them. When we talk about the 24-hour, we're talking about a 24-hour emergency response. What I came back to is that we're talking about the level of care that is required by the individual.

I think when it comes down to the definitions, which I know the member wants to spend a lot of time on, what it comes back to are the definitions around what intermediate care would have been in 2001. I read out some of the definitions of what used to be IC 1, IC 2, IC 3. Those are what we'll use as our benchmarks to determine whether or not there is a care component in order to meet this accountability we have.

There are two sides to it. One is that we obviously have a political accountability back to the voters of B.C. based on the new-era commitment we put forward around the 5,000 net increase in beds, based on definitions that were in place in 2001 for intermediate long-term care. When it comes to meeting the needs of individuals, we want to be driven by future needs and future definitions, but we also appreciate the fact that when it comes to our political accountabilities, we are driven by what was in fact in place and understood in 2001.

J. Kwan: That's good clarification. What the minister has just admitted, then, is that they're aiming to meet both tests — that is, the political commitment that was made during the election in the New Era document and what the assessment of the communities' needs is. There are two tests, really, that the minister and this government must be held to account for.

I certainly appreciate that, and as an opposition member that's exactly what I'm trying to do here, which is why we're going through these definitions in quite a bit of detail and making sure we're not mixing up apples and oranges. We are also clarifying the record of what the former minister of state for seniors had put on record, which turned out to be wrong and corrected by this Health minister today.

Now we're clear about the rent supplements here — that they must have the care component — and the information that was obtained from the former minister of state for seniors advised that it was 479 rent supplements. Is there any update with respect to that number, or has that number stayed static at 479?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that with me. That actually is a question she may want to put to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services,

J. Kwan: Okay, then I will put that question to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services around that, with the exception that the former minister of state for seniors provided that information in estimates debate as part of those 5,000 beds. So one would assume it would be logical to ask that question for that update here with this particular minister, because that does fit into that 5,000 new extended and long-term care bed commitment. But I'm fine with asking the other minister for that.

Can the minister clarify the independent supportive-housing units — the 173 to 288 that are now in place? Could the minister advise that those independent supportive units…? Am I right in assuming that those units also have the care components or the three conditions we talked about?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, when it comes to the rent supplements, I'd be pleased to try to get that information for the member, if she would like it, from Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I just don't have it at my fingertips today. I think the other thing that's important to underscore is that the 5,000-bed commitment is a commitment by this government. It is not a commitment specifically by the Ministry of Health Services. We obviously have a role to play. We have an important partnership with the other agencies and not-for-profit organizations, community organizations and the not-for-profit providers to make sure that goal is achieved. If she would like, I would endeavour to get that information for her, if she would prefer it before those particular estimates come up.

With regard to the independent housing, those units would only count towards the 5,000 commitment if, in fact, there was a care component to them. The number I read out, the 288, is simply those facilities for which B.C. Housing or the health authorities may be somehow involved with. We recognize that there's a whole bunch of independent housing that is being built around this province, and when it comes to our commitment of reaching our 5,000-bed commitment, that only gets factored in if, in fact, there is a health care component to it. If the question the member has is if those 288 beds are all being included towards the 5,000 commitment, probably not, because we still have to make sure we do proper assessment as to which of those units do or do not include a health care component.

J. Kwan: Thank you for that clarification. Again, that differs from what the former minister of state for seniors had provided. In last year's estimates the former minister of state had provided that of the 5,000-bed commitment, it included the 173 independent supportive-housing units. Now it appears that independent supportive housing units…. The minister may not necessarily have known how many of those units actually have the care component that would allow it to be counted towards the 5,000 new bed commitment. If it doesn't have the care component, it should not be in the list of numbers she provided. She gave a total of 3,833 units that have been met towards the 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care bed commitment, so that's wrong. That's wrong information that the minister of state for seniors had provided. I need to get this information from the minister — that is, of the 288 units the minister advised are the independent supportive housing units, how many of those have a care component? Does the minister know?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that information at this time. It may well have been that the former minister had more detail at that time around what were then the 173 units. Just to put this debate into perspective, you know, as we said earlier today, this is about a target we have set that we will meet by the end of 2006. When we look at the mix of…. I've given you lots of examples of progress to date and a snapshot in time, and if the commitment was deliverable by March 2004, obviously we'd have a lot more refined numbers today at our disposal around that target.

As we get closer to our target, I certainly want to give evidence that we're on track to getting there, which I think I've done today. As we get closer to the end of 2006, we will take our accountability seriously. We have to be able to show or to demonstrate to what I know is always a very skeptical public that in fact we lived up to the obligation we made to them in 2001, and I know we'll be able to do that.

J. Kwan: It seems to me that the minister is getting a bit defensive about these numbers. There's no need to get defensive about it, Mr. Chair. I'm not suggesting the minister or the government had said that by 2004, X number of units will be built. What I'm saying is that the government made a commitment in the New Era document that by 2006, they will have 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds built in British Columbia.

I'm trying to assess…. A normal person — some would argue that I'm not that particularly normal, but anyway, whatever — would be able to assess how the government is doing by determining that we are now at 2004. Of those 5,000 new beds that have been committed, what percentage of those beds is actually existing in our community? Then perhaps a person would be able to gauge by 2006 whether or not the government will realistically meet those commitments. That's all I'm trying to do.

There's no need, Mr. Chair, to get all defensive about these numbers of what the former minister of state for seniors had stated, because that's what she said on the record…. Earlier this morning we were able to establish, through the discussion and the debate, that the minister of state had made a number of errors. I will be generous in casting that it was in fact an error and that it was not intentional to mislead or to purposely provide wrong information in this House. I'll be

generous in suggesting that it was simply wrong information that was provided. That's what I'm trying to assess here. Of those independent supportive units, how many can actually be counted towards the new-era commitment of 5,000 new beds?

The former minister, I think, took in the entire 173 to be counted towards that, because she gave a grand total of 3,833 units to be built. By today's discussion, I can only come up with, definitively, how the government is doing on this file with respect to meeting that commitment towards 2006 — that there's only been 1,553 units that can definitively be used towards that 5,000 new-era commitment. There's less than two years for the rest of the units — almost 3,500 of them — that need to be built and developed for the government to say that they actually honour their election campaign commitment. So we can assess, in reality, how close we are. That's the intent of these questions.

As I say, I'd be happy to ask the minister of CAWS for the rent supplement breakdown. But if the minister can provide that tomorrow, I can add that to our list in terms of the updates of the information I know the minister is getting for tomorrow's debate. Also, if the minister can, for tomorrow, advise this House how many of the 288 can actually be counted towards this New Era document, that would be useful as well.

Let me ask, then, this question of the minister — again based on what the former minister of state for seniors had said, which is that 1,941 more independent living units are requested but are not yet ready: is that number still the targeted number? Is that number still valid today?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I just want to underscore that the numbers we've been talking about this afternoon are just the work that is being done either by or through our health authorities — with our health authority involvement. Clearly, B.C. Housing is one of those partners. This is part of that whole puzzle — part of the whole goal or process of leading towards the 5,000 beds. These numbers that we're talking about this afternoon are just those that are, at this stage, directly involving the health authorities.

As I mentioned earlier, under the category of "Opened since June of 2001," we had assisted living, 668; independent housing units, 288; and total independent living units, 956. What we have also, as of February, are those that have been tendered — those that are in process and are near completion, so they're not yet actually open: assisted-living units, 1,219, for a total of 1,887. We have 303 independent housing units that have been tendered, are in process or near completion, for a total of 591. The overall total there is 2,478.

Again, when we talk about the independent housing units, we still need to determine which of those have a care component. I'm not sure. That is a work in progress. I can't promise the member that we can give her a definitive number by tomorrow, but we'll certainly see what kind of information is at our disposal in that regard.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. The numbers that the minister just provided differ from the numbers that he provided just moments ago, so I'm confused. The minister had advised that assisted-living units, from the October 2003 update…. The number had moved from 429 to 668, and I think I just heard the minister…. Maybe I heard him wrong. He said that there are now 1,219 assisted-living units. Anyway, maybe the minister can just tell me these numbers again. I'm thoroughly confused — I'm sorry — with that last answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: My apologies. I will read these columns vertically, and that might make it more clear. Opened since June of 2001: 668 assisted-living units. Those that have been tendered, which means they are in process or nearing completion, are 1,219. The total that are opened or tendered at this point is 1,887. Independent housing units, as I had indicated earlier, opened since June of 2001 are 288, and those that have been tendered — i.e., in process or near completion — are 303, for a total of 591. The total of those independent living units is 2,478.

Hon. C. Hansen: The total of either opened or tendered assisted-living units and independent housing units is 2,478.

J. Kwan: Okay, so that clarifies it. The minister will endeavour to find out how many of the independent supportive-housing units in fact have the health care component within them, and we'll await that information — and also the rent supplement side.

Now, the question earlier was about how many more independent living units are being requested at this time. The former minister of state had advised it was 1,941. My question to the minister is: what is that number now?

Hon. C. Hansen: The degree of certainty that we have is around those that are, obviously, open and those that have been tendered and are actively under completion. For those that will be rolling out, there is no hard definition now to say there's going to be X number of a certain number of units. That is part of the flexibility that the health authorities are still working with.

I know of cases, for example, where they have gone out for an expression of interest around the building of an assisted-living unit only to find out that somebody in the community has a facility that would lend itself to conversion. They need that kind of flexibility, because at the end of the day it's not just about building buildings; it's about making sure the needs in the community get met. That's what's driving the health authorities in this planning process.

I don't have a hard number for how many units aside from those that are tendered are in fact going to

materialize in each separate category, because it is obviously up to the health authorities to determine what particular housing model is going to best meet their particular needs in those particular communities.

J. Kwan: Okay, thank you. Perhaps next year's estimates we'll know, and then we'll ask those questions again. The minister can prepare himself when we get there. Okay.

I'm going to set aside these numbers for a moment. We canvassed about how many new beds are there, etc. Then I'm going to ask the minister about the flip side of things, and that is: how many beds have closed, etc.? I'll go to that in a moment.

I now just want to turn to the situation in Comox, because I don't want to lose that discussion. Earlier I mentioned that in fact, in the Comox community, the health authority actually had to go out and get hotel rooms as an interim measure for long-term care bed replacements. The minister then rose in the House and said he grew up in that community, and then he read off a list of great things that are happening in that community.

Here's the situation as I understand it. Let me just quote an article from the Vancouver Sun. In the article it says that starting March 1, the Campbell River Ramada Inn will provide 12 supportive-living rooms for seniors and people with disabilities, and this is a plan that the Vancouver Island health authority had put in place.

That was as of February 14 and so is rather recent. My question to the minister is with respect to the whole notion about meeting the community's needs. Here we have a demonstrated need that long-term and extended care beds are needed in this community to the point where the health authority has to go and get 12 hotel rooms to accommodate the people in need in order to move the people who are in the hospitals away from the hospital beds and into the hotel rooms. What that tells me is that shutting down or downsizing extended health care beds is not a sound move at this point, particularly in this community, yet it is being done all across the province. I hope the minister would agree that utilizing a hotel would not actually meet the community's needs. Am I right in that assumption? Maybe the minister can shed some light on this situation.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member made reference to extended care patients going into this model in Campbell River. I don't think it would be appropriate to classify these individuals as extended care. Clearly, they have health care needs.

I am aware of a model that's in Gibsons, a place called Gibsons Garden, which was a former hotel or motel facility converted to meet the needs of residents. There's a fabulous dining room — I remember seeing pictures of a fabulous dining room with a view — great facilities, all of the elevators and all of the amenities a facility would need to provide really excellent care for these residents. I think the real test in that one was not what I think is appropriate or what the health authority thinks is appropriate; it's what the individual residents of that facility…. They love it. They think it's a great facility. They've certainly received very positive feedback from the individuals being cared for in that facility.

I think it also speaks to the need for health authorities around the province to look at the resources in their communities that are best able to meet those needs. I do remember the TV coverage of the arrangement that was being made at the Ramada Inn in Campbell River. The TV crew went in, and they took footage of the dining room facility and the rooms that were there. It certainly appeared to me, from watching the TV coverage, that it was great space and a great use of that wing of a hotel not being otherwise utilized. The fact that the hotel operator was able to make an arrangement with the health authority to dedicate that space to be used to meet the needs of those seniors, from everything that I am aware of, was entirely appropriate.

Now, I can't say I've seen a survey of the seniors that have been able to take advantage of it, but it's a beautiful facility with a gorgeous view. I would think it would be a very pleasant environment for those seniors. Some of the seniors may well find they'd like to stay there on a permanent basis, never mind a temporary basis. I don't think you can say that kind of an arrangement is necessarily inappropriate. If it meets the needs of the individuals in an appropriate way, then it may be what's in the very best interests for those individuals involved.

J. Kwan: Actually, I'm quoting from the newspaper. In fact, it's not my words about this situation; it's the words of the spokesperson for the Vancouver Island health authority. She advised in this article that it is a temporary measure. "It is about keeping people out of the hospital. They could end up in the emergency room while they're waiting for a long-term care facility placement." That's what the article says. I'm not making this up. I'm canvassing with the minister about….

Well, it appears to me that he seems to think it is appropriate that a hotel could be used for this purpose. It would appear to me the minister is saying it meets the three criteria. It is purpose-built. Now, whether a hotel is actually purpose-built for seniors in need of

long-term care facilities so that they don't end up in emergency rooms while they're waiting for a long-term care facility is one question. Whether or not it meets the criterion of being designed with the ability to provide health services to seniors is the other question. Then, of course, the last question is access to the 24-hour support to meet health care needs. But it seems to me that the minister is satisfied that this kind of situation in fact meets the conditions the minister has set out in terms of providing for a health care component and that he's satisfied with this kind of arrangement. Am I right in understanding that?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, I have not said that these 12 beds would be counted in our 12,000. Clearly, this is a temporary arrangement the health authority has made. But I think if you wound up with a facility that used to be a hotel and is then renovated or upgraded or whatever to become purpose-built or purposely refitted or renovated to meet some of these future-need categories, then yeah, it may in the future.

I was just sent a news release that came out from the Vancouver Island health authority on January 28. It's titled "Supportive Living Options Expand in Campbell River." It says:

From everything I know about this facility, it certainly sounds like it may be a very attractive place for individuals who are in need of transitional supportive living. I don't think just because it was a wing of a hotel necessarily means it is inappropriate care for these individuals.

J. Kwan: The issue is not about whether or not it's appropriate care or inappropriate care. The issue I take with the minister is this. The minister was saying the community may not need…. In fact, what this government wants to do is provide for what is needed in the community, and we were debating whether or not extended care facilities are needed. The minister is saying it's the range of options that is required.

The case in point in Comox, then, shows there is a need for extended care facilities in the midst of where the government is closing down extended care facilities. The point the spokesperson said is about keeping people out of the hospital. They could end up in an emergency room while they're waiting for a long-term care facility placement. Again, those are not my words; they're the words of the spokesperson from the Vancouver Island health authority.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chair, is that at least in this community it appears to me that there's a shortage of long-term care facilities. Therefore, a temporary transition measure is being put in place utilizing the Campbell River Ramada Inn. I may add, as well, that the Campbell River Ramada Inn is a different scenario than the scenario the minister has cited as a pilot initiative. That is, the Ramada Inn, as far as I could tell, is not being converted into a long-term care facility.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I should suggest to the member that she not rely on news clippings for her research. You know, I've certainly been misquoted, and she's been misquoted, I'm sure, on occasion in media clippings. To build her case around what is attributed to an individual in a news clipping is not something that I think she should rely on.

One of the challenges we have as a government, and one of the reasons we made a commitment around 5,000 additional beds by 2006, was the fact that during the entire decade of the 1990s, there was a net increase of only 1,000 beds in the entire province over an entire ten-year span. That's what we inherited as a government. Can we snap our fingers and create all those beds overnight? No, but we're working towards it. In the case of Campbell River, where clearly they had some short-term challenges while they developed new facilities to meet the community needs of the future, they found a short-term solution.

It may well be that in the future a community in this province may find there is a great facility that in the past has been used as a hotel, which is going to be entirely converted to a new assisted-living unit. It may not be a bad basis to build on, given that there is a dining room, that they've got great kitchen facilities and that there are elevators in many of these hotels. It may be an option that works for a community. In this case, we're talking about a temporary facility. Am I counting these particular temporary 12 units towards our 5,000? No, but at the end of the day it may well be that it may be meeting part of the future needs.

This is just some more information around the circumstances at the Ramada — those 12 units. The people we are referring to the Ramada are those we will house in assisted living as soon as it is developed in Campbell River. They do not require residential care but will benefit from services such as meals, laundry, housekeeping and having someone to call if they are in trouble. Vancouver Island health authority will provide personal care and other home support services, just as we do with other individuals who are living in their own homes.

J. Kwan: The issue about the government meeting their 5,000 new and long-term care bed commitment, where the minister says we can't do that overnight…. The minister's commitment is for those new beds to exist for 2006, and that's the basis I'm utilizing to hold the government to account in terms of how they're doing on that.

It's true that the former government had identified the need to build more long-term care beds — in fact,

not just long-term care beds but also intermediate care and also supportive housing and assisted living and just general affordable housing so that the full continuum is there. The former government recognized there was a logjam in emergency beds because there wasn't enough of this full continuum. You're right. That was something that needed to be done, and, in fact, that was part of the plan — to actually develop more, and a fuller continuum.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Small Business is heckling me; so is the want-to-be minister. The other member from Chilliwack is heckling me, saying: "Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, and those things need to be done." Do you know what? In building that continuum, Mr. Chair, it was not the former government who cancelled affordable housing units so that they could take all of that money, raid all of the money that was in affordable housing, and move it into the health care sector to build assisted-living units. The former government never did that. The former government recognized the need for affordable housing and wanted to build on that continuum without robbing Peter for Paul. That's what this government is doing around the housing continuum.

I would challenge the Liberal MLAs and the Minister of Small Business to rise up in this House and say it is a good thing for the government to cancel 1,000 units of affordable housing and take those moneys away from the people who are now homeless in the streets in the lower mainland, which has doubled under this government's watch — to get up and say in this House that this was a good thing for this government to do.

That's exactly what this government has done — taken money from affordable housing and moved it into the health care sector so that they could try and meet their new-era commitment. They robbed the homeless of the dollars for affordable housing that were formerly allocated, which were there from the federal government, and moved it into the health area. The former government never did such a thing.

The Chair: Order, please. Order. Let's keep the debate down to one person, please.

J. Kwan: And the member for Vancouver-Burrard is heckling me. You know what? In Vancouver alone, the homeless numbers have actually doubled under this government's watch by 600. It has doubled under this government's watch by 600. In the lower mainland, in total, the number of homeless people has increased to 1,000 under this government's watch. Those numbers just happen to coincide with the number of units lost in the affordable housing sector. That is the reality of what's going on in this government in terms of their funding for housing or lack thereof. In British Columbia we no longer have a housing program, because those moneys have been robbed. Affordable housing moneys have been robbed by this government and put into the health care area so that the government can say that they are meeting and working towards meeting their 5,000 new long-term care and intermediate care new-era commitment. That is what's happening.

Under the former government, that never happened. We never took money away from housing, moved it to health and said that we were actually building more assisted-living units. Maybe the Minister of Small Business thinks this is all very funny. It isn't funny for the people who are sleeping on the streets when they've lost those units. It isn't funny at all. These Liberal members — maybe they think that this is just a funny debate for the people who are actually living in the streets.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard is saying that I'm misleading the House. Well, I'll challenge him. I'll challenge him on the record, Mr. Chair. These numbers that I give in this House are actually factual information. Surveys have been done. I would advise the member for Vancouver-Burrard to actually get his facts straight. This government cancelled a thousand units of affordable housing when they took office. There are now approximately a thousand more people who are homeless in the lower mainland. Those numbers just happen to coincide.

Getting back to the debate here. Getting back to the debate around long-term care. You know, it is really something else when government ministers and backbench MLAs can sit and laugh about the situation with respect to homelessness and the loss of housing dollars to the people who need housing in this province.

The Chair: Order, please. Let's keep the debate to the member. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard actually does have something to worry about. There was a recent poll that was done, and his seat is actually being threatened. He might be wise to advocate for his constituents for once in a blue moon rather than just spin the government's line. It might be wise for him to actually advocate for his constituents, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Member, let's confine our remarks to the debate as well.

J. Kwan: Well, I must admit I do digress. The want-to-be minister — the member for Vancouver-Burrard

— is sitting here heckling me, talking about what a great record this government has around housing. Well, when we get to the housing debate, we'll actually canvass what a great record they have, how many units they have cancelled and how many people have increased in terms of homelessness in our communities across British Columbia. We will certainly get to that, Mr. Chair. Make no mistake about it. In fact, I can't wait — when we get to that.

The Ramada Inn situation. The minister says: "Okay. This is in transition. They have a great situation there, and it's all working out very well." The only difference is this. Meanwhile, as the government is transitioning in building more assisted-living units and so on — supportive housing units — this government is also closing down long-term and intermediate care beds, even though in some communities — in fact, in many of our communities — those beds are still needed. They're still needed for seniors all across British Columbia. That is a major difference with this government's approach from that of the previous administration.

Let me now shift gears. I can argue about the Comox situation, and the minister is saying that maybe the article that I'm quoting from is wrong information. I suspect not, because it's a direct quote from the spokesperson. Anyway, I'll set that aside, and let's now turn to the number of beds that have closed under this government.

Let me start with this. At the April 2002 meeting, the former minister talked about the development of assisted-living units. Now, instead of increasing long-term residential beds, 3,111 long-term units will be cut by '04-05, to be replaced with 3,799 assisted-living units. That is where the increase of 688 units came from, presumably.

Let me start from there. How many intermediate and long-term care beds and extended care beds have closed to date?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, this is based on information from the health authorities and B.C. Housing. It shows that beds that would have been closed since June of 2001 number 2,333, but I think you also have to make sure that you look at the overall stock of housing. We were talking this morning about the inventory numbers from CMHC in the province. Where that number is important is that they actually look at the net number of beds in the province across the range of facilities. There they show that since 2001 we've actually seen a net increase in care facilities of 1,046 — a total net increase of 4,195 in the province. Again, that includes some aspects of independent housing that may not necessarily fall into the 5,000-bed count as we discussed earlier.

J. Kwan: The number that the minister gave is 2,333. That differs from what the former minister had provided, and that is the number of 3,111. I just want to make sure we have the right numbers here, because the former minister stated that 3,111 long-term care units would be cut by '04-05. The minister is now saying it's only 2,333?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, I am aware of facilities in the province that health authorities had initially targeted for closure and that, in fact, are not being closed now. That may account for some of the difference from the other number that the member is using.

Again, I want to come back to the fact that we are seeing a significant net increase in the number of beds across the province as indicated, independently of us, by the CMHC survey that gets done.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a breakdown of the 2,333 beds that have closed, by community — in other words, a list of where the facilities have actually shut down, what the name of the facility is and the number of beds of that particular facility that have shut down?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I do have at my disposal right now is a…. I can give her a breakdown by health authority if that might be helpful to her. In the case of the interior health authority, the number is 704; Fraser health authority is 433; Vancouver coastal health authority is 360; Vancouver Island health authority, 751; and the northern health authority is 85.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have the information I'm seeking, though? He may not have it right here at this moment, but does he have access to that information? Could I get a copy, then, at a later time — by today or tomorrow?

Hon. C. Hansen: We will certainly endeavour to pull it together. I, at this point, can't give her a specific time frame on that because I'm not sure of the complexity of assembling that data.

J. Kwan: I could assume, then, that we will get it at some point in time that is reasonable. I don't mean three years from now, but within a reasonable time frame. Okay. Thank you very much on that.

Let me also turn to this discussion paper that the ministry had produced. It deals with the three possible scenarios — that is, the high, moderate and low scenarios for substituting assisted living and home support for residential care. The moderate- and high-shift scenarios — it appears to me, according to this document — would lead to even larger cuts than the April 2002 announcement. In fact, in the high-shift scenario 5,654 residential care beds would be cut by 2006-07 and be replaced with assisted-living units and enhanced home support.

Could the minister advise: the number for 2006-07 that has been used in this report — 5,654 residential care beds that would be cut…. Is that number still cur-

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not sure what document she might be referring to there. As we look to how best to provide home support services in the future, the model that is the most attractive is where you actually create a homelike environment for an individual — be it in assisted living or supportive housing — and then supply the home and community supports that are necessary to maximize the independence of that particular individual.

As we have discussed several times today, this is still a fluid program because we want to make sure we land on the right programs to support the seniors in the future. There's a lot of work being done today to determine how that is done. But the one thing we know for sure is that we do not require the number of very high-complex beds in the future as we've had in the past, if we make sure that appropriate housing options are available to maximize independence by seniors and to give them the kind of home and community support they require in order to stay independent.

One of the things we are looking at is: what is the evidence that we can learn from other jurisdictions? What is best practices in this area? That's really what's going to guide us as we go forward in determining what that appropriate mix is. We do want to make sure that we maximize the independence of seniors. As I say — and we've said several times today — I cannot at this moment tell her exactly how those 5,000 beds are going to break down according to all of the different categories, because we are being driven by the community needs, which in turn are being driven by the needs of individual seniors in those communities.

J. Kwan: Well, that's interesting, because the statements that have just been made by the minister differ from this report, which happens to be a government report. It is the Ministry of Health Planning and the Ministry of Health Services report, Meeting the Ongoing Care Needs of Seniors and People with Disabilities. A Planning Model: Home Support, Assisted Living and Residential Care Services. I'm using the government's report. I'm not making up this information here. This is the report that I'm talking about, and it states that in the high-shift scenario — because it talks about high, moderate and low — 5,654 residential care beds would be cut by '06-07. So let me just ask this question: is that number still valid?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I indicated is that we are being guided by what is best practice in this area. The member may be aware that — and we did talk about it earlier today — there are lots of studies, evidence and experience that show that seniors, even with the most complex of needs, can stay in their family home or stay in some other type of supportive housing or assisted-living environment and still have their very high level of needs met through a home and community care model.

When we start looking at the various options that are before us, between the high, medium and low shift, it really comes down to how quickly we should transition from that old model — the old nursing home model where there was 100 percent dependency on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week health care provider — to a new model that says, yeah, we actually want to provide the home and community supports for individuals to stay in the housing environment of their choice or at least what makes sense for them, and that may be the family home. It may be supportive housing. It may be an assisted-living environment.

When we talk about the high-shift model, it's actually going from the model of the past to the model of the future, which is one that really does maximize the independence of seniors and gives them the support they need in an appropriate setting. Different health authorities are at different stages in terms of trying to make any of those shifts at all, never mind the high-shift scenarios. We're still looking at that range of options, and at the end of the day I think it will be one that seniors will embrace because of the enhanced independence that it will lead to for them.

J. Kwan: The question still remains, in spite of all the — I'm tempted to say rhetoric, but I won't — information that the minister has provided. The question still remains: 5,654 residential care beds would be cut by '06-07, to be replaced with assisted-living units and enhanced home support in the high-shift scenario. Is that number still a valid number?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I very much appreciated the member referencing that particular document. We don't have that document with us other than to say that it is an old document. We think it's at least a year and a half old. It was an early planning document that was looking at a range of options that might be available.

If we were to go to the high-shift model, which has not been determined — and even then we want to be sensitive to the needs of communities in terms of where the different shift levels may be appropriate — then, yes, you do actually see a larger conversion from the complex care model — the old nursing home model that we knew of in the past with the 24-hour-a-day dependency on health care providers — to the new model, which is one that maximizes independence and provides the necessary home and community supports.

If we were to go to the high-shift model, which is one of the options set out there, then yes, there would be more of those old nursing home beds that would close to provide for the shift to more appropriate facilities that would provide for more independence. We have not landed on any conclusions with regard to where the high-shift may be appropriate and where it would not be appropriate in the province.

When you even just look at those options, those are the kinds of things that seniors get excited about, be-

cause they realize we are trying to be sensitive to their needs and their desire for a broader range of options and, most importantly, for more independence.

J. Kwan: The minister still hasn't answered my question about whether or not the 5,654 residential care beds that would be cut by '06-07 is still a valid number. If that's not the valid number, then the question is: what is the valid number?

I can appreciate that the minister says that I might be working from an old document. I don't have access to all the minister's confidential documents, but this happens to be the one that we have. It happens to be, yes, a year old. It was a document dated January 2003. It's approximately a year old, which is why I asked the question. Is this number still a valid one, or has it changed? I don't have the updated document. I would love to get the updated document from the minister. If he would actually commit to provide that to me, I would certainly appreciate that.

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason I can't give the member a number for how many beds may close is because we have not come to any conclusions around the various shift options that were set out in that paper. That is work that is actively being done. The bottom line is that we will make sure that the needs of seniors in these communities are met. That may be between maintaining existing facilities and perhaps renovating some of them. It also may mean that we in fact close older facilities and open brand-new facilities that do provide that higher level of independence with the kind of supports that seniors need in order to live in those kind of semi-independent facilities.

You know, I cannot give the member an absolute number, because it is a changing environment as we go forward. I guess it comes back to the bottom line. We made a commitment that there's going to be a net increase of 5,000 beds by 2006. I've given her all kinds of examples today to indicate that we're on track for that from a variety of different sources of data, including CHMC, which is a totally independent source. I can't pinpoint for her exactly what that is going to look like at the end of the day in terms of the mix of complex care beds or assisted-living beds, because those are still decisions that are being made by our health authorities at this stage in time.

J. Kwan: The number that I used — 5,654 residential care beds — actually came from the government's document. I didn't make it up. If approximately a year ago the government could figure out that's the number they're working with, why can't the government say, a year later, if that number is still valid or not? If not, what is the new target? Surely the minister has this information, because I'm not making up the number. It's from the government's own document that says that. I'm kind of perplexed as to why the minister wouldn't tell me what the updated information might be, because he was saying that my document is out of date.

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, I think this is one of the challenges in opposition. When you get access to internal documents from government, what's the context of those documents? I guess, if that were anything other than a planning document that sets out some options, we would have released it. To come back to what's in that document — or at least I assume it is, because I haven't got it in front of me and it's been a while since I would have read that document — it sets out options around the shift. When we talk about the shift, we're talking about the shift from that model that is 100 percent dependent to one that has more levels of independence for the seniors with the appropriate supports.

When you talk about a low-level shift, the low-level shift that I believe is set out in that document is one that actually results in the closure of very few of those residential care beds. If it's the medium shift as set out in that document, then, yeah, there's a greater number of beds closed because other beds are opened and there are more resources put into the kind of home and community support that would be necessary to support the independence of those seniors. The high-level shift, as the member set out, is the other end of the spectrum in terms of what those options would be about that would result in more of those residential care beds being closed so that the new facilities can be funded and the home and community care supports can be provided in those new models.

That is a range of options that we as government have been looking at and working at with our health authorities, and that work is still underway. Can I come up with a new, definitive number as to what that's going to look like at the end of the day? No, because we're not at the end of that policy-making process.

J. Kwan: The minister says he can appreciate that being in opposition, we don't get all of the documents, and therefore sometimes the questions we ask may well be not valid anymore or may be out of date. That's precisely what I'm trying to canvass here.

Recognizing that shortcoming, I'm asking the minister to commit to provide the information — the updated report, if there is one around this planning model for the home support assisted–living residential care services — and to provide that information publicly so the public can assess now how the government is doing, how they're moving towards meeting that target and what information they're using to determine how the targets should be set, etc. If the government and the minister want to be open and accountable, commit to providing that updated information so that we can actually have that new document in front of us and canvass questions around that.

Let me just ask the minister: would he then commit to providing that information to the opposition so that

we can work with the new document and therefore not use an outdated document and ask questions that the minister may not want to answer?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not saying there's a new document that replaces that. That's a planning document that was done to set out a range of options. It's a little over a year old, as the member indicated, and it is part of a planning process that we're in the middle of.

At the end of the day, when it comes down to counting how many intermediate and long-term beds we have in the province towards the accountability that we accept — towards 5,000 beds…. That net increase of 5,000 beds — that total tally at the end of the day of 30,000 beds by the end of 2006 — will include all of the residential care beds in the province. It will include all of the assisted-living beds.

What that document talks about is what the appropriate mix is in the province between residential care and assisted living. If we close a thousand beds that today would be considered residential care — because they're outdated or they're no longer needed in those communities — in order to create a thousand assisted-living beds with the proper community and home supports available to them so that seniors can live more independently in those environments with appropriate supports, it still winds up being the same towards achieving that net objective of the net increase of 5,000 beds.

All that document is about is setting out a planning process towards how we determine the appropriate mix of those beds. I think, as I mentioned earlier, we're trying to use what's best evidence. We're trying to use some of the experience and some of the studies that have been done regarding how best to maintain an independent lifestyle for seniors in a way that is properly supported. That particular document, if it's what I think it is, is not something that has sort of been updated and changed on an ongoing basis. It is a document that sets out, conceptually, different options with regard to the appropriate mix of beds between assisted living, residential care and other care options.

J. Kwan: Okay. The minister says he doesn't have an updated version of this report, but surely the minister has some sort of documentation that talks about what the projections are and what the assumptions are in terms of the requirements that are needed in the community and how they are going to go about trying to meet those commitments and targets. Maybe the minister will commit to making that information available in whatever format, whether it's an updated version of this report or some other format. The opposition would welcome that information.

I do have a lot more questions that actually do stem out of this report. It is only a year old. I recognize that, yes, it's a year old and maybe is outdated, but at the same time it is only a year old. The information within it, I would hazard to guess, is not that outdated. The facts that are being used to make the assumptions that they arrived at are not that outdated.

In any event, we'll canvass more of that, because there are assumptions within the model that's being used in this document that I would like to talk about. Then, of course, I want to receive the information from the minister around the definitions of the classifications that are now being used by this government. Once I get a chance to look at that, we can then engage in more debate about those issues.

With that, Mr. Chair, noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. G. Collins: I want to first of all thank members for attending this scintillating debate, which could go on for hours or days. We've yet to know.

I also want to introduce some of my officials that are here with me today. Paul Taylor, who is the Deputy Minister of Finance and has been on life support for the last two and a half years, continues to be with us. He's done an incredible job over the last two and a half — I guess almost three — years now as government works

His supporter and another very key individual in the Ministry of Finance, heading up the Treasury Board division, is Nick Paul, who is behind me and who again has worked very long hours to ensure that we have progressed the way we have set out in the last number of years. He is, as I've said, a real key player who has put in long hours of blood, sweat and, I expect, sometimes tears as well into making sure we've moved forward.

To my left is Arn van Iersel, who is the comptroller general for British Columbia and who now gets to wear the badge of being the comptroller general in the only government in Canada to have legislated and implemented generally accepted accounting principles. He has been a true stellar performer in the ministry and has helped us to transform what was an entity that was so big into an entity that's much bigger as we move towards GAAP. He has made that happen in a way that I think we can all be very, very proud of.

I'll introduce some of my other staff people at a later date when we draw them in as we deal with their issues.

I want to spend a minute, if I can, dealing with some of the accomplishments and some of the goals of the ministry — where we've been and where we're headed. Certainly, I think our biggest accomplishment as a ministry to date has been to introduce the balanced budget this year. It was an effort that involved not just the ministry and the people in the ministry but indeed people right across government — not the least of whom were my caucus colleagues, who played a major role at the government caucus committee level in making sure there were service plans developed and that government got its costs under control. It deals with policy issues and gets us to the position where we could balance the budget, not just this year but in the years ahead.

From now on, I think it really is a turning point in British Columbia's fiscal history, not to mention the history of the province. I'm very proud of that — on behalf of the government and on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's definitely a major achievement. We've done it according to generally accepted accounting principles. We've put that in legislation, and I think that's a huge move forward.

One of the other things we've also tried to do in the last couple of years is turn British Columbia's economy around. We were number ten for economic growth when we took office. In the decade of the nineties, we've gone from number one down to number ten. Performance in this province was…. We'll just say the province had been underperforming for years. Certainly, it took a great deal of effort to put in place a tax policy and regulatory structures that allow British Columbians to do what they do best which is compete, grow the economy, create jobs and create opportunities for people in their communities.

Now we're in a position where, because of the growing economy, because of getting our costs under control, we do have a balanced budget. Our revenues are projected to be higher than our expenditures and that's after we've been able to add additional funds to health care, education, advanced education, human resources, children and families — child protection. Those areas have all seen additional support, additional resources, in the years coming up. We're able to do that and still balance the budget in the years ahead.

We've also seen an increase in disposable income. Personal income taxes were cut by 25 percent or more when we first took office. We have the lowest rate of personal income taxes in Canada for the two lowest tax brackets. B.C. is number one in job creation in Canada — about 159,000 new jobs created in B.C. in the last two years. We're number one in housing growth across Canada, and January to January this year — to 2003 — housing starts were up 57 percent. Both of those are key indicators of consumer confidence as well as investor confidence.

We see businesses growing, a significant improvement in the outlook. Certainly, individual British Columbians obviously feel better about their future given the housing starts and sales in the last number of years. We are number one in Canada for small business confidence. The CFIB has B.C. well ahead of the national average in small business confidence. B.C. is also ahead of the national average in capital spending intentions in 2004. I think we're number two or number three.

The oil and gas sector is booming. There have been significant changes to the tax structure around oil and gas exploration and extraction as well as changes in the regulatory code, which have had a huge impact in that sector. We've seen significant growth — billions of dollars in new investment. The land sale of $418 million that we saw late last year, in September, was only the precursor of billions of dollars of new capital investment as people start to access those resources and extract them in the years ahead.

There's been revitalization — major changes in the forest industry in the last couple of years. Canfor has announced a major investment in Houston. There's a new supermill that's going in there. I think it will be the largest in the world. That certainly indicates confidence in the forest sector, and we're seeing other financial announcements and capital investment announcements almost on a monthly basis since then.

We've brought in new tax structures to deal with our ports, which really are gateways to our markets, to make sure they remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and to make sure we can continue to get good capital investment in those ports so that they stay modern and competitive. We can get our goods through the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Delta and others around the province — get our goods through those ports and to our markets. That is a real positive as well.

I won't say a lot about the Olympics other than to say it's been a great year. Our job obviously in the Ministry of Finance is to watch the Olympic file, to make sure the costs stay under control, to make sure the infrastructure that gets built — that will help as part of

presenting British Columbia to the world by 2010 — is done in a way that is cost-effective and timely. Certainly, it's been a big part of our job in the last couple of years and will continue to be in the years ahead.

Our credit rating. I want to talk about that, if I can. You will recall that in the late 1990s, British Columbia was downgraded twice by a couple of the credit-rating agencies and once by another. I think DBRS and S&P downgraded British Columbia twice, and Moody's once. I think that's correct. We've worked very hard in the last number of years to try and improve British Columbia's credit rating, obviously, but more importantly, our standing with financial markets, because there's a cost to that.

When we first took office, British Columbia was paying an interest rate that was 9 basis points higher, and our bonds were trading at a rate that was 9 basis points higher than the province of Ontario, which was the lowest. Our position in the financial markets has improved, and that's with investors on a daily basis making decisions about how British Columbia is doing and what the future holds.

We've come down in the last year to the point where we were getting close to Ontario and then through Ontario. We actually pay substantially below Ontario when we borrow. We're now trading about 6½ basis points below Ontario. The cost of funds in the market, ongoing, fluctuates day by day, but that's about where we are now. That's about a 15½-basis-point change since we took office, and that translates into significant savings in debt service costs for the province of British Columbia and is something we should be very pleased about. It keeps our costs under control, and the less we spend on interest, the more we're able to either do tax changes or pay down debt or provide those funds for other services.

I spoke a minute ago about our economic outlook. Where we used to be number ten, we're back up to the middle of the pack — sort of the top half of the middle of the pack. Some financial institutions have British Columbia ranking number two this year, and that's something we're very excited about as well. It has been a significant move.

We will continue to keep the balanced budget year after year. We're going to focus on effective cash and debt management to get best value for the people who pay the bills. We're going to try to improve the overall debt burden and improve the debt-to-GDP ratio as we move forward and manage the financial risks and continue to achieve and exceed our financial planning targets.

We're going to continue to achieve those goals while at the same time maintaining our standards of comprehensive, timely and transparent financial planning and reporting, including the auditor general signing-off on our books as conforming to generally accepted accounting principles. That's important, because that will allow us to remove that longstanding reservation on B.C.'s financial statements. That's something that we set out years ago, in opposition, and we've been working toward ever since. We'll be very pleased when that actually happens.

British Columbia really has become a leader in Canada on the financial side. We're the first to balance our budget according to legislated generally accepted accounting principles. There's probably this year, unfortunately, only two or perhaps three provinces in total across Canada who are expected to have a balanced budget or even forecast a balanced budget. We, as well, were the first because of our fixed budget day.

We generally are the first to issue our budget, ahead of other provinces. I think Ontario is into May, well into the fiscal year. We put our budget in the House on the third Tuesday of every February, which I think is an important thing as well. We also are either number one or number two for early release of public accounts. Alberta sometimes gets in there a little bit ahead of us, but their entity isn't nearly as large and doesn't include as much, so certainly, we're very pleased with that as well.

We're going to continue to create a tax and regulatory climate that will help us to stimulate economic growth and continue to foster progressive, innovative, knowledgeable people within the Ministry of Finance. That's something that certainly puts us in good stead both now and in the years ahead.

I want to speak just a minute, if I can, about another area for which I'm responsible, and that's the Public Sector Employers Council. We put in place a zero-zero-and-zero mandate as an effort to try and get everybody in the public sector to be part of getting our costs under control. The BCGEU has agreed to do its part to keep costs under control. Many other public sector workers have done so, as well, including universities, colleges, institutes and a variety of Crown corporations.

There are no plans in the next couple of years to add additional wage hikes to physicians or nurses. They both received significant wage increases shortly after we took office. They're now number one or number two in Canada for overall income, and we think they're well compensated. Certainly, the recruitment and retention strategy has indicated that we are able to recruit and retain highly skilled professionals, in the nursing profession as well as physicians. There is new money going into health care, as I mentioned. I mentioned in the budget that money is intended to go to patients, not to wage increases.

One other area that I have some responsibility for is Partnerships B.C., which is the lead agency to facilitate a public-private partnership. As far as the facilitation goes, each individual ministry, obviously, is responsible for their own capital projects and their own partnerships and their own initiatives. Partnerships B.C.'s role is to help facilitate that to make sure the transactions are done properly, to make sure that risk is allocated appropriately and to assist the public sector partners in ensuring that those initiatives provide better value for the people who pay the bills, and better service.

Some of the initiatives that are underway and are expected to close in the not-too-distant future are the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Care in Abbotsford, the academic ambulatory care centre; the Brittania Mine water treatment plant; the new Fraser River crossing; the Okanagan Lake Bridge; the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line, known as the RAV project; the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road in the northeast part of the province, which is a resource road and a very innovative partnership taking place there; as well as portions of the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project on the Vancouver to Whistler part of that highway.

I want to thank the members of my ministry for their work over the past year. I know it's been yet another strenuous year. Everybody has put in long, long hours and worked very hard to move the agenda forward, and I thank them for that. I know of the sacrifices they made to make sure that happened, and I don't think they get thanked enough — not by the public and probably not by us either. Certainly, we've made major improvements here in British Columbia to financial reporting and the way we keep our books, and it's something they can all be proud of. It's something I'm very proud of on behalf of British Columbia. I want to thank them for their assistance over the last year and even years prior to that.

B. Kerr: Let me thank the minister and his staff for balancing the budget, because that was extremely important for me. Of course, one of the reasons I got involved in politics was so we could come and set some sound fiscal management with the hopes of balancing the budget. When I say that, I mean a true balanced budget. Regardless of all the problems we've had in the past year, I think achieving that goal could not have come about without a tremendous amount of effort. I congratulate you and your staff on achieving that.

Now I'd like to go on, and I hope we have some really scintillating and exciting accounting conversations. We throw out three-letter acronyms like pennies in a fountain. We've got one here that's a four-letter acronym, and it's called GAAP — generally accepted accounting principles. There are a number of generally accepted accounting principles, but a lot of people don't understand what we're talking about. I wonder if the minister can explain what exactly generally accepted accounting principles are, what you used in that basket of generally accepted accounting principles and how you arrived at what you were going to use. From that we'll lead on to a few other questions.

Hon. G. Collins: Generally accepted accounting principles. I sort of joke sometimes that they're not generally accepted and not necessarily that principled — more as a joke. The Public Sector Accounting Board actually makes recommendations as to what the general principles should be. We also put in place an accounting policy advisory committee of outside accountants in the profession to advise government as we delivered on our commitment to be fully compliant with GAAP and legislated compliance with GAAP. John Cowperthwaite was the chair of that group; there were others as well. We had a previous comptroller general; I think Alan Barnard was on that committee as well — people who are pretty familiar with the accounting profession and how it relates to government.

They advised government. They also had meetings with the auditor general. We set the accounting policy for government, and we do that. There was lots of discussion about what should be in the entity and what should not — particularly around universities, I might say. There was a disagreement between the auditor general and the accounting policy advisory committee. The advisory committee felt, as did the ministry, that for a variety of public policy reasons universities should not be part of the entity. The auditor general felt strongly otherwise. There was a good debate back and forth over the last couple of years, and he was insistent that they be part of the entity.

It was not something we're comfortable with nor necessarily agree with. We will continue to watch how that changes over the years as other provinces grapple with it and PSAB deals with it more comprehensively. At the end of the day, the auditor general is the one who signs off on our books, so one of my key goals and one of the directions I was given by the Premier when I took this position was to clear that reservation off our books. This will do that, but we will continue to discuss — I expect monthly, annually, if not more frequently — whether or not universities should be part of the entity.

B. Kerr: Thank you for that. I guess we're also looking, and a number of my constituents are looking, at…. When they speak to me, they're concerned that the government can still play around with the books. We heard one person say that the budget's just a piece of paper, and the government can do whatever it wants. Other people say: "Well, you know, the government can hide money." Can you give assurances to my constituents that as a result of now following GAAP, we pretty well have to be in line and there's no more chicanery that can go on in the books?

Hon. G. Collins: I've looked for that hidden money, and I haven't been able to find it. If the member or anyone else knows where it is, I'd love to know so that we can go put it into the budget.

There has been lots of concern over the years, here and in other jurisdictions, about how transparent the budgets are. What we've tried to do is deal with that. We did that post-1996. In 1997, I think, the Premier introduced some private members' bills that talked about transparency and accountability and balancing a budget in a real way. At that time, we made a commitment to keep our books according to those generally accepted accounting principles, and we were going to put that in legislation. We did that when we took office. The entire public sector, one could argue, is now

part of the government entity. The books are there. It's transparent. It's all in the information.

We had, certainly, anecdotal comment from people who watch carefully how governments do their books that these are the most transparent sets of documents anywhere in Canada. Now there's more information there than you'll find in just about any other jurisdiction. I was very pleased to hear that. I'm proud of what we've done.

You know, I think people can look at them. We get questions almost on a daily basis from the public — how does this work, or how does that work? — or suggestions that things aren't being done or the books aren't being kept in the way they might like. We are always able to explain to them and either point them to the documents on the website or send them copies of documents that are publicly available, to assuage their concerns and to make it clear to them that what they see is the fact.

B. Kerr: We have another four-letter acronym: SUCH — schools, universities, colleges and hospitals. That was the major issue you talked about earlier, including that in the consolidated accounts. Can you tell me the effect it has on the consolidated accounts by including those entities in the government entity?

Hon. G. Collins: If the member were to look at page 52 of the three-year fiscal plan, the thick, green document that's in front of him to his right…. If you look at page 52, there's part of what we call a topic box. This is "The Inclusion of SUCH in Government's Budget and Reporting Framework." It starts on page 50 and goes to page 53. On page 52 there is an explanation of what the impact of the SUCH sector would be on our financial statements. It's important to note that…. This goes back to 2001-02 and right ahead to 2006-07, so there are six fiscal years in there.

One can see that going forward, the budget would be balanced in '04-05, '05-06 and '06-07, regardless of whether or not the SUCH sector were included. Our commitment always was, though, that we would keep our books according to GAAP and that we would balance our budget by our third full budget, which is 2004, and that we'd do that according to GAAP. The budget is represented according to GAAP in 2004. You can back it out and see what it would have been if we didn't have those elements included — that SUCH sector — and it's entirely included in the books.

B. Kerr: Essentially, if we have to unwind the transaction…. For instance, I don't believe any other province is including the SUCH sector — correct me if I'm wrong — in the consolidated revenue. If we have to unwind the transaction, the budget will still be balanced.

Hon. G. Collins: Yes. Indeed, to the last question, there are some assumptions in the member's question that I just want to point him to. If he goes to page 50, at the bottom right there's a table which shows which elements of the schools, universities, colleges and health care — the SUCH sectors — are included in the financial statements of a variety of provinces. It's different from province to province. We are the only one that includes all of them as part of our generally accepted accounting principles.

B. Kerr: Are there any private organizations — for instance, private hospitals or private schools like the Catholic system — that would be included in SUCH at all?

Hon. G. Collins: In the health care sector there are providers of health care, hospitals, the denominational sector — the hospitals that are run generally by religious organizations; St. Paul's is an example, and there are others — that on the recommendation, again, of the auditor general are included in the SUCH sector as part of our financial statements. Now, it doesn't mean that we control them or we direct them or we run their organization. It means that they're included for accounting purposes. We have a control for accounting purposes, but we don't actually run their organizations.

B. Kerr: Are you looking for this to be unwound? I guess, myself, I have trouble determining why a university, for instance, or a denominational hospital should be included. Will we be looking to try to unwind this in the future?

Hon. G. Collins: We're actually looking to do what the accounting profession suggests we should do. That member, being an accountant, and his colleague just down the row, being an accountant too, could maybe get together with other accountants. Maybe accountants could actually decide in very clear terms what should be in and what should be out and make sure that those generally accepted accounting principles are in fact generally accepted. The public sector accounting body deals with that to a certain extent.

We do set accounting policy for government. We try to set it in a way that is compliant with PSAB and generally accepted accounting principles, but we don't get to make those rules or those principles; you guys do.

There is a lot of cost in consolidating these accounts. What would be the cost in creating a consolidated account that includes all the entities?

Hon. G. Collins: For the cost of our portion of it, internal to government — Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Advanced Education, the health authorities, the post-secondary institutions and the school districts — we assume that cost to be about $1 million. There are other bodies that would have had costs as well. I'm assuming that got us to where we are today.

Hon. G. Collins: Most of those will be annual costs, so each year. When people do their accounting anyway, I expect that once they become more familiar with the process, it will be more cost-effective. That's the general cost of complying with GAAP for those organizations.

B. Kerr: Sorry. I apologize. I sort of missed that. Are you saying the cost to the organizations that are being included or the cost to the government for including those organizations?

Hon. G. Collins: We have an estimate of what it costs. I'm sorry about that. I thought these were more firm numbers, but it's between $1 million and $2 million. There will be education and audit fees, systems, etc. Between $1 million and $2 million for, and I'll list them, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Advanced Education, health authorities, post-secondary institutions and school districts. If the member wants more detail, I'd be glad to get that to him.

B. Kerr: That's fine. I get asked these questions a lot, believe it or not. I guess people like to ask me these things.

What effect does it have, then, on the organizations that are being consolidated? For instance, what effect does it have on the school boards or the universities or colleges? Does that have a financial effect on them at all?

Hon. G. Collins: It's fair to say that it hasn't been a simple task for a lot of them. I think, if you look at the two big ones, Health and Education — so K-to-12 and in health care — the K-to-12 sector were in the process of upgrading their accounting policies anyway. They had to do a fair bit of work there anyway. They were doing that. What we really did was to set them a target that may not have been, initially, where they thought they were going, but with GAAP, they have to come into compliance. They had a project that's been going on for a number of years to get there anyway.

In health care, I would suggest that when we went from 52 health regions down to six, they were aware that they were going to have to be compliant with GAAP. I know that as part of that consolidation, there would have been a lot of changes that took place as well.

B. Kerr: Sometimes when you have to do a consolidation, it could force a discipline on another entity. I think that might be quite an advantage.

In the universities, again going back to some of the reasons for SUCH, most of the revenue or a good percentage of the revenue doesn't come from government funding. It comes from independent sources. Where does that revenue get recorded?

Hon. G. Collins: It's recorded in the…. Again, if you look in the book, I'm trying to remember what page it is. There's a revenue page. I think it's 52 — sorry, 12. If you look at page 12 of the budget document that you've got in front of you, you can see the list of revenues. It's listed in there. But the expenses of the institution are listed on the expense side as well. So, you get the revenues; you also get all of their expenditures. You'll find it there.

B. Kerr: The government is not gaining any benefit from the money that is being derived from external sources. It's not bumping up our budget by showing revenue from external sources.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, when you look at that topic box I steered you to earlier, if you look at the "with SUCH in, with SUCH out," you'll see that not every year but certainly most of the last decade or so — not always — it would have some impact on the bottom line. It would always have some impact — generally, positive.

This year, for example — including the forecast allowance — the actual dollar surplus is about $200 million. There's about $120-some million that comes from including the SUCH sector, and there's about $70-some million that would be what the surplus would be without the SUCH sector.

Yeah, there's a positive impact there. You take all the revenues that those entities bring in, all the expenses that they incur, and it comes out to a bit of an increase in the surplus this year.

B. Kerr: Maybe I misunderstood. You're saying that the revenue coming from external sources from universities — let's say from endowment funds that they get, from donors or people that will their estates to the universities — can show as a benefit to government, or would that have to be taken out in the consolidation?

Hon. G. Collins: One of the great things about the accountants in GAAP is that you don't get to pick and choose what you like. Some stuff you don't get; some stuff you do. Those are the rules. Yes, those revenues to those organizations will be included but so are all of their expenditures. The impact of fully consolidating the SUCH sector, on the bottom line for this year — if you go back to that topic box on page 52 — was $124 million for this year coming up.

Last year it would have been $66 million to the positive. The year before that, in 2002-03, it was $511 million to the plus side. If you go forward, in '05-06, it's $107 million, and in '06-07 it's $88 million. Yeah, you don't get to sort of pick the ones you like and those you don't. There are rules around that. You have to deal with them.

B. Kerr: Okay, I'll move off the real exciting accounting issues and get to something a little more specific. You talked in terms of the benefits in the capital markets by showing this fiscal discipline and balancing the budget, and you mentioned that there is a 9-basis-point change there.

B. Kerr: A 15-basis-point change. Can you just put that into hard numbers? How much in interest does 1 basis point mean? If you could do that — just to give us some hard numbers so we can really have a good understanding.

Hon. G. Collins: It's about $20 million just for that shift alone. There are other things that have been affecting our debt service cost as well — just the fact that we haven't borrowed as much as was forecast. This year that we're just completing, we're forecast to come in at about $3.6 billion under forecast. The year previous we came in at $4.2 billion under forecast. The fact that we actually not just hit our budget target but actually came in under budget also means there is money that you don't have to borrow there. All of that has an impact to keep our costs down as well.

B. Kerr: Going to the budget…. I'm moving around the board a little bit here, but the Filmon report hadn't come out when the budget was prepared. What impact will the Filmon report have on this year's budget coming up? Will you still be able to balance the budget for this year given the Filmon report?

Hon. G. Collins: This is one of those things…. When you put a contingency budget in a budget, it's there for a number of eventualities. They are listed right there, and it hasn't really changed much over the last six, seven or eight years.

Some things happen mid-year that you don't anticipate — like the forest fires last year. You know, it can happen. It just happens, and you can't do much about it. Other things you know are coming, but there is no way to really budget for them. You don't know what it's going to be. With Filmon, was it going to be $5 million, or was it going to be $50 million, or was it going to be $500 million? I mean, I don't think we thought…. We knew it wasn't $500 million, and we probably thought it wasn't going to be zero, so it's going to be somewhere in there. The Ministry of Forests tried to get its sense of what they thought might come out of that, their best guess, given how they monitored things as they happened last year and things they thought they could do better, but it was pretty hard to put a number on what Mr. Filmon would put forward.

We have a contingency budget. It's $240 million dollars. We expect to hear from the Ministry of Forests and the Solicitor General — probably mostly the Minister of Forests — with regard to things they need to do to implement the recommendations of Filmon and over what time frame that'll happen. Certainly, as far as it relates to next year, if there are additional costs, the first place you go, obviously, is to the ministry itself. If there are savings that are made or available, you access those first.

There may be matching moneys from the federal government. We're still resolving the federal government's participation in last year's forest fires. Those discussions will continue. The last resort would be the contingency budget, but it's there for just these kinds of things. You know something is coming. You don't know what it is. You can't quantify it, so you put in a contingency budget for that, and you deal with it when it arises, when you can quantify it more accurately.

B. Kerr: You mentioned Partnerships B.C., which is a huge initiative on the government's part. You're in charge, I guess, of overseeing Partnerships B.C. and making sure fiscal disciplines are in place. I'm not sure how much it costs the ministry, but is there any provision where you can charge back the various partnerships for the work you're doing to ensure the controls are in place?

Hon. G. Collins: Yes, there is, and yes, they do. We are really a service provider — Partnerships B.C. — and the role we play in those partnership projects…. The costs of that to a great extent get transferred to the individual project. There are other things that Partnerships B.C. does where there may not ultimately be a project to attach it to, in which case we have to deal with that internally.

B. Kerr: One question I've got is just a question from your three-year plan. It just sort of stuck out at me. It's on page 11 of your plan. It's the treasury estimates. It just seems to bounce up and down, up and down. The rest seems to go in a consistent trend. This is on page 11 of your three-year plan. It seems to move up and down. I'm just wondering why the volatility there.

Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps the member can point me to what line he's looking at.

That is the capital costs for new systems that are coming on stream. That's part of it. That's what the up and down is — computer systems to manage that debt and to make sure that we do it in a way that makes sense.

B. Kerr: A final question, I promise. With the capital costs, we carry on depreciation on a fixed basis. Is there a plan which would include your depreciation expense down in the consolidated, based upon this capital cost?

Hon. G. Collins: All capital that government has that we spend we include in the operating side — the

amortization and debt service costs. That's not just here. That's in other ministries as well. That's the way it's done, and it has been for some time.

B. Kerr: Those are all the questions I have. I'd just like to thank the minister for his efforts. Keep it up — balanced budget year after year.

J. MacPhail: I'm looking at page 32 of the Supplement to the Estimates for the year ending March 31, 2005. Under "Executive and Support Services, Minister's Office," the budget for last year was $543,000, and the budget for this year is $543,000. Can the minister outline the expenditures made for his office, please?

Hon. G. Collins: I can try and take two books and compile it for the member if she likes. If there's one specific that she wants to talk about, I'm glad to do that, but if she wants me to run through the whole thing, I can try and do that.

If she looks at the front of her document that she's got in front of her, the first page, the white page, and goes to the back of it — turn over one white page — there's an introduction. It's at the very front of the book — an introduction. There's a listing of what those codes are There's code 50, which is base salaries. Code 51 is supplementary salary costs, code 52 is employee benefits, etc., etc., and it goes on at length.

Now, if you go to page 32, which the member had before, and you look at the minister's office, the $543,000, there's a series of numbers going to the right. At the very top of those columns there is a number which is the code which corresponds to the 50, 51. For example, 50 would be base salaries; that's $289,000. Code 52 would be employee benefits; 54 would be legislative salaries and indemnities. I assume that's my $39,000 as Minister of Finance, which all ministers receive. That's total salaries and benefits.

No. 57 would be public servant travel; 59 would be centralized management support services; 63 would be information systems operating; 65 would be office and business expenses; 70 would be operating equipment and vehicles; 73 would be amortization, which is $2 million — for a total of $121 million. I could do the rest if you want, but I think the member can see how that works. If there's a specific one she wants to talk about, I'd be glad to do that.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Where is the capital city allowance for the minister included, and what's the amount of it?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm just checking on that, but I believe that's part of an MLA's expenses and is done out the office of the Legislature. I'm just checking that. If that's not accurate, I'll get the member an answer.

J. MacPhail: When the minister brought in legislation to change this, he assured me in Hansard that I would be able to find out the amount of the capital city allowance, that it would be debatable under estimates and that it was charged to the ministerial account. I'm just asking. This is my first opportunity to hold him true to his words.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, I'm advised…. If you go down one line on page 32, below "Minister's Office," to "Corporate Services" and out to STOB 57, there is a number there. It's $1.342 million. Within that is $1.28 million, "Minister's Travel to and from Constituency," which is held for all ministries. It's corporate services — one of the things we do. The amount for all ministries is held within that, and it's $1.28 million.

Madam Chair, the minister assured me, when he changed the legislation, that I would be able to get these figures. In fact, he went public saying that we would be able to debate them. What is the Minister of Finance's, please? If it's contained in his budget, he can give me a breakdown of every minister for capital city allowance, then — if it's contained in the $1.28 million.

Hon. G. Collins: We can try and determine that. I don't have it here broken out by minister, but all the ministers would be held in this one vote, the $1.28 million. What it is for mine, I don't know. We can try and find that out.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I just want to be clear. It's $1.28 million. Am I correct in that?

I don't want to have to throw the minister's words back at him, but I would appreciate this information before these estimates conclude, please.

In the minister's office, the $543,000, of which $289,000 was spent in '03-04 for salaries…. Could he please break those down as to who was paid what inside his office?

Hon. G. Collins: We'll get that information for the member, as well, as soon as we can.

J. MacPhail: What are the names attached to who was paid? Who was on payroll for that $289,000?

Hon. G. Collins: There would have been five individuals. There would have been Mr. Basi, who I know she's familiar with and who was a ministerial assistant to me as House Leader. There would have been Robert Pauliszyn. He's been with us for some time. He is the ministerial assistant for the ministry in my role as Min-

ister of Finance and deals with Ministry of Finance issues. There is Adam Buchanan, who is the executive assistant. That would be a position somewhat junior to the other two. There is Yvette — I think the member knows Yvette, who was there before in the previous government and worked for the previous Minister of Finance as well — who is there as the AC. I can't remember the term. AC — I think she knows what that is. And there's the receptionist, Melanie.

J. MacPhail: In the breakdown of the minister's office, how are the assignments divided amongst…? I appreciate that probably the receptionist's role is as per public service receptionists' roles — a very important role. How are the assignments broken down amongst the AC, the EA and the two MAs?

Hon. G. Collins: The administrative coordinator position I don't think has changed from what it was under the previous government, although I wasn't there, so I don't know. The role is primarily scheduling, arranging travel, managing the flow of documents in and out of the office, etc. The executive assistant, as I said, is a somewhat junior position to the ministerial assistants. His role is support for them as well as support for me. It can deal with correspondence. It can deal with responses for MLAs. Really, that type of a role is as needed.

The two ministerial assistants. As I've said before, Robert's role is as ministerial assistant to me as Minister of Finance. He deals with the Ministry of Finance, with Treasury Board. Any issue that relates directly to the Ministry of Finance generally is his role.

Mr. Basi's role was, up until he left government, in response to my position as Government House Leader, and he would have come in contact on a regular basis with the member opposite and her staff. Part of that job was MLA liaison, which was to deal with members of the Legislature if they had issues or concerns, if they wanted to get into my schedule, wanted to come in and see me, if there were things I could do for them as a member of cabinet or as a member of the caucus. That was his role — to be a bit of my eyes and ears in that regard.

He was also, as part of his role, to be in the corridor in the Legislature during the sittings of the House to liaise with the press gallery as those staff people do. I'm sure the member would have seen him there. As well, he dealt with any sort of public outreach that was required. If there was somebody from the outside that had an issue they wanted to talk to me about, he often played that role as well.

J. MacPhail: I hope I'm saying his name right — Mr. Pauliszyn. Mr. Pauliszyn and Mr. Basi — did they have job descriptions?

Hon. G. Collins: All ministerial assistants have job descriptions. I could access them for the member if she likes. I don't have them here in front of me, but I could try and get them to her.

Hon. G. Collins: All of the staff in the office — I should say the MAs and the EA, and this is the case in all ministries — report to the chief of staff, Martyn Brown. Generally, the administrative coordinators and receptionists appoint through the deputy chief of staff, Lara Dauphinee in the Premier's office. On a day-to-day basis, obviously they work with me and answer my questions. As far as personnel matters go, I don't deal with them directly.

J. MacPhail: Did Mr. Pauliszyn take a public service oath? Secondly, did Mr. Pauliszyn take an oath of confidentiality of any sort? I don't know what the technical term is for it, but I assume Mr. Pauliszyn was the one who had access to budget documents. What manner of confidentiality was he required to take?

Hon. G. Collins: I believe all staff in ministers' offices — whether they be ministerial assistants, executive assistants, administrative coordinators or receptionists — take an oath of office. I'm sure that's correct. I can try and verify it for the member, but I'm sure it is.

J. MacPhail: What are the obligations of confidentiality assigned to these staff — the CAs, the EAs and the MAs?

J. MacPhail: There's a general public service oath that requires loyalty to the Crown, and every public servant takes that. Then there's an oath of confidentiality, as I understand it, on top of that. I'm wondering if it's just the general public service oath that the ministerial assistants are required to take. Was there a difference in the requirements of confidentiality between Mr. Pauliszyn and Mr. Basi?

Hon. G. Collins: I'll check, but I am pretty confident they would have been required to take both those

oaths. No, there wouldn't have been any difference, to my knowledge, between the two of them.

J. MacPhail: The minister is Government House Leader, Madam Chair. Is the Government House Leader responsible for the timely presentation of legislation to the Legislature?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm not sure what the member means by the question, but I'll try and answer it as best I can. I'll just tell her what my role is. Ministers and ministries are responsible for the development and progress of their legislation through the various stages: policy development; public consultation, if it's required; and the approval process through government caucus committees, through the legislative review committee and to the entire caucus if it needs to go there at some stage for policy discussion. They are responsible for that. They are also responsible for liaising with legislative counsel to get their legislation drafted, as I said, and through the process.

When it arrives at my office, it arrives in its completed form and ready for introduction. At that point, that legislation, as I've said previously, is either introduced…. It's sometimes within minutes, sometimes within hours, sometimes within days, sometimes longer if there is a need for it to be longer. One can generally see, if you look at the order paper, how bills come in and which numbers are missing, because they're numbered once they're printed.

My job as House Leader is to determine, across government, when that legislation should be introduced into the House. Then the ministers are responsible for actually getting it through. As the member knows, having been House Leader in government, the role was similar. She would have been responsible, as I am, for determining what legislation comes up in a particular order — after negotiation with the opposition, obviously, as well as discussion with the ministers affected, depending on schedules and timing, etc.

J. MacPhail: What cabinet committees and/or caucus committees are responsible for the development, review and/or introduction of legislation?

Hon. G. Collins: Probably all parts of government are involved at some point. If the member has a more specific question, I could perhaps give her more detail. Generally, the policy issues go to the government caucus committees for review. They could end up coming to Treasury Board as policy initiatives as well. They may not, though. They could, I suppose, come before the entire caucus if it were an issue that it was felt, in government, applied to all members and required a general caucus discussion of those policy issues, although that would not necessarily be the case.

I'm trying to think what else. Certainly, it may well come to cabinet. If there's a particular policy issue that needs to be grappled with, it could actually come to Treasury Board and caucus and cabinet and the government caucus committee. It might go there several times before it actually gets put in a form that people are comfortable with as a policy. Then it would go away and be drafted by the drafters and then come back to my office to be introduced and would go through the House.

J. MacPhail: Does the government not have a formal committee to vet legislation at any stage?

Hon. G. Collins: Yes. I mentioned earlier the LRC, the legislative review committee, which actually receives the legislation in its — we hope, obviously — final draft form. That legislation is reviewed for clauses and commas. Occasionally, in spite of going through all the policy process, it may end up at LRC in written form, and somebody says, "Hey, there's a policy issue here that I think still needs to be discussed, because it hasn't been," and it could get bumped back to a government caucus committee. But, yes, there's a legislative review committee, which is chaired by the Attorney General, that looks at all the draft legislation as it comes to them.

Hon. G. Collins: It's not under my purview as Minister of Finance, so I don't know. It would be better to ask the Attorney General or the Premier.

J. MacPhail: Does it involve caucus members and cabinet members or just cabinet members?

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know. I think they might. I don't know that, but I can try and find out. Again, it's not under my purview, so I don't know that.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware of whether this cabinet committee has minutes, including those who attend?

Hon. G. Collins: Again, not my purview, but I would expect it probably does.

J. MacPhail: I would expect it to be so as well. That was the way it was under the Social Credit government and the way it was under the two NDP governments I was involved with.

Hon. G. Collins: Again, not under my purview, but generally, the ministers would be there. The caucus members would be there, and there's cabinet operations, which generally attends those meetings. A minister would be present if they were presenting legislation to that committee. I know that when I go, I myself and

Hon. G. Collins: No, I don't generally bring my political staff to any of those meetings.

J. MacPhail: The minister isn't aware of what happens at the meetings, but he's sure that Mr. Basi never attended. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Collins: I can only vouch for the times I'm in the meetings. As I said, it's not my purview. I know what goes on when I'm there. When I'm there, I don't bring my political staff with me. I don't need them. I have staff from the ministry to answer the technical questions, and I'm certainly more than able to manage the policy issues or political issues that arise.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Basi reported to the minister on a day-to-day basis. Is the minister aware of Mr. Basi attending legislative review committee meetings?

J. MacPhail: In terms of the job descriptions that the minister had for his two ministerial assistants, what, if any, part of the job description talked about legislation?

Hon. G. Collins: As I said earlier, there are standard job descriptions for political staff — MAs and EAs. I told the member I could try and get that for her, if we could. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't say what specifically might have been mentioned with regard to that.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the final sign-off of legislation before it reaches the Government House Leader's office, who has final sign-off?

Hon. G. Collins: The Lieutenant-Governor, and prior to that, the presiding member of the executive council, whoever that might be. It's generally the Premier.

J. MacPhail: Prior to the legislation arriving in the Government House Leader's office, it goes to the Lieutenant-Governor's house, and she or the Administrator signs it in the upper right-hand corner. Who is responsible for approving it to go to the Lieutenant-Governor?

Hon. G. Collins: I believe that right before it goes to the Lieutenant-Governor, the presiding member of the executive council signs off on it. I only know that because, from time to time, I've been asked to sign if the Premier's away or the Deputy Premier's not…. I think I'm somewhere down the list, and it ends up in my office — generally on a Friday if nobody else is around. Infrequently, that might be brought in to me by somebody from cabinet operations. I would sign it. They would take it back out of the office.

Hon. G. Collins: Nobody in my ministry. It would be cabinet operations. I expect that if they needed me to sign a document such as that, they would phone and speak to Yvette, who is the administrative coordinator, and find out if I was available and the schedule. Generally, it takes about 30 seconds, so I'm virtually always available if they need me and I'm in the building. The individual from cabinet operations would walk into my office, present it to me, tell me what it is, and I would sign it.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I didn't fill in the blanks. I didn't mean the actual technical processing of it. From the time the legislative review committee approves legislation, who is responsible for the shepherding of…? I think last session, involving the two sittings, there were almost 90 pieces of legislation that were introduced into the House. Is this a job that a minister does, or is there a staff person assigned?

Hon. G. Collins: The progress of legislation through the various decision-making bodies — the government caucus committees; the legislative review committee, which I spoke of earlier — while led by the minister or whoever is responsible for that legislation, would be coordinated by cabinet operations out of the Premier's office. It's the same people who sit in the corner and take notes and minutes, etc., that you would be aware of doing their job. That would be the case right through.

I mention for the member that there would be three instances where legislation might end up in my office. First, if it's legislation I'm responsible for, then it would come to me. If it were Ministry of Finance legislation — which is really all I'm responsible for — it would go to Robert Pauliszyn, if he were involved at all, if there were any need for him to be involved. Many times there isn't. It's generally handled through the ministry, and ministry staff would come and brief me on what we were doing, go through the briefing notes and prepare for a presentation to a government caucus committee or a legislative review committee. That would be legislation that I'm personally responsible for.

Legislation from another ministry that I might see would be the example I just gave the member, where for some reason, the Premier and the Deputy Premier were gone and I was whatever…. I don't know what the list is that they use, but when they got down to my name on the list, they would come and bring it in to me. I'd sign it, and it would go back out again. I generally don't read the legislation at that point, obviously.

The third scenario where legislation would come into my office would be that which I've described earlier. That would be legislation that was already approved and printed, ready for introduction to the House. That would come into my office.

That would have gone to Mr. Basi, if this is where the member is looking. That was his role. That legislation would be in a locked cabinet in my office, and it would go and be ready to introduce to the House. At that time, it would be introduced when it was determined it was the appropriate time across government. Generally, that was within hours — in almost all cases — and if not, generally within days. The member can go back and look at the order paper. By watching the progression, you can see where some legislation is prepared but doesn't get introduced in the House for some time. That's the rare exception.

The budget legislation is a different process. My deputy just reminds me of, perhaps, a fourth scenario. Budget legislation is done inside the Ministry of Finance and prepared there. It does not go to government caucus committees. It does not go to the legislative review committee. It's done internally. As the member would know, being a former Minister of Finance, that legislation is held very tightly. Certainly, I don't think anybody in my…. I'm trying to think if Robert Pauliszyn would have seen it at all. I don't think he would have.

Hon. G. Collins: The deputy advises me that no, he wouldn't. Generally, even the first time I see that legislation is when I stand up in the House. That's how tightly we hold it. I'm obviously aware of all the policy decisions that are made as part of the budget.

I don't think the system has changed much, if at all, since she was minister in determining through the revenue process, the revenue binder, what's in, what's out and making those decisions. That's held very closely within the Ministry of Finance, as I think it always has been.

J. MacPhail: With the greatest of respect, the minister shouldn't presume where my questions are going.

I have information that when legislation has been presented to the Liberal caucus, that legislation has been sent back for changes. Who shepherds that process?

Hon. G. Collins: All of that is done by cabinet operations. I am not, as House Leader, part of taking legislation or policy decisions in a ministry and steering it through the various processes. That's not my role as House Leader. That is done through cabinet operations. Civil servants, many of whom are the same people that have been there for years, are the ones who handle that. That is not part of the role of the Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Collins: Not to my knowledge. The minister would present an issue. I can't think of a time when actual draft legislation went to caucus. I can't recall that ever happening. Generally, what would happen is a minister would try and move an issue through, would become aware and say: "Look. This is a big issue. It's something all members should be involved in. It's a big governmentwide initiative. It should go to caucus." That minister would then take it, present it to caucus and take the input they received from caucus back as part of the policy process.

I don't believe, and I really cannot ever recall when, a minister has taken specific draft legislation to caucus.

J. MacPhail: Legislation or the outlines of legislation go to the legislative review committee. I will be asking not for the details of the minutes but who attended those meetings. In a moment I'm going to get to some FOI requests I've made of this minister that are delayed. The legislation concept, whatever draft goes to the legislative review committee, of which there are caucus members and cabinet members…. The minister doesn't have information about whether Mr. Basi attends that or not?

J. MacPhail: The legislation concept or outline either gets approved or is sent back for further work. That legislation concept then goes to caucus, and I am informed that at some point in this government, which is not unusual, caucus has said: "No, legislation needs to take a different direction" — the concept of the legislation, not the draft. In fact, there have been several times — I know of two — where there's been quite a debate inside the Liberal caucus. Who is responsible…? Is it the Attorney General as the head of the legislative review committee that takes that feedback from caucus back and redoes the legislation?

Hon. G. Collins: As I said, draft legislation, to my knowledge, has never gone to caucus. A minister would bring a policy issue to caucus, laying out a bunch of issues that they wanted to deal with in legislation and other ways — perhaps regulation, etc. The minister would bring that to caucus. The minister would lead the discussion. There would be a discussion. Sometimes it takes five minutes; sometimes it takes a long time. The member has been part of a caucus. That's what it's for: you have good debates about stuff.

Generally, that policy issue — not in draft legislation but that policy issue…. The minister, then, would say: "Okay. I've heard what you have to say." There might be a decision out of caucus to either not do it at all or say: "Fine. Go ahead, but look at this, this, this and this" or "Gee. We love what we see. Go for it." It could be any of those things. Then the minister is responsible for going back, making sure the policy deci-

sions are implemented and going through the government caucus committees. Ultimately, one of the final steps is the legislative review committee. It would be a rare occasion — I'm trying to think if ever — that something would end up at the legislative review committee and then go to caucus. It generally doesn't work that way. Policy stuff needs to be dealt with much earlier.

It would not be the Attorney General. It would be the minister responsible and, ultimately, I suppose, everybody who would sit on a government caucus committee that would subsequently see that policy issue. They'd recall being in caucus and know what came out of the caucus meeting. Anybody on the legislative review committee, as well, would obviously — not just the Attorney General but everybody — have in the back of their minds the policy discussion that took place at caucus about that legislation and would keep that in mind as they were reviewing the legislation. It's everybody's role to try and make sure the decisions of caucus, the recommendations and the input of caucus are taken into consideration as the legislation moves through the process.

Earlier, I just want to respond to…. I wasn't up to respond to a comment the member made. To my knowledge, Mr. Basi has never attended cabinet, caucus, Treasury Board or a government caucus committee or a legislative review committee — certainly not while I was there. I just don't ever recall him doing that. Generally, or as far as I'm concerned — I don't know what other ministers do — if I were to have anybody at a government caucus committee dealing with an issue, it would have been Robert Pauliszyn, who is responsible for the ministry and the legislation that comes out of it. It would not have been Mr. Basi. I don't even have Mr. Pauliszyn there. I have civil servant staff from the ministry and me.

I want to be clear about that, because the member made a statement that…. I think either she misunderstood me earlier or it was unclear.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister is much firmer in his answer. He said he wasn't there when the minister attended. He wasn't aware of who attended the…. He couldn't even give me the list of the members of the legislative review committee, let alone who attended the meetings. Now his memory is very clear.

I assume the minister will have no problem, then, releasing the attendance record of the legislative review committee's staff and ministers.

Hon. G. Collins: That's not up to me. That's held in cabinet operations, and the member should ask the Premier for that. There are two processes: she can ask him for it or she can do it through freedom-of-information. That's not something I have the ability to release, because I don't have possession of it.

J. MacPhail: Who is the political staff person — the OIC appointee reporting to Martyn Brown — who coordinates legislation from concept to passage?

Hon. G. Collins: It would be somebody in the cabinet operations division of government. There would probably be a number of people that do that. Nobody in my office.

J. MacPhail: Well, I must say that this is not the way previous Government House Leaders operated, from the Social Credit onward. So the minister is unaware of, couldn't give me the name of, a political staff person reporting to Martyn Brown who is responsible for the shepherding of legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: As I said, there would obviously be OIC appointments within the Premier's office, which has cabinet operations as part of what they do and who would be responsible for that. It's not somebody in my office. These are my estimates, and I'm just telling you I don't have…. There's nobody in my office that does that.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister reluctant to name a name? I'm curious as to why the minister is reluctant to name a name. I would expect that the minister does have this information.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm bad with names, and I can't recall the names of everybody who is involved. There's nothing nefarious about that. I just don't have the names. It's not my ministry. She should ask the Premier.

J. MacPhail: It's lucky the minister isn't getting a stipend for being Government House Leader then, because it would certainly be unworthy of pay for his lack of information around all of this.

The minister is suggesting that the political staffer who shepherds legislation from beginning to end is a question the Premier answers?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm suggesting that to my knowledge, there is no — if the member wants to put it — political staff person. The chief of staff to the Premier attends a number of committee meetings. He would attend Treasury Board when he felt it was necessary — and others as well, probably the legislative review committee. He would have a role in doing some of that. Is there a political appointment within government that does that? There are OIC people who deal with that in cabinet operations. It's generally the cabinet operations people who do that. Martyn Brown, as the chief of staff to the Premier, would probably be involved at some level for that.

But government is an entity, and we have an agenda. Ministers know what they're responsible for. They have service plans. They deliver on those service plans. It's not like there has to be somebody, one person, who is sitting there going, like at the traffic light: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. It's an entire government agenda that is being implemented. As far as moving it through those committees, it's the cabinet operations people.

J. MacPhail: All I want to say is that we, the tiny little opposition of two, have had complaints from people who understand that legislation has hit a bottleneck in government. It's a political bottleneck they accuse the government of, not an administrative bottleneck. If the minister is saying that he, the Government House Leader, has no idea how that occurs, then so be it. Again, I say: "Thank God he's not getting a stipend for doing the job."

We do know that there are political staff who do see legislation, who review legislation. We know that occurs in the Premier's office, and if the minister is saying it doesn't occur in his office, so be it. That's fine. We'll ask the Premier these questions. It is an interesting trickling up of responsibility from a Government House Leader to the Premier.

Legislation that involves changes in terms of expenditure, like the forestry legislation — how does that get assigned in terms of responsibility in the minister's office?

Hon. G. Collins: It would be done in the Ministry of Forests' office, not mine. The Minister of Forests is responsible for his own legislative agenda. He'd work within the Ministry of Forests. He'd work with cabinet operations to schedule the various steps of getting approval. As I've mentioned, those may be different depending on the policy contained in the legislation and the magnitude of the legislation.

The member is correct. There are often political bottlenecks that occur as legislation and policy is moved through government, but it can occur at a government caucus committee meeting. It can occur in the public if there is public opposition to something that there is broad public consultation on. In Finance we regularly try and put policy issues on the website for discussion, discussion papers. Sometimes that stuff hits a brick wall in the public. They look at it and they go: "You can't do that. If you do that, this, this and this will happen." And we say: "Oh. You're right. I guess we won't do it that way."

There may be a political bottleneck that occurs at the legislative review committee because the legislation, after having gone through all those hoops, gets there and somebody says: "Now that we actually see it written the way it is, that's not what we were trying to achieve." So it could get stopped there. The minister could look at it. Questions could be raised at a government caucus committee, and the minister could say: "You know what? I'd better take that to the whole caucus to discuss." It could end up at caucus. That could delay it. That could kill it. It could improve it. That's why you do it.

Yeah, there are lots of times when legislation…. I sometimes think of the turtles that are hatched. You get a minister or a ministry that has a concept of legislation, and it is like an egg being laid on the beach by a turtle. One in 2,000 ends up growing up to be a real turtle. Sometimes it's the same thing with legislation. I don't think it's quite that few, but not everything gets the full rein and actually gets passed through the Legislature. Lots of policy issues die along the way, and rightly so. They probably should die somewhere along the way. Lots are improved, and some sail right through because they are easy, they are great ideas and something people wish they had thought of earlier.

J. MacPhail: With the legislation that required a $275 million fund to be set up for forestry transition, what role did the Minister of Finance have at any point — any point — in ensuring that legislation was drafted properly, was submitted to the chamber properly and passed?

Hon. G. Collins: Certainly, the Ministry of Forests would have been the lead on it. We would have had a role to play at the ministry level and the civil servant level in making sure the trust was set up properly. That would have been part of Mr. van Iersel's role as well as the deputy's role. To make sure the money was there would have been part of the Treasury Board staff's role, and I expect there were discussions back and forth amongst officials that would not have included wide discussion amongst political staff.

It was a decision that was made. There was money in the fiscal plan to do it. It was something that was coming, that needed to be dealt with. It was a reality that we were facing. We had room in the fiscal plan to do it. We reached forward and said: "Let's set this up. Let's make this happen, provide some certainty to the land base and help the forest reforms move forward." But it would have been led by the Ministry of Forests. The facilitation and the drafting of that to make sure it worked properly would have happened at the civil servant level in the Ministry of Finance.

J. MacPhail: The minister has referred several times to the fact that his staff liaise with the opposition, so the opposition has our own information about how much political staff knew about events, and when. I just want to caution the minister that sort of skimming over these matters as if there was never any political management of issues probably will come back to bite him.

In terms of the forestry legislation, in his office amongst political staff, who would be responsible for that?

Hon. G. Collins: The actual drafting and preparation, if anybody was — although I don't think anybody particularly was; I don't recall — it would have been Robert Pauliszyn. I don't believe there would have been a need at that point for that. The general discussion and knowledge that government was trying to do something with regard to forest compensation was probably widely held in government.

J. MacPhail: All legislation that dealt with budget matters — matters that affected budget — would be assigned to Mr. Paulisyzn.

Hon. G. Collins: As I said earlier, he would not even be involved in the particulars of that. That is generally held within the ministry itself. The member should be aware. As I said, I generally don't see budget legislation until pretty much when I introduce it into the House. We're pretty tight, and we haven't had, I don't think, any real leaks by a civil servant in the Ministry of Finance over the last number of years. That information is held fairly tightly.

J. MacPhail: This forestry legislation wasn't budget legislation; it was stand-alone.

J. MacPhail: No, I said legislation that affected the budget. The $275 million payment affected the budget. It wasn't budget legislation. That was my question.

The minister is saying that kind of legislation would not…. The concept, the passage, the changes, the discussion with caucus was not assigned to any one of his political staff.

Hon. G. Collins: No, not to my…. I don't know what the member is getting at. If she wants to ask me a specific question, she should just ask me. I'm finding it difficult trying to answer these hypothetical questions. They're not difficult, but I'm able to just answer exactly what it is she's asking me, which may not be very productive either.

No, that wasn't assigned to anybody. It would have been done within the ministry. There was no need to have a political person involved in that legislation, although it was pretty widely known in government, I think, that we were trying to do something around forest compensation. It was a looming liability for government that was left over from the previous administration, and we were trying to deal with it. It wasn't like it was a secret that there were changes and transformation happening on the coast. It was pretty widely known, not just in government but in the public. Certainly, amongst the industry it was widely known — first nations, environmental groups.

We were trying to say: "Okay, we know that's coming. We should try and see if there are some things we can do to deal with what we know is a liability — try and quantify it, try and find provisions within the service plan and within the fiscal plan to accommodate it." We did that.

The forest legislation…. The issue was broadly known in government and in the public. The actual drafting of the legislation and the assistance of the Ministry of Forests in drafting that legislation would have happened, as I said, with the comptroller general, the Deputy Minister of Finance and any other officials they felt were necessary to be part of that to make it work.

J. MacPhail: Relating to the B.C. Rail legislation, what, if anything, did the Minister of Finance have to do with the establishment of a different investment, the investment partnership and the legislation that flowed from that?

Hon. G. Collins: There was some preliminary enabling legislation introduced. I can't recall when. I think it was some time last year, probably early in last year's session. That was done out of the Ministry of Transportation. It would have been led by the Minister of Transportation. I don't recall being involved in that, really, in any way other than I knew it was coming and I knew something needed to be done. I would have been aware of that, as House Leader, in general terms.

As far as legislation that will arise out of the B.C. Rail transaction, that legislation started once the transaction was complete. It would be underway now, still.

J. MacPhail: No, Madam Chair, we passed a major piece of legislation in November dealing with B.C. Rail shares divestment. Is the minister saying that he had nothing to do with that legislation and that there was nobody in his office involved in that legislation?

Hon. G. Collins: My knowledge is that it was done out of the Ministry of Transportation. As my deputy has advised me, Chris Trumpy is the lead on the B.C. Rail file as well as the lead negotiator.

J. MacPhail: The discussion around the divestiture of various shares of B.C. Rail, the sale that was negotiated with CN, the setting up of the northern initiatives fund — the Minister of Finance and/or his ministry staff or political staff had nothing to do with that.

Hon. G. Collins: The Ministry of Finance obviously was involved in that. I was part of the review committee for the B.C. Rail transaction. It's been stated publicly; I've talked about that. Certainly, we have some involvement. We're not the lead ministry on it.

The legislation that is coming from the conclusion of the B.C. Rail partnership will involve trusts, will involve defeasance of debt, etc., so the Ministry of Finance obviously is quite heavily involved in that part of it. Again, Mr. Trumpy is the lead on this and continues to be. We facilitate and help in any way we can.

Hon. G. Collins: The transaction has been discussed for some time. I would have been briefed by Mr. Trumpy. There would have been a number of people that were probably involved in that. Mr. Basi was

probably one who was involved, as well as Mr. Virk, in any sort of technical briefing that might have come about. If he was there and available, he may well have attended.

J. MacPhail: How did those meetings occur? Were they cabinet meetings in the cabinet chamber? Were they in minister's offices? How did they occur?

Hon. G. Collins: I recall one meeting in particular in the Oak Room here in the Legislature, where we received a briefing from Mr. Trumpy on the status, the progress. There are members of the review committee who would have been part of that.

From time to time, if Mr. Trumpy felt it was necessary, he may have briefed me, either over the phone or possibly in person — I don't really recall any, to be exact — on particular issues that might have arisen during the time. Generally, those issues can be resolved through staff, through the deputies. Mr. Taylor's and Mr. Trumpy's offices are across the hall from each other, so they were able to resolve most of that on their own. There would have been at least one, maybe two, times that this issue might have come to cabinet and would have been discussed there, for sure.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could tell us what the responsibility of the review committee was, who was on it, how frequently it met and when it concluded.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know for sure how many times it met. I know I wasn't able to attend, probably, all of the meetings they had, just given the time. As I said, I recall one meeting in particular in the Oak Room.

It would have met as necessary. Its role was to take the information being put together by Mr. Trumpy and his team as they examined the options available for the B.C. Rail transaction and to present it to us. Sometimes we would look at it. I recall one meeting in particular where we looked at it and said: "That's interesting. I think cabinet or caucus is going to look for more information here. They may have questions about that. I think you should find out information here." They would go back and do that work, so when it made it to cabinet, it was reflective of questions or concerns that members of the review committee might have had.

It was not a decision-making body. It was there to try and aid the transaction process as it went forward. Ultimately, the recommendations from Mr. Trumpy and his team came to cabinet and were discussed. A decision was made, which is now public.

J. MacPhail: Who were the members of the committee, who staffed the committee and were there committee minutes kept?

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know if there were minutes kept. I think it was pretty informal — sort of an advisory body or a sounding board for Mr. Trumpy and his staff. I don't know. As I said, I don't recall. I recall one meeting in particular; I don't know if there were others. There may have been a few. I don't know if I would have attended all of them. It was not number one on my priority list or my time commitments over the last year.

The members of the committee: I may not have all of them here, but if I've got it wrong, I'll get it to the member. There were myself, Minister Reid, the Minister of Transportation; Minister Bond; now Minister Bell, who was then a member of the government caucus, from Prince George; and Mr. Harris, who is the member for Skeena, from the northwest. I believe Mr. Lekstrom from Peace River was added towards the end. There was discussion about that part of the province having a chance to be part of the process, so he was added.

There was also, towards the end, an invitation extended to Mayor Kinsley and one other public official — I can't remember which — to attend the committee and be part of it. Prince George council voted against him doing that, so he was not part of it. There was one other individual, and I can't remember who it was. I'll try and remember.

J. MacPhail: Colin Kinsley, the mayor of Prince George, is on record as saying he had conversations with Dave Basi about the B.C. Rail deal. On this review committee, I ask the minister who staffed it. I would like to know when those review committee meetings started and when they concluded.

Hon. G. Collins: The staff would have been Mr. Trumpy and, I think it was, Yvette Wells, who was working with him on this project. Certainly, as I said earlier, Mr. Virk would have been there, and Mr. Basi may well have been there. I don't recall, but he may well have been. As I've said publicly for a couple of months now, part of his role on the review or part of his role as the House Leader's assistant was to liaise with the caucus, was to deal on the rail file, in particular. He was well known in the corridor of the building here in talking to the media, telling them that this was a good transaction for British Columbia. It was what communities wanted. He did talk with Mayor Kinsley and other elected officials along the route as well. That was part of his role. He would have liaised with members of caucus, as well, who would be impacted by it. I've said that. I said that two months ago, when I was asked.

J. MacPhail: Yes, these conversations reportedly took place with Mr. Kinsley before any legislation was introduced, so it was during the review committee time.

Hon. G. Collins: The deputy is just reminding me that the legislation was introduced towards the end of

November. I think that's correct. The committee meetings would have been completed by that point in time, as far as I know — I don't recall ever being invited to another one — and probably would have ceased earlier than that, because cabinet would have reviewed the transaction earlier than the announcement.

There would have been a decision by cabinet sometime prior to that. I don't recall when exactly that was. After it went to cabinet and a decision was made, there probably wouldn't have been much cause for the review committee to meet as far as dealing with information that was then to go to cabinet. They probably did meet — maybe not the committee as such but there would have been a group, of which I was part. I remember one meeting…. I don't think it was a review committee meeting; I think it was just generally a communications strategy meeting: "Now we've made this decision. The rollout is going to happen on such-and-such a day, and what is the process to make sure that the rollout features the benefits of the transaction?" That would have happened — again, I don't have the precise dates — sometime prior to the rollout.

J. MacPhail: In my debate in the Legislature with the then Minister of Transportation concerning the B.C. Rail legislation, she acknowledged that the cabinet meeting held prior to the Premier's announcement…. He announced the B.C. Rail deal on a Monday. Prior to that there had been no cabinet meeting other than the regular cabinet meeting that occurred the previous Wednesday. She also acknowledged, because I was questioning the then Minister of Transportation about whether the deal had already been done by that time…. I'm sorry. This is all in Hansard. I'll bring it to the minister tomorrow.

It's all in Hansard, where the then Minister of Transportation said that cabinet met on the Wednesday prior to the announcement on Monday, that cabinet did not have a meeting between the Wednesday and the Monday announcement and that the final — in effect, important — parts of the deal were negotiated between that Wednesday and the Monday announcement. Cabinet had not…. It was acknowledged by the Minister of Transportation that there was not final approval of the deal. She did say that cabinet had discussed the parameters of the deal and wanted changes. Those changes were negotiated over the next four days, and they weren't concluded until the day before the Premier made his announcement. That's all on record.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister look at his schedule and please tell me whether the review committee met?

Hon. G. Collins: Whether or not they met would probably not necessarily be reflected in my schedule, because I may not have attended. I don't know. Cabinet gave direction to Mr. Trumpy — pretty clear direction — that here's what we think is a doable deal. Here are the concerns we have. Go conclude that transaction. That was done, to the best of my knowledge.

The Minister of Transportation probably had more detail last fall when the member talked to her, certainly, than I would have now. I don't recall. I don't believe I had a meeting. I think I was in Prince Rupert somewhere around then, when all this stuff was coming together. I remember speaking to the chamber of commerce and then getting asked about the B.C. Rail Partnership and when it might happen. So I just don't know.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I actually recall this review committee as being touted by the government caucus MLAs as the reason why B.C. Rail would be a good deal for their communities. They stood up, day after day, touting the fact that this committee existed and that it was the formal reason why B.C. Rail was not going to go off track, so to speak. I would assume this wasn't just the casual nature that the minister is now…. I don't even know if he's suggesting it's casual or not. It certainly doesn't stand out as a major initiative for him, whereas it did for the government caucus members who participated in this.

I'm also curious as to who did make the deal, who did the final sign-off of the deal between the cabinet meeting and the Premier's announcement. I recall having a meeting, a discussion, with one of the government caucus members sitting on that committee, saying: "My questions have been answered. My situation has been dealt with." Who did make the final decision about CN being the proponent?

I will also tell you, Madam Chair, that when I asked the then Minister of Transportation when it was decided that CN would get to buy B.C. Rail, she said the day before the announcement.

Hon. G. Collins: As I said earlier, and I expect that the Minister of Transportation probably said something similar, unless she knew something I didn't or her memory was more current at the time, this potential partnership with CN came to cabinet, and it was discussed.

Cabinet made a recommendation, which to the best of my recollection was: "Okay, here are some issues. Go resolve those issues and complete the transaction." That was the direction given to the negotiating team. In fact, I think I know it went right until midnight or beyond, the night before. Those kinds of transactions often do. There's a lot of grinding and bumping as you get down to the end. I don't know what time the night before or the morning of whenever it was that the final "yes, let's do this" was done. The final approval for the transaction was done when it was signed, and I believe that was the day of.

J. MacPhail: In fact, the Minister of Transportation, during that legislative debate, said the final agreement hadn't been signed.

On page 128 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2004/05-2006/07, footnote 4 says: "Includes student assistance loan guarantees. The forecast at March 31, 2004, includes a $255 million indemnity to CN related to tax attributes with respect to the B.C. Rail investment partnership." I assume it was the Minister of Finance that shepherded this through. Am I correct?

J. MacPhail: The nature of including this as an indemnity and booking it as an indemnity.

J. MacPhail: Actually, that's not what the note says in the topic box. It says it was because of a legal opinion that it was done this way — not an accounting but a legal opinion. Which is it?

Hon. G. Collins: It would be both. It would be a legal opinion that would say: "Here's the transaction. Here's the indemnity." There would be a legal opinion that says how we view that indemnity and the likelihood of having to deliver on that indemnity. Accounting policy would have dictated that when the indemnity is there, it needs to be accounted for. It's done in the way it's done here, so it would have been both of those things.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and who did that, I'm asking. The minister is suggesting he had quite a hands-off approach to this, so did he have nothing to do with this?

Hon. G. Collins: The project team, under the leadership of Mr. Trumpy, would have received a legal opinion or opinions, probably from the ministry — their impression of it. That would have formed the basis of the risk of this indemnity, whether it exists or not and how big or how small a risk it is. It's mentioned in the topic box, as well, that it's viewed as a very low risk, based on the legal opinions secured by the project team under Mr. Trumpy's leadership. As a result of that, accounting policy would have dictated how it needed to be booked in the financial statements.

J. MacPhail: Did the Minister of Finance have any discussion around the booking or determining of the indemnity?

Hon. G. Collins: Certainly, I was advised by Mr. Trumpy of the nature of the indemnity requested by CN. There was a lot of negotiation back and forth between his project team and CN with regard to that indemnity. I was generally informed of the nature of it and how it would work. I was not part of the ongoing back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, in any great detail. It's fair to say there was a lot of discussion and debate amongst them about it. I was certainly advised at various key points where it was headed.

If the member is referring to determining what the legal opinion is, I don't give legal opinions, so I would have received that. That would be part of what the project team did. As far as how it's booked in the budget documents, obviously, I'm accountable for that. That's based on accounting policy advice.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the way it's booked is accounting, but the determination of the amounts and why it's booked in that fashion are the result of a legal opinion. Did the minister see the legal opinion?

Hon. G. Collins: No, I didn't personally read it. I have great confidence in Mr. Trumpy and his ability to do his job. I received advice from him, and that's what I based my decision on.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know that. You'd probably have to ask the Minister of Transportation. The project team was working for the Minister of Transportation, not me directly, although they did work that impacted on the ministry, obviously.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister suggesting that if I ask the Minister of Transportation now, he will be able to give me information about who had that legal opinion?

Hon. G. Collins: I expect he would. I've just been advised that the comptroller general saw the legal opinion. Andy Robinson, who is the director of tax policy in the Ministry of Finance, would have seen it as well.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know that. Generally, solicitor-client privilege applies. That's a question that's probably best asked of the Minister of Transportation, but generally, solicitor-client privilege applies in most of these cases.

J. MacPhail: How often did Mr. Pauliszyn meet with public service officials in government?

Hon. G. Collins: Probably hundreds of times over the last two and a half, almost three years. Is there a specific time the member wants to know about?

J. MacPhail: In the way the minister outlines the roles of his ministerial assistants, I'm surprised that his hands-off ministerial assistants ever met with public service officials. They have such a hands-off role, according to him. It would have been cabinet ops that did all of that. Was there a regular meeting established between Mr. Pauliszyn and public service officials?

Hon. G. Collins: Generally, we try and do it weekly. Sometimes it gets bumped, but generally it's weekly meetings with the deputy, my communications director and any other public officials who are required to be there, as well as Mr. Connolly, who is the deputy minister for PSEC. We generally do that once a week. Mr. Pauliszyn would generally be in those meetings, but not always. If he had other things he needed to deal with, then he could go do that. Those are the regularly scheduled meetings.

Hon. G. Collins: I can't recall an incident when somebody else would have been there. If you mean Mr. Basi or Adam Buchanan or Yvette or Melanie in my office, they wouldn't generally be part of that. It's just a weekly update — issues that are sitting on the two deputies' desks that need resolution or a heads-up or something like that. The communications meeting with the communications director is really about where we are at, where we are going, what's coming up in the communication file going forward, speeches I might be giving, public events I might be doing, issues, release of auditor general reports — those kinds of things. It would be Mr. Pauliszyn who would be in those meetings.

J. MacPhail: If one of his political staff reported out on those meetings, it would have been because they received information from Mr. Pauliszyn, if the political staff reporting on it wasn't Mr. Pauliszyn. You're saying it was only Mr. Pauliszyn that attended it.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm not sure what the member is asking. Perhaps she can ask a specific question.

J. MacPhail: I'm saying that if a ministerial assistant other than Mr. Pauliszyn reported on those meetings to the opposition, would it have been that he received that information from Mr. Pauliszyn?

Hon. G. Collins: I have no idea. Give me a specific, and perhaps I can answer it. I don't know what the member is referring to. I'm trying to answer as clearly as I can, but I feel a little bit like I'm shadowboxing. If the member wants to ask me a specific question, ask me a specific question. You're asking me hypotheticals. It's not that I'm trying…. I think I've tried to answer every one of your questions to the best of my ability here today. I'm not sure what it is the member is asking.

Because we would have those meetings, what came out of them was not necessarily secret. There may be an issue that comes out of it that…. Say, at the communications meeting, the auditor general's report is coming out and is going to be introduced into the House on a Thursday or, let's say, a Tuesday or something. There may be a response required. I may be asked about it, which happens from time to time. People ask the Minister of Finance about a report from an auditor general. That would probably come up at the communications meeting. Robert might walk out the door and say to Dave: "Hey, by the way, we think the auditor general is putting out a report on Tuesday or Thursday. The minister is probably going to have to respond. This is what it's about. Be aware of that" — right? That would be the relationship between two people doing their jobs. One runs the House; one runs the ministry.

If that's what you're talking about, that could easily happen. If there's something other than that which is specific, perhaps you should ask me the question. I'll try and answer it.

J. MacPhail: I take the minister's assurance that Dave Basi didn't attend those regular meetings. Any information we would have received via that channel would come from him getting the information somewhere else, I would assume. I take that, the minister's word. Mr. Basi didn't attend those regular weekly meetings of his staff.

In terms of the B.C. Rail Partnership sale, was that ever discussed at one of the regular weekly meetings that the minister had with his public service staff?

Hon. G. Collins: Probably. I don't recall specifically, but I would be surprised if it wasn't at some point discussed.

Hon. G. Collins: Not always. I can't remember what day of the week. They all sort of seem to be the same after awhile. Not generally. We probably try and put them in at a particular time, and they probably get moved around a lot. They're not the number one priority that deals with the ministry all the time. They're catch-up issues, generally. They can be moved from time to time.

J. MacPhail: When does the minister meet with his staff, to have staff meetings in his role as a minister?

Hon. G. Collins: Do you mean in the minister's office here in the Legislature? I see the member's nodding. We don't have specific staff meetings. There are five people. They each know their job; they each do their job. Robert Pauliszyn is the senior person in the office to give direction if it is required. I've got five very competent people, and they do their jobs. We don't have regular staff meetings; it's a pretty small group. We don't need a regular staff meeting.

J. MacPhail: Why is the minister's budget the same this year as it was last year, then?

Hon. G. Collins: Because there could still be somebody who could come in and fill the position, if it was needed. As the member is aware, when we put this budget together, the decision to appoint Mr. Penner as a parliamentary secretary — the member for Chilliwack-Kent — was not made. The budget spending numbers would have been locked down earlier in anticipation that somebody would have replaced Mr. Basi.

Mr. Penner has a different role, obviously, but takes up part of that responsibility. That's not to say, as the year progresses, that we may not need to bring somebody in to do something. It wouldn't necessarily be at that senior level. We'd like to try this arrangement and see how it works. If it works fine, then there may not be any need to fill that position at all — in which case, the ministry would underspend its budget by whatever the salary and benefits were for that person.

J. MacPhail: The minister said earlier that it was Martyn Brown, chief of staff to the Premier, who fired Mr. Basi. Who hired Mr. Basi?

Hon. G. Collins: The same, although it was on my recommendation. I've said that publicly as well.

J. MacPhail: For the record, how much was the severance paid to Mr. Basi when he was fired?

Hon. G. Collins: It's on the public record. For some reason, I think it's about seven months, but I'm trying to recollect. It was in the public record at the time it was announced. I can try and get that information for the member, but I know it's on the public record.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know that. I'll try and find out. I wasn't part of that arrangement. That would have been done through Mr. Brown's office. I can try and determine where that comes from. I don't know.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister confirm, then, that the severance wasn't paid out of his ministerial budget?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm advised that we think it might have been out of the PSA. We're trying to determine that…. The answer is yes, it was paid out of the PSA, the Public Service Agency.

J. MacPhail: If Mr. Basi is not replaced, what will the salary — STOB sub 50 — be reduced by?

Hon. G. Collins: By whatever his salary was, which I think was also made public, and benefits. I don't know that off the top of my head, either. I can try and get that information for the member. I don't know off the top of my head. As I said, I wasn't responsible for directly hiring or the severance or what their salaries were. I was not involved in setting that. That was done centrally, but I can try and find the answer for the member.

J. MacPhail: Did Martyn Brown make the decision solely to fire Mr. Basi? Did Martyn Brown make the decision to pay severance? Was the Minister of Finance consulted about either of those two actions?

Hon. G. Collins: I was not consulted about either of them, the first one because I wasn't available. I was in transit that day; the member will recall from the public events of that time. I was in transit on my vacation. I learned the day after that Mr. Basi had been fired. I wasn't aware of it prior to. As I said, I concurred with that recommendation or that decision — not that it would have made a difference one way or the other, but I did.

With regard to severance, we were asked if there would be severance for Mr. Basi. I said I didn't know and that that would be a determination of Mr. Brown based on what the rules were. I believe they consulted with the Public Service Agency, and a recommendation was made that severance — I think it was seven months; I'm not sure, as I said — would be paid, and it was. I was not part of that discussion or debate either.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister talk with the Premier about this matter at all around December or January, either in Hawaii or in Vancouver? Was there any conversation about the expenditure of public funds around Mr. Basi leaving government between the Minister of Finance and the Premier?

Hon. G. Collins: This was a decision made by Martyn Brown. I was advised of it the day after it happened. I've said publicly that I concurred with that decision. There was no need to discuss it with the Premier. It was done, and I agreed with it. It was Mr. Brown's decision, as I said earlier. These people report to Mr. Brown directly — not to me, not to the Premier but to the chief of staff. This was a decision for him to make. He made it. As I said, with regard to severance that was paid, there was advice requested and received from the Public Service Agency.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Brown was solely responsible for determining that Mr. Basi should be fired. He was solely responsible — I'm just summarizing, Madam Chair — for determining that he should be paid severance. Mr. Brown had a conversation with the Solicitor General directly before all of this happened. He also had a conversation with the Solicitor General about Mr. Virk. Clearly, then, the only conclusion I can reach was that Mr. Brown had information as a result of that conversation that would lead him to determine the differentiated treatment between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk.

I can only reach that conclusion. Mr. Brown didn't receive any advice in terms of work performance or related duties from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance didn't discuss this with the Premier. I

assume that the Minister of Finance didn't talk to the Solicitor General. It was on the basis of a phone call from the Solicitor General to Martyn Brown that these decisions were made.

Hon. G. Collins: I can't tell the member on what basis Mr. Brown made that decision. Nor can I tell the member, nor am I aware of what role the Solicitor General may or may not have played. You should ask him that. I don't know who Mr. Brown consulted, if anybody, in making this decision. It was certainly within his job description to make that determination.

I've said publicly at least 55,000 times over the last two months, and I'll say it again, that Mr. Basi's role was very different from that of a normal ministerial assistant. We just talked about it. We scoped out his role, and we scoped out Robert's role. The same thing would apply with Mr. Virk. I've said this publicly countless times.

Mr. Virk's role and Mr. Pauliszyn's role in my office would be quite similar. They're both ministerial assistants to ministers of the Crown in their ministries. David Basi had a very unique position. He was a ministerial assistant to the Government House Leader.

The member opposite knows Mr. Basi quite well, because she's dealt with him over the last two and half years. She didn't even know that Robert Pauliszyn existed until we started talking about it here today, and that's a good indication of the difference in their roles. Mr. Basi's role was to deal with all of the caucus members, all of the ministers, to deal with the Clerks and the Speaker and, importantly — as I've said publicly — to deal with the opposition.

Now, let's just hypothesize for a minute, if I may — given that the member has been doing that for the last couple of hours. Today was an interesting day because this issue came up, again because of the summary released by the judge in Vancouver. If Mr. Basi were still here trying to do that job, he would be dealing with the members opposite, trying to arrange the calendar of events, negotiating with the members, at the same time as those members were getting up in the House and letting fly with all sorts of accusations. That's the prerogative of the opposition. I suspect it would have made it very difficult for members of the opposition to deal with Mr. Basi in that way. It would have made it very difficult for Mr. Basi to deal with the opposition.

I won't speak for the member — I'm just guessing — but I know it would have been very difficult for him to deal with the members opposite. It would have been very difficult for me as House Leader to do my job in trying to make the House run in a way that is constructive at a time when Mr. Basi was trying to do that role.

This was my determination when I heard that he had been let go: it made sense to me. It made sense to me that Mr. Virk was suspended with pay and that Mr. Basi was let go. It made sense to me, and I knew nothing. I still know virtually nothing about all of this, but it made sense to me.

Mr. Brown would know and would have a sense of that the same way I do and would have made that decision, I'm assuming, based on the same criteria. The member can come to conclusions of her own, and I won't stop her from doing that. I just don't think that's necessarily the only conclusion, and in fact I would subscribe to a different one.

J. MacPhail: I find it ironic that over and over again this minister tries to defend the firing of Mr. Basi, even after the summary of the warrants comes out, on the basis of his relationship to the opposition. Believe you me, that was not Mr. Basi's main role whatsoever. It was not a role that in any way consumed any of his time, and the treatment of the opposition was certainly not a priority with the Government House Leader or his staff. It's absolutely ridiculous to link the two. But hey, I can understand, based on the information about why the Legislature was raided, that the minister would want to go there. That's mistake No. 1 that the minister makes.

Mistake No. 2 is the minister assuming that I'm asking questions that I don't know the answer to, up to and including those about Mr. Pauliszyn. The first rule is never to ask a question you don't know the answer to. By him assuming that I'm asking questions that I don't already know the answers to is underestimating his opposition.

To carry on, though, again the minister stated, as he has done on numerous occasions, that Mr. Basi's role was one of House caucus management and that he had very little to do with the ministry, including budget development. Well, we put in a FOI request, a freedom-of-information request. The opposition put in a freedom-of-information request that said: "Could we have all correspondence between the Ministry of Finance and David Basi?" It seemed pretty straightforward. Who knows what it would involve? Probably nothing, according to the minister, because Mr. Basi's role wasn't with the Ministry of Finance.

Well, it turns out that that FOI request has been delayed for another 30 days because they have to consult with the third party — pretty straightforward. Ministry of Finance, how are you talking to Mr. Basi? This ministry has delayed that FOI request because of third-party consultation. Isn't that interesting. What would be the possible reason, given this minister's description of Mr. Basi, that there would have to be anything other than a straightforward fulfilment of our request? Is it that perhaps Mr. Basi did more than simply deal with legislative matters? If not, give us our FOI request; don't delay.

Let's ask the minister this: how are FOI requests made to the Ministry of Finance handled? How were they handled prior to Mr. Basi's departure?

Hon. G. Collins: First of all, I am not involved directly in deciding which FOIs require third-party consultation, nor am I involved in which ones might be part of this legal investigation. It may be that the mem-

ber gets nothing from an FOI because it ends up being subject to this legal…. I don't know that.

The member stands up and stitches together a quilt that's got big holes in it and then gives it a good tug and expects it to hang together. I don't know where she's going with this and the allegations she's making. She shouldn't come, necessarily, to a conclusion that there's something nefarious because they're following and are in compliance with the act.

I don't know what an MLA might have come to…. As I said, part of Mr. Basi's job was to facilitate requests from the MLAs, to try and liaise with them. They may have come with a constituency issue, and he tried to get an answer for them through the ministry. I don't know; maybe there's a third party involved there. I have no idea about that. I don't read his e-mails. I'm not involved in that. It doesn't sound beyond the pale that in doing his job, he might have done that. Maybe that's what is triggering this. I don't know.

As far as the way FOIs are treated in the ministry, I'm assuming they're treated, before and after, in exactly the same way they were for the last number of years and as they were in the years before that. I'm not directly involved in setting policy around FOIs. That's not what I do.

J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the minister is being deliberately naïve, but the point of this is that he has denied any connection between Mr. Basi and the Ministry of Finance. Not only is there an admission that there is a connection, but there's a delay in fulfilling that FOI request because of the third-party consultation. It's not the third-party consultation I'm emphasizing; it's the fact that the correspondence exists and that the government won't release it. It puts completely to the lie the minister's statement that Mr. Basi had nothing….

J. MacPhail: It makes the minister look silly and ridiculous when he somehow says that there wasn't any connection between Mr. Basi and the Ministry of Finance. Their inability to fulfil our FOI request on the basis that they have to review that connection first makes him look ridiculous. That's my point, Madam Chair.

This time for debate in estimates isn't for the minister to say: "I assume nothing's different." He is surrounded by extremely capable officials who can give him the answer about how FOI requests are handled in the Ministry of Finance.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm advised nothing's changed, which doesn't surprise me. Secondly, I already gave the member an example of a case where in fact Mr. Basi may have corresponded with the Ministry of Finance. You know, I could see…. Pick a member. Pick one. It could have been an opposition member, for all I know.

It certainly could have been members of our caucus who could have come to my office, and as part of Mr. Basi's caucus liaison role, they would have said, "Hey, I've got this issue in my constituency. It's a problem. It's creating hardship" — or whatever; I mean, I have no idea what it might be — "I'd like to get this solved. Could you do that?" I could very easily see Mr. Basi saying: "I'd love to handle that for you." He e-mails it, sends it over to the Ministry of Finance to get a response.

Then I would be in a position to have the information from the ministry to go and take it to an MLA and explain it or to direct a policy review if it was something I thought needed attention or to say, "What are we doing here? This is not right. It doesn't comply with policy," or "It's the wrong thing to do," and change policy. There can be lots of that. That would be normal in his role.

What I'm trying to say is that the member is reaching for conclusions. She makes some. That's up to her. I'm just putting on the record that there could be hundreds of those from caucus members who have issues that Mr. Basi would forward to the ministry and say: "The member is asking about this; can you give me an answer?" That would be their job. That's his role. So yeah, there's probably — and the act requires that they do — third-party consultation. That's what the act says.

She may think there's something nefarious about it, but I think I've been pretty clear about what these people's roles were in my office to the best of my knowledge and to the best of my ability here today to answer those questions. The member is free is to jump to conclusions or create the scenarios that she wants, but I'm also free to describe other scenarios that perhaps are a little more realistic and less nefarious.

J. MacPhail: Did that kind of correspondence occur between Mr. Basi and the Ministry of Finance?

J. MacPhail: So when the minister stood up day after day and said Mr. Basi had nothing to do with the ministry, including budget development, he knew about the correspondence and was commenting on

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Basi was not a policy adviser. He was not a policy person. His job was caucus liaison. I don't always have time. As much as I try to have my office door open and be available when caucus members walk through that door, or to be interrupted, if I can do that…. Much as I try and do that, I can't always do that. That's why there was somebody in my office whose role was: "I want you to make sure we serve the MLAs." The MLAs represent the four million British Columbians. They're here because a bunch of people in their constituency said: "We pick you to go and represent us." So when an MLA walks through the door, I try and make sure we serve that MLA and thereby their constituents.

If they come through the door and if I'm in a meeting and they can't talk to me directly, then they would go to Mr. Basi, because that was his job. They would say: "Look, I've got this constituency issue. It's a problem. Can you look into it? I'd like to talk to the minister about it." Mr. Basi would say: "Yeah, sure. I'd love to help. Give me the documents. Send them over to Finance, or send me an e-mail. I'll send them over to Finance. We'll get that information back, and then the minister can deal with it." That's the role. I don't know what's so tricky about that.

He was not advising policy on the budget. He was not in the budget, you know, sort of: "Here's what we're going to do around tax policy. Here's what we're going to do around what we're going to spend in ministries." He didn't sit at Treasury Board. He didn't sit at cabinet. I wouldn't turn to that person for policy advice. I've got a team of several hundred people in the Ministry of Finance who are stellar and who know their stuff. They're some of the best in the country. I would go to them for policy advice, recommendations and analysis. That's their job.

J. MacPhail: I guess that's all the more reason why we need the full search warrants released, so the minister can actually…. He has changed his story, and now we'll see whether there's any opportunity to restore confidence in this minister. All the more reason why we need the full details of the search warrant released, because this is a very different story that the minister is saying now.

The minister said nothing has changed in the fulfilment of the freedom-of-information requests. Could he describe the process that his ministry goes through to fulfil an FOI request?

Hon. G. Collins: It hasn't changed since that member was minister. It goes to the FOI coordinator. They send out a request to all the people who might have documents. Those documents are sent. They go through it and look at the stack. They determine what needs to be severed, and it moves up to the deputy minister. It's the same process it has always been. I think it's even the same people.

J. MacPhail: What, if any, role does the minister's office play — any aspect of the minister's office — in freedom-of-information requests?

Hon. G. Collins: I expect, and I know, that Mr. Pauliszyn is briefed on FOI requests. I think that was common practice previously as well. On rare occasions, he will say to me: "This FOI is going out on something. You may get asked about it as you go into the House. Here it is. Here's the issue." Then I'd be prepared if I were asked a question.

J. MacPhail: I find it interesting how the minister likes to speak for my time in government. I really wish he would stop, because there's all sorts of new information about freedom-of-information requests, about his government.

Hon. G. Collins: We're trying to figure out what the central agency is, because I'm not aware of it.

J. MacPhail: The Ministry of Management Services, the freedom-of-information branch, has a corporate tracking system for freedom-of-information requests.

Hon. G. Collins: I expect that the trackings…. There would be reports between the FOI coordinator in the ministry and, probably, the Ministry of Management Services, if they're on the tracking. I mean, I don't know how it works, but if there's a tracking mechanism, then I would expect that's where it happened.

J. MacPhail: No, I mean, this is a real question. Perhaps I could have real details.

Hon. G. Collins: To the best of my knowledge, and this is what I'm just hearing from my officials, here's how it works. And I'm only saying I don't think it has changed, because that's what they're telling me — that they don't think it has changed either. There is an FOI coordinator, and I believe that with the one for the Ministry of Finance, there's a shared service, so they also deal with Management Services, probably Provincial Revenue and…

Hon. G. Collins: …probably the Public Service Agency. So that person would be responsible for that.

If there is a central corporate tracking that's done somewhere, I'm not aware of it, and it certainly doesn't fall within my ministry. We have an FOI coordinator in our ministry that serves those other ministries and agencies as well. As far as I know, that's where it rests. I don't know if there's a central body somewhere that tracks it. It's not part of my ministry, if there is.

J. MacPhail: I am asking the minister how FOI requests are fulfilled, so if his officials are unaware of the

We have learned in the freedom-of-information legislation review that ministries assign sensitivity ratings to freedom-of-information requests: low, medium and high. Does the Ministry of Finance do that?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm certainly not aware of it, nor are any of my officials who are here with me. It may be done in some ministries — I don't know — but we're not aware that we do it.

J. MacPhail: Where does the FOI coordinator inside the Ministry of Finance rest, and whom does she report to?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm advised that this person is actually in Management Services as part of that shared service I talked about. They actually are located in Management Services but do the job for Finance…. Sorry. I'll just check here. I'm getting the information on line here.

J. MacPhail: I just want to ask: perhaps the minister could also ask the official about sensitivity ratings as well.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm just introducing my official. I apologize if I get her name wrong. Cheryl Wenezenki, in the ministry. My understanding is that contrary to what I said just a moment ago, they were in Management Services, and they've come into the Ministry of Finance. So it is held in the Ministry of Finance. We provide that service for Management Services and for, I think, PSEC, for Public Service Agency and Provincial Revenue. I don't know if there are any others. Was that the question the member was asking?

J. MacPhail: There's a central corporate tracking system for FOI requests that awards sensitivity ratings to FOI requests. There's one done at the ministry level, and then sometimes there's one done at the corporate central agency level. I'm interested in the sensitivity ratings applied by the Ministry of Finance to its FOI requests.

Hon. G. Collins: Within the Ministry of Management Services, there is an information and privacy division or a group or whatever. Apparently, they do rank issues centrally, based on sensitivity. I think there are some criteria they use. I'm not aware of what those are. Management Services would be the minister who could answer that for you. I don't know that.

J. MacPhail: Is this agency inside the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Management Services?

Hon. G. Collins: Our FOI coordinator that we have as our pod — we have a shared service — was in Management Services as well. That was brought into the Ministry of Finance, so we now do that service for those various ministries and agencies I just talked to you about. That's held in the Ministry of Finance — that person, that FOI coordinator. The central registry the member is talking about, which she obviously knows more about than me, is held in the Ministry of Management Services. That's for the entire government, I expect. It's the information and privacy branch or department or group or whatever. I don't know what their term is.

Hon. G. Collins: Agency? That's held in the Ministry of Management Services. They have a criteria and a policy they use for sensitivity ranking, I'm advised. I don't know what those criteria are. The member would have to ask the Minister of Management Services about that.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying the Ministry of Finance doesn't do sensitivity ratings for FOI requests?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm advised that no, we just collect the stuff. I expect we do it and that we send it out. We're not aware here of any sensitivity ranking we would do in the Ministry of Finance.

J. MacPhail: That's contrary to the information we received at our legislative committee reviewing this. That's why I'm curious about it. It's completely contrary.

Hon. G. Collins: We don't know, but we'll try to get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: I'm just trying to find out why there's a delay in responding to my FOI requests. I'm not kidding, Madam Chair. We were told that all of this is very corporate now, that it's a very streamlined system. Every ministry has its own system, and then there's a central agency, etc. I'm curious as to why it's so hard to get answers to this question.

Here's what I'd like. How many FOI requests are there to the Ministry of Finance? What's the record of fulfilling the FOI requests? What, if any, sensitivity rating has been applied to the opposition's FOI request regarding correspondence between the Ministry of Finance and David Basi? Can the minister provide me with that?

Hon. G. Collins: To the extent that we can, we obviously will. I don't know the answer to that. We'll try to determinate it.

Hon. G. Collins: Probably quite a bit. I don't know, timewise. I couldn't divide his day up. I expect it

shifted, depending on whether the House was sitting or not. I just don't know that.

J. MacPhail: Was Mr. Basi given the assignment to liaise with MLAs from Mr. Brown or the Minister of Finance?

Hon. G. Collins: That would have been part of his role as I asked him to do it. Robert was very busy with Finance stuff. Dave dealt with the House business, and as a result, he came in contact regularly with ministers as well as caucus members. He was just the natural person to do that job. He also would have known many of the members previously. As the member knows, I said publicly he was active in the party. He would have known many of the members from time to time over the years. One of the reasons why I thought he would be good in that role is because of his contacts and his knowledge, in general terms, of the MLAs. By all estimations, he did a very good job at that.

J. MacPhail: So would Mr. Basi have had nothing to do with FOI requests? The minister is saying FOI information, requests, results didn't cross Mr. Basi's desk.

Hon. G. Collins: No, my knowledge is that FOIs were handled by Robert as part of his role within the ministry. David, to my knowledge, was never involved with FOI requests. I'm just not aware of it. He certainly never came to me and talked to me about it. As I've said, I think, maybe three or four times over the last two and a half years, an FOI request has been prepared to go out. I was advised by Robert Pauliszyn that it was going forward: "You may get asked questions about this. Here's the issue."

J. MacPhail: So that delineation of responsibility will show up on their two job descriptions?

Hon. G. Collins: Probably not. I mean, these are two people who are very professional and managed to sort their time out. There would have been some direction from me in general on what their job descriptions were. You get a set job description when you become a ministerial assistant or an executive assistant, an administrative coordinator or a receptionist. You get sort of a standard job description. The two of them, Robert and Dave, may well have sorted out some of that stuff on their own. I'm assuming, just because of the interaction I've had, that Robert took on the role of handling the FOI stuff, if it did come to him. I only know that because he's the only one who has ever talked to me about it.

J. MacPhail: I'll be very interested to see these job descriptions, because the minister has asserted so clearly and with such authority what Mr. Basi's role was and what it wasn't. I assume he's doing that from the job descriptions.

He also claims to be an extremely busy minister and took a hands-off approach to a lot of things — review committees meetings of the B.C. Rail…. He wasn't that engaged. He was busy. So I assume he makes these assertions in public because he has some other basis than his own dealings with these staff — the job descriptions. In fact, if it's not included in the job descriptions, it may be true that the minister has no idea how the work was divided, given his answers here.

How long will it take for the minister to provide the opposition with the job descriptions?

Members, as I said, would have received a standard job description. I mean, I've described their roles according to what I assigned them and what I knew them to be involved in — what their role was. I'm describing it for you.

I mean, I got a job description as Minister of Finance. I think it's probably a lot bigger and a lot different, necessarily, than what's in the job description or the letter of direction I got from the Premier. There's lots of stuff I deal with that's not necessarily itemized in a job description.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm just telling the member what I know and how my office has operated and the roles of the two individuals. I've described them to the best of my ability and to the best of my knowledge. That's all I can do.

I'll try and get you the job descriptions. I expect that the written job descriptions for them aren't a lot different from each other.

J. MacPhail: Then there is every possibility that Mr. Dave Basi's job was a lot different than what the minister is now describing as well. Did Mr. Basi attend any…? Were there any political staff committee meetings that occurred in a formal fashion under this government?

Hon. G. Collins: Yes, there are. I think there's a regular meeting of the ministerial and executive assistants — I don't know if it happens daily or something like that — on an ongoing basis, and all of them attend.

J. MacPhail: I assume it would be Martyn Brown who would chair those meetings.

J. MacPhail: Well, I know it, so I'm not sure why the minister can't answer the question — that he doesn't know it. Everybody here knows that it's Mr. Brown who does those meetings. Honestly, it does seem to be a bit ridiculous that we're pussyfooting around some of these questions.

J. MacPhail: Honestly. Well, I can actually understand why the minister is obfuscating around these matters. What role did Mr. Brown play at Treasury Board?

Hon. G. Collins: Madam Chair, I'm trying to answer the questions to the best of my ability. Many of the questions I'm being asked are vague. They are hypothetical; they are speculation. What I'm trying to do is provide answers to the questions as best I can and not give assurances when I don't know for sure.

I've never attended a meeting of the political staff. I don't think I've ever attended a meeting of the political staff. No, I'm wrong. I did attend one. I spoke to them once, maybe two years ago. Actually, it wasn't Mr. Brown who was chairing it. It was another member of the staff who was chairing that meeting. I spoke for about five minutes on something. I don't even remember what it was. I think it was more of a rah-rah thing. Then I left. I don't attend those meetings, so I don't know. I've never seen Mr. Brown chair them. He may. He probably does, as I said. I just don't know. I've never been there.

I'm not going to try and answer a question in the affirmative if I'm not certain about it, and that's what I've tried to do here. The member may not like that. I'm just trying to answer the questions the way they are. That committee doesn't fall within my ministry. I don't really have to get up and answer it at all. It doesn't have anything to do with my ministry, but the member is asking, and I'm trying to give her information to the best of my ability. If she doesn't like it, sorry, but those are the facts as best I know them.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, the minister has been very clear about what Mr. Basi did and didn't do. I'm trying to find out what knowledge he has that he's so clear on what Mr. Basi did and didn't do. Clearly, there are a lot of holes that need to be filled in what he said Mr. Basi did and what he now is admitting to.

What role, if any, does Martyn Brown play in Treasury Board? The minister said Martyn Brown attended Treasury Board meetings.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Brown attends those meetings somewhat regularly. He's not there all the time, nor is he necessarily there for the full duration. I think when issues arise…. He's obviously the political eyes and ears of the Premier. It's part of the chief of staff's role. He gets the documents that are coming to Treasury Board. He gets a copy of them in advance, as all members of Treasury Board do — and staff to Treasury Board.

He would look at that and say: "Gee, this is an issue I think I want to be there on." He may offer his advice. He may ask questions. He may just sit and listen. I don't know. Sometimes he's there, and sometimes he isn't. He comes and goes, depending on what his priorities are, based on what's on not just that agenda but government's entire agenda.

J. MacPhail: Have there been meetings over the course of the last 30 months between Mr. Martyn Brown, Mr. Dave Basi and the minister about House business?

Hon. G. Collins: I can't recall one, although I wouldn't be surprised if there had been one. Mr. Brown heads the public affairs bureau or helps to direct that. He's in charge of the government's overall political agenda as the chief of staff to the Premier. I consult with Martyn Brown fairly regularly about the government's agenda, where we're going and how that might relate to the Legislature. It's very possible the three of us could have met. I don't recall a specific time when we would have done that. It's very possible that we could have met with other members. The two of them could have talked and probably did — Martyn Brown and David Basi — about the legislative agenda. I'd actually be surprised if they hadn't.

J. MacPhail: Has the Minister of Finance ever attended a meeting or had a conversation with Mr. Martyn Brown, Mr. Dave Basi and himself regarding B.C. Rail — any aspect of B.C. Rail?

Hon. G. Collins: As I said earlier, I don't recall there ever being a meeting of the three of us specifically. I just don't recall ever being in one. It's certainly possible that as legislation was being prepared and was coming to the House — or once it was in the House, rather — Dave would have been made aware that legislation was coming as part of government. All of government would have known that was coming as we got close to, as my deputy reminds me, the introduction of the legislation — November 18 or something like that.

Certainly, I was aware that legislation was coming at the time, and he would have been aware that legislation was coming as well. It's very possible that in the morning meeting I described earlier, if Mr. Brown was chairing that meeting of the political staff, they might all have been advised that the legislation was coming at some point.

Did the two of them talk about whether or not legislation was coming to the House, in scheduling the House? Probably. I expect they would have. That would have been part of both their jobs.

J. MacPhail: My question actually wasn't about the legislation. It was about the B.C. Rail deal negotiations: the establishment of the parameters of the bid negotiations, how negotiations were proceeding and/or the determination of who the successful bidder was. Given

that range of parameters, is the minister aware of any discussions — it could be a telephone conversation, an exchange of e-mails and/or a meeting, a conversation — that occurred amongst Mr. Basi, Mr. Brown and the Minister of Finance?

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, just so you know why I'm asking these questions, clearly, Mr. Brown had information that this minister didn't have for firing Mr. Basi. He chose to fire Mr. Basi after the raid on the Legislature. It seems to me that Mr. Brown either had information about Mr. Basi's knowledge relating to B.C. Rail prior to the raid on the Legislature or got information from someone about those search warrants and about Mr. Basi's role.

I'm trying to determine whether…. It may have been that Mr. Brown had a meeting with Mr. Basi prior to the raid on the Legislature, and therefore, it wasn't from the search warrants that he obtained the information about Mr. Basi's role in B.C. Rail. It could have been, but now we don't have that information to reach that conclusion. It would be my position that Mr. Brown had information as a result of the search warrant information as to why to fire Mr. Basi, because he didn't have any conversations with Mr. Basi prior to that time.

Hon. G. Collins: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member opposite for allowing me to respond to her comments.

The member is certainly able to draw those conclusions, if she wishes. I have tried to lay out, for the benefit of the members and anybody who cares to listen, what I think is the reason and rationale for the dismissal of Mr. Basi. The member has stitched together some things, and she may come to a different conclusion and come up with different suppositions.

I would disagree with her. I have no reason to think her comments are the right conclusion, but she's free to make them. It's speculation. I don't know that the facts necessarily support them. I just want to put that on the record.

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