British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 3, 2004

h0303pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, March 3, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 21, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Services...................................................................................... Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon. Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon. John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (L)..................................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) .............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon.

Gulzar S. (L)............................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon.

Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon. Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon.

Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ..................................................................................... Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)..............................................................

Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................ Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)....................................................................

Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)......................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L)............................................................. New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind.

L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) ....................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon.

Geoff (L) ........................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................

Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) .............................................. West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................... Hon. Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, March 3, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................. 8995 Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 8996 Pharmacist Awareness Week R. Hawes Cancer awareness and fundraising P. Sahota Vancouver drug trade L.

Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8997 Police investigation of government officials J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins B.C. rail privatization process and police investigation J. Kwan Hon. G. Collins Promotion of avalanche safety W. McMahon Hon. R. Coleman Funding for native courtworkers P. Nettleton Hon. R. Coleman Blood donation R. Stewart Hon. C. Hansen Lobbying in B.C. Rail privatization process J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Collins Interjurisdictional family maintenance agreements S. Orr Hon. G. Plant Point of Privilege............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 9000 Hon. G. Collins Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9001 Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen B. Suffredine R. Hawes

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9038 Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins E. Brenzinger V. Roddick B. Locke R. Hawes P. Sahota Estimates: Ministry of Provincial Revenue Hon. R. Thorpe B. Penner D. Jarvis J. MacPhail M. Hunter D. MacKay B. Lekstrom D. Hayer

8995 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hawkins: In the House today is a very spe- cial friend of mine who travelled on vacation with me and is now spelling off my family. She is a great nurse, a great colleague and a great friend — Janice Parker- Sparrow. I'm looking for he r. Would the House please join me in making her welcome. [1405] If you'll indulge me for a minute, Mr. Speaker. I haven't been here for a month, and I promise I won't speak a month's worth of my time. I feel like I'm at the Academy Awards. If I hear music, I refuse to sit down.

I've seen that show. I've seen you, Mr. Speaker, being v e r y c r e a t i v e i n t h e l a s t m o n t h , a s I ' v e b e e n w a t c h i n g on TV, in trying to get mini sters to sit down. I promise I'll try and keep this short. I want to thank all my colleagues, everyone in the buildings, all the press gallery. People have been so supportive. It's been overwh elming, but it really does make a difference. I think I know I'm not on this jour- ney alone. Your thoughts, prayers and best wishes really have made a difference to me.

I mean, I don't even think I could have travelled here today if I didn't know I had so many people caring for me. I want to thank my staff. I want to thank Jennifer Burnett. I want to thank Karen Bill here for making arrangements. I want to thank the Premier for accom- modating my meetings and looking after my duties while I've been gone and for being so supportive and making sure I got here and back okay. My staff in Kelowna have just been incredible. I can't imagine what kind of circumstances they're working in.

Del and Shirley have just been an incredible source of support — and my colleagues there, the MLAs for Okanagan- Westside and for Kelowna–Lake Country, in looking after my constituents while I have been unable to. I'm sure you'll have a list of things you owe me like my sisters are writing down, so I promise I will try and fulfil that when I'm better. I know that you've all heard my sisters' top-ten list, and it seems to have encouraged other people to de- velop lists. In my absence, I want to thank the staff from IGR. I'm starting to get top-ten lists from differ- ent….

People in protocol came up with one in a card that says: "If you didn't want to learn French, why didn't you just say so?" Anyway, I'm not encouraging that, but it is nice to get that. If I can close with my appeal, because that is what is important to me right now. There is a message to send to people across the province. You don't realize how important things are to you until you lose them, and the significance of some things you are doing until it actually affects you. I have been a blood donor, and now I am a blood recipient with my diagnosis of leu- kemia.

I am learning more about blood donation than I ever wanted to know, but I am learning it and I want to get the message out. In British Columbia we have a population of over four million, and we donate at half the rate of other provinces. We are a net recipient of blood. We get 15,000 to 18,000 units of blood from other western provinces that have half or one-quarter the population we do. That, to me, is unacceptable. I really hope peo- ple will roll up their sleeves and help save a life.

It is helping to save my life, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that — that someone out there, an anony- mous donor, has been unselfish and has taken the time to make sure I get what I need in my time of need. The second thing I am asking for is people to con- sider registering in the bone marrow registry as an unrelated donor. I am so fortunate that my parents had six kids, me included. One of my sisters, who is three years younger, ended up being a perfect match for my bone marrow transplant.

If she weren't a match, I would be in a circumstance where I would be looking around North America, Europe or India for a match. That would delay my treatment, and if a match weren't found, it wouldn't be good news for me. So I'm encouraging ethnic populations — whether you're Indian, South Asian, Filipino, Chinese, Japanese — to please get registered. We do not donate blood, and we do not register at the rate of eastern- and western- descent populations. So that's my appeal. Mr. Speaker, thank you for indulging me. I don't hear the music yet, but I will sit down.

I want to thank the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. She told me to get a life. Maybe when I go back now, I won't watch you guys as much because it's not that exciting to be here, I notice. I do miss you all terribly. Thank you for your support. Mr. Speaker: Further introductions, hon. members? [1410] Hon. I. Chong: Today I would like to introduce two constituents of mine from the riding of Oak Bay– Gordon Head. They are David and Annabeth Black. They're in the gallery, and they will be watching ques- tion period. They are both very strong community leaders in the greater Victoria area.

As well, David is a chair of the B.C. Progress Board and does that job very well. They're also very good friends of the Clerk of the House, and I know he would like to see them wel- comed here today as well. So would the House please make them both very welcome. J. MacPhail: On this wonderful day when we have our colleague from Kelowna-Mission with us, I also have great news about Graeme Bowbrick, who is now a former colleague of ours. Let me just read you the mes- sage — if I may, Mr.

Speaker — very quickly: "Julie" — his wife — "and I want to let you all know this morn- ing that Julie, Charlotte and Meredith were born at just after 9 a.m." Sorry, sorry. Charlotte and Meredith are

8996 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 the twins — not triplets. How to make a tough event seem like nothing…. I'm sorry. [Laughter.] I'm so sorry, Graeme. Julie is the mom. Graeme is the dad. Charlotte and Meredith are the new baby girls. Charlotte is 5 pounds 5 ounc es; Meredith is 5 pounds 15 ounces, and they join th eir three brothers: Adam, Alex and Colin. Good luck, Graeme. Hon. C. Hansen: We have several guests in the gallery today that I would li ke to introduce from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr. Moira Stilwell is the chair of the foundation.

She is joined by four other members of the executive for the B.C.–Yukon chapter: Virginia Greene, Jan Engemoen, Greg D'Avignon and Judy Caldwell, who is also one of the founders of Breast Cancer Foundation of B.C. Will the House join me in making them very welcome. R. Hawes: This week is B.C. Pharmacist Awareness Week. To that end, we have had a visit today from the B.C. Pharmacy Association. They met this morning with about 30 MLAs. In the House today are Peter Hirschmiller, president of the B.C.

Pharmacy Associa- tion; Marnie Mitchell, chief executive officer of the as- sociation; Marion Pearson, a UBC faculty of pharmacy professor; three pharmacists from Victoria — Marilyn Boyce, Larry Thorne and Alan Hickey; and two students from UBC pharmacy — Tiffany Ho, who is the student coordinator, and Eugene Chu, who is a pharmacy stu- dent and president of the UBC Pharmacy Undergrad Society. Could the House please make them very wel- come. G. Hogg: There are two residents of Surrey–White Rock here in the House today — one who's recently had an epiphany and moved here from New York.

Would the House please welcome Dr. Penelope Peters and Mike Miller. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25 public servants seated in the west gallery, who ar e participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop, offered by the Legislative Assembly, provides a first- hand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects the Legisla- ture. Would the House please make them welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) PHARMACIST AWARENESS WEEK R. Hawes: Every day in every corner of our prov- ince there are pharmacists providing advice on medica- tion management, disease prevention and healthier lifestyles. They're an integral part of our health deliv- ery system. For many, the community pharmacist is the first stop for answers to medication questions and health-related concerns. [1415] Pharmacists are the drug experts in health care. They are recognized as the most effective medicine managers and drug information experts involved in patient health care.

A recent poll indicates that 90 per- cent of those polled expressed confidence that pharma- cists reduced drug interactions and mixups, especially with seniors' medication. In fact, a 2003 Ipsos-Reid poll revealed that Canadians found pharmacists the most trustworthy professionals when it comes to honesty and integrity.

As our baby-boom generation continues to march towards senior status — and that probably includes a number of us — with the resultant increased financial burdens on our health care system, it becomes more and more important to consider new roles for our health care professionals, including pharmacists. I would urge the Minister of Health Services to ensure that the role of pharmacists as health care consultants is an important part of the scope-of-practice review now underway. Pharmacists are one of the best bargains in health care today.

I would ask all of my colleagues to recog- nize pharmacists as we celebrate the proclamation of Pharmacist Awareness Week, March 1 to 7. CANCER AWARENESS AND FUNDRAISING P. Sahota: There has been a lot of recent discussion about cancer awareness an d the important role the public plays in supporting cancer research initiatives. I'm very proud that in Burnaby we're doing just that. My colleagues from Bu rquitlam and Burnaby North and I have teamed up with the Burnaby Chinese Parents Association and the Romana Restaurant to raise funds for the Canadian Cancer Society.

Tomor- row, March 4, the Romana Restaurant on Hastings Street in Burnaby will be hosting a Spring Romance fundraising dinner with all proceeds going to the Ca- nadian Cancer Society. Th anks to Winnie Fong, Julie Lin, Jackie Liu, Mary Wong, Gilbert Lam, Andrew Shum and Jennie Siormanolakis. I know tomorrow night will make a difference. On March 12 the tenth Chinese campaign anniver- sary dinner will be held to raise funds for cancer re- search and to support prog rams and prevention infor- m a t i o n . S o f a r , w i t h t h e h e l p o f p e o p l e l i k e J o h n n y Fong, Dr.

Michael Lowe and Mason Lowe, this organi- zation has raised close to $3 million for this very im- portant cause. As introduced earlier in the House, I along with my colleagues met with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foun- dation, who are here raisin g awareness and educating all of us on breast cancer and the critical importance of mammograms, as breast cancer is the number one health concern for women in British Columbia. It is important for all of us to work together and raise awareness and educate women on breast cancer pre- vention.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't say it is great to see the member for Kelowna-Mission in the

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8997 Legislature today. All of us will continue to pray as she goes in for a bone marrow transplant next week. There are so many British Columbians in our prov- ince — like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Breast Cancer Foundation, researchers and countless volun- teers — who dedicate their time to raise awareness and funds for cancer research so thousands of people in our province can benefit from their efforts. It's my hope that with world-class researchers and the community spirit of generosity, we will find a cure for cancer.

To the many partners, researchers, volunteers and com- munities: thank you for your continued dedication as we all work together towards a future without cancer. VANCOUVER DRUG TRADE L. Mayencourt: Vancouver's drug trade has been a longstanding problem for many neighbourhoods in our world-class city. We have tried to control and to understand it for many years. The reality of the drug trade is that it follows the laws of supply and demand. While the Vancouver police department cracked down on dealers in the downtown east side, they simply moved west, up to Richards Street and into the West End.

It was reported yesterday that as part of a two- week operation focusing on our West End, the Van- couver police department arrested 98 individuals sus- pected of trafficking drugs. Half of these were repeat offenders. The police laid a total of 147 charges in this operation. These drug dealers hang around the schools in my neighbourhood. The people of my community are sick and tired of being victims of crime and watching the open-air drug trade happe n in our neighbourhoods. We need to ensure that people feel safe as they walk to w o r k a n d s c h o o l .

W e n e e d t o work together with our police forces to take back our communities and tell the drug dealers that we are not going to stand for this anymore. Tonight I will host a meet ing about implementing a community safety zone around Lord Roberts Annex, Lord Roberts Elementary and King George high school. One of these schools is situated right beside Nelson Park, a place where needles are found and dealers fre- quently sell their drugs and harass residents.

The school safety zone we will be talking about will protect children from facing some of the daily dangers of this drug problem. [1420] Tonight we will meet at the West End Community Centre at 7 o'clock. Tonight we will also have members of the Vancouver police department, the parent advi- sory committees from all three schools, the three school principals in the area and many, many concerned citi- zens. It is my hope that we will be able to provide chil- dren and parents in my riding with a safe place to go to school, a safe place to walk home and a safe place to be a kid. Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions POLICE INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS J. MacPhail: Will the government finally come clean today and tell us why David Basi got fired and Bob Virk got suspended with pay? What is the gov- ernment not telling us about what they knew about the activities of David Basi that was not in the

summary of the warrants released yesterday? Bob Virk is still on the public payroll, when his actions, according to the sum- mary, are no different than Mr. Basi's. Can the Deputy Premier tell this House what the Premier and his chief of staff know about what was going on in the Finance minister's office that they aren't telling the public? Hon. G. Collins: I answered that question yester- day in estimates. I answered it two months ago, and I answered it yesterday in the corridor. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary question. J.

MacPhail: Well, maybe the Minister of Finance is having a conversation in his own mind. He has not answered that question at all. When the police raided the Finance minister's of- fice, that Finance minister assured British Columbians that David Basi had no role in the sale of B.C. Rail. The

summary released yesterday directly contradicts the Minister of Finance. Mr. Basi was up to his eyeballs in the B.C. Rail deal, and it is inconceivable that the Fi- nance minister did not know that. I n f a c t , w e k n o w t h a t Mr. Basi was directly in- volved in lobbying stakeholders — Colin Kinsley, the mayor of Prince George, to name one, as well as others — to support the Premier's broken promise. Will the Minister of Finance now admi t that his chief political aide was directly involved in the sale of B.C. Rail and had access to confidential information? Hon. G. Collins: Mr.

Speaker, if she checks the re- cord from the end of Decemb er, she'll find the answers to those questions as well. As well, we talked about it yesterday in estimates for several hours, and I an- swered it as well. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: In fact, checking the record shows that this minister and this government said that Mr. Basi had nothing to do with the B.C. Rail deal. That's exactly what the Minister of Finance said. Another incredible statement yesterday by the Premier.

The Premier said ye sterday that the investiga- tion has nothing to do with his government. If the mat- ter weren't so serious, that statement would be laugh- able. The Premier also said that he would gladly run for re-election on his broken promise to sell B.C. Rail.

8998 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 I can't wait. I wonder what part of the deal the Premier will feature in the ads — the broken promise, the criminal investigation, the stonewalling, the Fi- nance minister. The Premier and the Finance minister know more than they're telling. Erik Bornman is a registered lobbyist for Omnitrax, and Mr. Bornman lists the Minister of Finance as one of his lobby targets. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, may we have a question, please. J. MacPhail: Can the minister… Mr. Speaker: Now, please. J.

MacPhail: …tell us if he ever met with Mr. Born- man, and who else was in the room? Hon. G. Collins: I never met with Erik Bornman. I'm sure the Premier will be thrilled to go to the public with that as an election issue — the fact that we revital- ized B.C. Rail. Communities along…. Interjection. Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, if she wants to ask a series of questions, she can get up and ask them in the normal order of the House. The fact of the matter is that I never met with him. How many times does she want to ask me that?

The fact of the matter is that the Premier and every single member of our caucus will be excited about talk- ing about the revitalization of B.C. Rail — a s w e l l a s will all the mayors along the communities, as well as the mayor in Prince Rupert, as well as all the communi- ties and all the jobs they're going to receive as a result of that action. [1425] B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS AND POLICE INVESTIGATION J.

Kwan: The former Minister of Children and Family Development resigned when he was informed of an audit into a forgiven loan — a decision that the minister wasn't involved in, according to the govern- ment. The Premier praised the minister. Let me quote the Premier: "He's acting in the best parliamentary tradition, and I think that speaks to the quality of the man." Today the Minister of Finance's top aide and chief political adviser is under criminal investigation for breach of trust and influence-peddling in the B.C. Rail deal.

To the Deputy Premier: if the former Minister of Children and Family Development was acting in the best parliamentary tradition, why is the Finance minis- ter still in his job when the police are investigating criminal activities in his office? Hon. G. Collins: I answered this question, as well, yesterday, and I think I answered it previously as well. The difference here is that I am not subject to an inves- tigation, nor is there an investigation taking place within my ministry that would report to me, which is different than the situation of the minister she talked about. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. J. Kwan: Well, talk about a double standard. Here's what the former children's minister said when he re- signed: "As parliamentary practice dictates, when these clouds are cast, one makes the decision to step aside." The police were never in the office of the former Minis- ter of Children and Family Development. There is no criminal investigation, at least that we know of, into the conduct of his staff.

He resigned over a forgiven loan that he says he has nothing to do with. Again to the Deputy Premier: why is it honourable for one minister to resign to protect the integrity of his office and not for the other? Why is the Minister of Finance getting special treatment from your Premier? Hon. G. Collins: It doesn't feel like special treat- ment. The difference is that there is an internal investi- gation that's taking place in the ministry, which would need to report to the minister. There is no investigation in the Ministry of Finance that is reporting to me.

There is an external investigatio n that's undertaken which does not include me, which does not include any elected member or any elected official. The police have been very clear about that right from the beginning. PROMOTION OF AVALANCHE SAFETY W. McMahon: My question is to the Solicitor Gen- eral. The federal government recently followed B.C.'s lead and announced funding of $525,000 over three years to establish a national avalanche centre.

This was one of the key recommendations of the report that was recently submitted by the B.C. public avalanche safety program review and comes as welcome news to many of my constituents, to people nationally and also inter- nationally. Can the minister advise my constituents what his ministry is doing to support avalanche safety in British Columbia? Hon. R. Coleman: When we came to office, there was an avalanche bulletin in British Columbia that was published by the Canadian Avalanche Association.

It was funded from a number of ministries sort of at the end of the year — $5,000 here; $10,000 here — to the tune of about $40,000 on an annual basis. As we went through a very significant, devastating avalanche year

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8999 last year, it became obvious that we needed to enhance that bulletin. So we put some extra bulletins in place so people would know when they're going into the back country where the dangers were and where to take caution. At the end of the season, in my ministry we worked towards finding funding for a three-year cycle at $125,000 a year, which is more money than the avalanche bulletin had ever had in the past from all contributors to the bulletin.

We thought if we took the initiative to do that, we would then be able to move towards a national avalanche centre which would do bulletins on a regular basis, if we could attract other funding from other levels of govern- ment. Our initiative led to the funding from the federal government. I hope that at some point in time Alberta will also come to the dance with us so that we can have a long-term, sustainable av alanche bulletin and infor- mation centre for people who go into the back country of British Columbia.

I am proud of our government for stepping up and taking the le adership in this, and I am proud of the fact that our officials have been able to put it together. [1430] FUNDING FOR NATIVE COURTWORKERS P. Nettleton: This year the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of B.C. is preparing to cele- brate 30 years of extraordin ary and exemplary service as an integral part of the justice system. The Solicitor General has a special birthday surprise for this dedi- cated organization and the people they serve provincewide. He is about to huff and to puff in an attempt to blow their candles out.

On February 27 of this year the Native Court- worker and Counselling Association were notified by the same minister that as of April 1, their funding would be reduced by 36 perc ent. This follows on the heels of a 20 percent reduct ion in June 2002. With this further cut next month, 50 percent of the native court- worker positions will have been eliminated by this government, leaving fewer than 20 front-line workers to serve the entire province. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. May we have the question now, please. P. Nettleton: Yes. The number of clients has risen by a staggering 73 percent since 2002.

Mr. Speaker: Now, please. P. Nettleton: My question is to the Solicitor Gen- eral. Without blowing smoke in our eyes about alterna- tive service delivery models and referencing federal funding, will you reconsider and commit today to re- view this funding cut and thus follow through with your government's commitmen t to consult with first nations prior to making such arbitrary decisions? Hon. R. Coleman: Indeed, the member is correct. We have advised the native courtworkers that we will be cutting their funding this year.

The fact of the matter is, though, that we've been in discussions with the na- tive courtworkers as to how we can harmonize some of the programs for people in the justice system with our programs in the correction centres, as we have done with other programs, to get more efficiencies. We also recognize that this is going to put some stress on them, so we're in consultations as we do the transition, but we have forecast this back two years in discussions with the native courtworkers as a transition to how we'll deal with these programs.

That's just what we h a v e t o d o , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , w h e n w e h a v e t o m a k e tough decisions. BLOOD DONATION R. Stewart: As we've heard today, the blood inven- tory in British Columbia is lower than it should be. This is of great concern to me as a longtime blood do- nor and to my family and to my constituents and to people across this province . I know that the concern was brought home even more to this House by recent events. Can the Minister of Health please tell us what w e c a n d o t o e n s u r e a n a d e q u a t e s u p p l y o f b l o o d products in British Columbia? Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't think I could say it more eloquently than our colleag ue from Okanagan-Mission said earlier. It is incumbent upon all of us who can give blood to take the time to do that. I know I'm booked in for a week this Friday, which is my 56-day mark, be- cause you can give once every 56 days. The short an- swer to the member's question as to what we can do to m a k e s u r e t h a t w e h a v e a n a d e q u a t e s u p p l y o f b l o o d product in British Columbia: we can all roll up our sleeves. LOBBYING IN B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS J.

MacPhail: We have the lobbyists' registration in British Columbia here. It provides very interesting information. Erik Bornman has lobbied, or claims to have lobbied, this government on many files. Now, he's a good Liberal. Maybe he's not telling the truth. On his B.C. Rail file, he filed to say that he lobbied the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the then Minister of State for Deregulation, the Minister of Energy and Mines, the former Minister of Transportation and the current Minister of Provincial Revenue — I guess that's the job he's got now. Is Mr. Bornman lying on the lobbyists' registration?

If so, is he lying about all the other files on which he lobbied the Minister of Finance as well? Hon. G. Collins: If the member understands the act and takes the time to read th e act, she'll know that the lobbyists have to register their intent to lobby. They may or they may not. I have never met with Erik

9000 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 Bornman on any issue since I've been elected as a member — since 2001. INTERJURISDICTIONAL FAMILY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS S. Orr: My question is to the Attorney General. A number of my constituen ts, and these are predomi- nantly women, depend on family maintenance from their former partners. Interjection. [1435] S. Orr: This is an issue that's very important to women, so let's deal with this. To provide for their children a safe home…. During the 2002 spring sitting we introduced legislation that would help hasten interprovincial family maintenance orders.

Can the Attorney General explain how this legislation has helped in the collection of support pay- ments when an ex has actual ly moved to another juris- diction? Hon. G. Plant: Thanks to the member for the ques- tion. The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act was enacted by this House in 2002 and brought into force the next year. We were leaders at that time.

Since then, every other province in Canada has enacted similar legislation, and we now have agreements with all of the provinces and territories and all of the states of the United States and a number of other countries that make it easier to enforce maintenance and support or- ders across jurisdictions. Essentially, the major element of the process is that instead of having to go to court twice — once i n this ju risdict ion and then once in the other jurisdiction — you now have to go to court only once in the jurisdiction where the payer lives.

The goal here is to reduce legal costs to ensure that people get access to the su pport payments they need quickly. Early indications are that people are taking advantage of the opportunity and the program is being used, and I believe that we see a success story in the making. [End of question period.] Point of Privilege Hon. G. Collins: I rise today to respond to a matter of privilege which was raised by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. On th e afternoon of Tuesday, February 10, the member rose in her place to reserve her right to raise three matters of privilege.

It's worthy of note that the member did not reserve her right at the earliest convenience, which is a strict requirement of the standing orders of this House. The failure to do so has resulted in members losing their right on numer- ous previous occasions. I'd refer the Speaker to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Schroeder of November 25 and 26, 1982, which is de- finitive and strict on this issue. The member's earliest opportunity was at 10 a.m. on February 10, before the House had prorogued.

Rather, the member chose to wait until the afternoon for maximum attention to raise the issue immediately after Her Honour the Lieutenant- Governor had left the chamber after delivering the Speech from the Throne.

However, with regard to the substance of her asser- tion, the member deals with two issues: first, that the increase in tobacco tax is il legal; and second, that the increase in the existing tax rate constituted "a contempt of parliament" in that "the minister has violated the supremacy of the Legislatur e and our rights as MLAs to vote and represent our constituents before the tax is announced and collected." With regard to the first point, the legality of the tax is not the subject of a privilege motion but rather a mat- ter for the courts.

Govern ments regularly introduce legislation to retrospectively amend taxation legisla- tion. With regard to her allegation of contempt of par- liament, it would be impossible for members "to vote and represent our constituents before the tax is an- nounced" because, simply, there would be nothing to vote on. If it was the announcement itself that offended the member, I refer the Speaker to the Journals of this House of April 10, 1990, and the ruling of Mr.

Speaker Rogers who makes it clear that the presentation of a proposed charge or tax on the public in a venue other than this chamber does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. The issue is rather whether it violates all members' right to vote before the tax is collected. As I said on February 11, it has never been the gov- ernment's intention to infringe on the rights of the Leg- islature. This tax increase is clearly subject to the will of the Legislature, as all taxation issues are.

In addition to the documents tabled by the member for Vancouver- Hastings, I'll submit to the Speaker a copy of tax bulle- tin No. 49, the tax notice and the wholesale dealers' inventory return with regard to this issue, which clearly state the intention of the government. As well, my comments of December 19 to the pub- lic were clear. I stated it was the government's inten- tion to introduce legislation in February that would increase the rate of tax on tobacco retrospective to De- cember 19 or 20 of 2003. It was and remains the role of the Legislature to validate that increase or not. The members will decide.

As I also stated on February 11, if the House declines, the government would need to return those moneys collected to the wholesalers who have paid it. [1440] Further, it is not unheard of for taxes to be collected before the House has voted. I refer you to Erskine May's sixteenth edition, page 698, as it pertains to the general rules of financial procedures where it says: "It will be useful to summarize here the effect of the finan- cial standing orders with respect to showing which of the general rules of financial procedure they prescribe and to which kinds of fina ncial business they apply these rules.

It will be seen not only that they cover a

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9001 comparatively small portion of the field of financial procedure, but also that they need help from 'practice' to cover that portion effectively." Further to that practice, it has not been universally held that all taxation must first be passed by parlia- ment before it can be collected. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to page 759, subsection (7) of the same document, where it contemplates "provision for making a charge with retrospective effect, from the date before that on which the bill becomes law." Pages 795, 796 and 797 refer to the provisional collection of taxes subsequently vali- dated by

an act of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, it is not the inten- tion of government to infringe on the longstanding right of parliament to raise revenues. Only parliament has the ability to validate and authorize the collection of taxes. However, it is not an unheard-of practice for parliament to validate the collection of taxes retrospec- tively, as I've shown. Indeed, to the contrary, I've been unable to find even one example of a prima facie case of privilege that has been found by any Speaker in a similar case. I note that the member opposite could not and did not. Mr.

Speaker: The Chair has now heard from both sides in this issue and will bring back a ruling in due course. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply in this House. For the information of members, we will be dealing with the estimates for the Ministry of Health. In the small chamber, we'll be dealing with the esti- mates for the Ministry of Finance. [1445] Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:48 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES (continued) On vote 25: ministry operations, $10,404,260,000 (continued). J.

Kwan: Yesterday I was canvassing the minister about the lay of the land, if you will, about long-term care facilities around the province. The minister had advised that with respect to closures of residential care beds or long-term intermediate care beds to date…. He had broken that down for me and advised of the num- ber of beds that have been closed in the different health authorities. I've added th ose numbers up, Mr. Chair, and that gives me a total of 2,369 beds that have closed. That is from the five health regions.

Keeping that number in mind, I now want to turn to the report that I was referencing yesterday, Meeting the Ongoing Care Needs of Seniors and People with Dis- abilities.

A Planning Model: Home Support, Assisted Living and Residential Care Services , which was developed by the ministry itself in January of 2003. [1450] Yesterday the Minister of Health had advised that perhaps some of the information contained in this re- port may well be out of date, and I was asking the min- ister if he has available information that is perhaps more current or another model or plan in place in deal- ing with the home support, assisted-living and residen- tial care services. Perhaps we could start with that.

Could the minister advise me if there's new documen- tation with respect to that planning model? If so, what information can he offer from his own documentation? Hon. C. Hansen: I did have a chance to look at the document she was referencing yesterday. We managed t o d i g i t o u t . I t w a s a d o c u m e n t , a s w e t a l k e d a b o u t yesterday, that went back to January of 2003.

It was policy options, as we discussed yesterday afternoon, and it really sets out the various opportunities to shift care from that intensive, dependent, residential model to a more independent model with appropriate home and community supports in place to support even the most complex of seniors — in some cases where that's appropriate. That is still an ongoing discussion within the minis- try and with others that we are consulting with on that file. As yet, no decisions have been made with regard to the various options that were set out in that docu- ment.

Those are still the options, ranging from the very low shift to the very high shif t. At the end of that, once the decision is made, then obviously that will in turn determine the number of assisted-living beds that may be required to be opened and constructed and the n u m b e r o f c o m p l e x c a r e b e d s t h a t w i l l n e e d t o b e maintained or perhaps renovated or upgraded. As a result of those decisions not yet being made, I can't give her a specific answer. J. Kwan: When does the minister anticipate that he will know which option he would choose? Hon. C.

Hansen: There is a lot of work being done now with the health authorities on this file. I would hesitate to give a time line on it at this point, other than that we're trying to move fo rward on it as quickly as possible obviously, because there are some fundamen- tal decisions regarding the nature of the kind of care facilities we may need in the future, once we determine the option that is the most desirable. I apologize to the member. I can't give her a specific time frame at this point other than to say that we are working on it and would like to get through it as quickly as possible. J.

Kwan: The planning that the document refers to goes through several cycles in terms of time line. It looks at 2006 and 2007, and then at 2011 and '12, and

9002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 then at 2016 and '17 with po pulation projections. Can the minister advise whether or not he's working on a long-term plan with the ministry that goes beyond '06- 07, or is it just up to '06-07? Hon. C. Hansen: The planning that we are doing really does go much beyond 2006. We are looking to 2010 — we're looking to 2020 in many cases — to try to anticipate the needs that will be there on behalf of the population as we go forward.

I think it's something that our Premier has driven throughout government, and that's that we can't just look to the next quarter, the n e x t y e a r o r t h e n e x t e l e c t i o n . W e h a v e t o l o o k m u c h beyond that if we're going to take a responsible ap- proach to our challenges. [1455] I think it's probably the first time, in B.C. certainly, that we've ever had the kind of long-term planning that we see now. Certainly, when it comes to planning the number of community care beds in the province, that is no exception. There are models being put in place that take us into those out years.

I think the thing that's important to remember is that we are also designing in flexibility, because even as we start to anticipate the needs in the health authori- ties two and three years from now, we know that there still needs to be flexibility — even in that time frame. As we go forward, for example, with a request for ex- pression of interest around an assisted-living or a com- plex care facility, it's on ly when we get out in the community that we realize there are other ways of meeting those needs. We need to be flexible.

Yes, we are planning long-term, and we are doing so with the kind of flexibility that we think is responsible. J. Kwan: I should have asked this question earlier on. That is, with this planning document that I refer- enced…. While the government has not decided on which option to choose to move forward with, pre- sumably the data and the facts contained in this docu- ment are valid. Am I right in making that assumption? Hon. C. Hansen: W h a t w e a r e t r y i n g t o d o i s t h e kind of modelling that will allow us to anticipate the needs of communities.

There's a lot of work being done around designing the appropriate tools that can help us in that forward-planning exercise. The main purpose behind the document that the member is referencing is to set out the options we have with regard to the degree to which we should shift from that 24-hour-a-day dependence model to one that has more independence but with appropriate support. Yes, there is data in that which helps to guide the choices when it comes to th ose various options that are set out, but I think that if we were to rerun the same model with the new data we have, it might come out with different numbers.

I think what's important is not the actual numbers that are in that particular document but the options that are being set out and th e choices that are there for t h e k i n d o f c a r e w e w o u l d b e a b l e t o p u t f o r w a r d t o make seniors' lives more enjoyable and more inde- pendent in the years ahead. J. Kwan: Well, there's some information here that I think is important, which I'd like to canvass with the minister, and it's based on the facts in this report. It does refer to the different options.

Given that the government has not decided on which option to choose, let me then just as k the questions around the facts. We can then review them under the different scenarios of whatever option, at the end of the day, the government chooses. In this report it advises under the introduction sec- tion — and I will quote from it — in terms of the an- ticipated population change.

It states that the popula- tion of seniors aged 75-plus is expected to increase by 51,000 between 2000-01 and 2006-07 — a 21 percent increase; by 77,000 between 2000-01 and 2011-12 — a 32 percent increase; and by 109,000 between 2000-01 and 2016-17 — a 45 percent increase. Then it goes on to talk about proportion of total popu lation, etc. I'll just stop there and focus in around the population change. [1500] Let me start with this set of facts.

Is it the minister's opinion that this set of facts are in fact correct, and that those are the facts which the ministry's working with to determine what option to choose and what plan to move forward on, with respect to ensuring that there are adequate housing options — including intermedi- ate and long-term care housing options — for seniors? Hon. C. Hansen: The stats that are contained in that r e p o r t w o u l d c o m e f r o m B . C . S t a t s . W e r e l y o n t h e m for these kinds of population numbers but also for the projections in terms of popu lation growth in various age groups.

As the member knows, B.C. Stats has a very good track record with the accuracy of their in- formation, and we certainly depend on it. They do update their numbers annually, so from year to year their projections may change. Whenever we go into a new planning process, we in fact rely on the most recent B.C. stats that might be available. I be- lieve that those stats are av ailable on the B.C. Stats website, but certainly that is the source of our informa- tion. J.

Kwan: Then on that basis, I think it is safe to as- sume that these numbers are accurate at least until the next update, so I will go with what is contained in this report. These series of questions that I'm asking…. I hope at the end I will be able to weave them all together. Right now I just want to esta blish certain facts within it so that I know what the assumptions are that the gov- ernment is working with, so that hopefully at the end, as I say, I can weave all the questions together to make my point.

The other set of information here that I would like to confirm with the minister is with respect to eligibil- ity criteria in terms of determining which clients shou ld g o into what ty pe of care facility. In the docu-

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9003 ment it states: "Under the new complex care criteria" — which we went through yesterday — " t h e m a j o r i t y o f clients that are assessed as high-end intermediate care" — that's IC 3 — "or extended care are anticipated to continue to be eligible for residential care" — I assume the term "residential care" is the new term replacing extended care — "while the majority of those assessed at the lower-end intermediate care level, IC 1 or 2, would no longer be eligible." Is this still the policy of the government? Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the first thing I want to point out is that the term "residential care" is not a new term. I think yesterday we talked about how that is defined. It covers a whole se ries of different types of housing options and care options for seniors. To say that for individuals that have a higher level of acuity — what we would know of as complex care, for example — that residential care will still be an option for them…. Yes, that's true. But we also, as we are plan- ning, are trying to look at what additional options we can give to seniors regardless of their level of acuity.

I think, as we were discussing yesterday, there is lots of evidence that even seniors with very high-level care needs can still be allowed to maximize their inde- pendence.

You know, we can have individuals with very high levels of needs that can still be supported in their family home with care being provided. [1505] What we're trying to get to and what we are mov- ing towards is not trying to say: "Okay, someone is assessed at this particular classification through the assessment tools, so therefore they have to go to place X." What we're saying is: let's assess the needs of the individual, and then let's look at the range of housing options that may be appropriate for that individual.

Then let's work with the individual and family and sort of say: "How much independence do they want? Do they still want to be maintained in a family home?" That may not be possible if the complexity of their condition is quite acute. The intent is to first of all provide for assessment that can, in a very objective way, determine what their needs are, and then let's lo ok at the housing options which could be a residential care model. It could be supportive independent living with outside supports that are there for the individu al.

It is a range of options that we're trying to build towards so that seniors in fact have more choice in the future. J. Kwan: According to this report — my read of it, at least — it indicates that what the minister has just put on record has already been taken into considera- tion. Arriving at the statement around the new com- plex care criteria, around IC 3s or extended care, they are anticipated to continue to be eligible for residential care, while the majority of those assessed at the lower- end intermediate care level — IC 1s and 2s — will no longer be eligible.

When I read this report, it seems to me that what the minister has said has already been taken into consideration. Then, with that, they have arrived at the suggestion of how to provide the options and come up with the numbers for the options in de- termining how many beds will be needed under the different scenarios.

If we keep going down the road on which the min- ister wants to go, it would appear to me that the minis- try is not going to be capable of actually nailing down any ballpark numbers to work with and therefore be able to work towards a target of establishing how many beds are needed at what level for the future years. If we just keep saying, "We'll move as things sort of move along," that's no ki nd of planning, in my view.

If you are going to plan — as the minister says he wants to do and as this government intends to do — well, you have to nail down some ballpark numbers somewhere along the line and then work towards those targets. If we're not going to do that, if you have no targets, then I don't know what it is that the govern- ment is planning towards. That creates a great set of difficulties, I think, for the government. Maybe it is intentional from the minister's side to say, "We don't have any targets," so that he can get up, or….

For the government to say, "Well, we met those targets because we never had targets to begin with," or to erase the targets they had first set out…. To me, it would simply not work. It would seem to me that it would simply not work. Going back to the document, let me put on record, then, what the document actua lly refers to in arriving at the statement that I put on record earlier.

It states, "In order to increase the flexibility and responsiveness of the home and community care system and to ensure residential care beds are available for complex care clients who require that type of intensive setting, the admission criteria for residential care were revised in April 2002" — which refers to the residential access policy. Then it refers you to an appendix, actually. Un- fortunately, the appendix in this copy, in any event, is blank, so I don't know what the policy is. I think the minister yesterday read out the policy with respect to admission, and so let me just ask this question.

The policy that th e minister put on record yesterday with the conditions or the requirements for the different types of admiss ions, or

definitions for IC 1s, IC 2s, IC 3s, etc. — am I correct in assuming those are the residential access policy that the government is now using? [1510] Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is confusing two aspects of this file. One is the assessment that needs to be done. As we talked about it yesterday, what we had in place before was assessment defini- tions which would include the need for — I think we did talk about them yesterday — the IC 1, IC 2 and IC 3 and extended care. I shared with her some of those

definitions. What we are moving towards is the new assessment tools under the interRAI assessment tools, which are far more refined. Out of that assessment it will determine what the care needs of the individual are. It's looking at their level of mobility and the

9004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 amount of support they may need from the health care system. Only then do we st art looking at what the ac- commodation needs are of th at individual. Based on the assessment, we will determine the level-of-care need, and then we will sit down with the individual and the family to set out what choices are there.

Now, if you have got someone who is assessed at a low level of acuity where they still have an opportunity to maximize their independence in their life but they need some supports, we're not going to give them a choice of the complex care environment. That was really what I think many seniors were faced with in the past. They would get to a point in their lives where they could no longer mainta in the family home, so the only choice available for them was what we used to think of — well, we would still today think of — as the nursing homes where there was a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week loss of independence.

This whole range of choices we are setting out in- clude these variety of housing options with care com- ponents to them. Once we've done the assessment, we determine the care needs of the individual. We look at what kind of supports ther e are from the family or other options, and then we can sit down with the sen- ior and possibly the family members, as well, to deter- mine what the appropriate accommodation needs are.

Then we try to work with the families and the seniors to make sure that they can maximize their independ- ence, because we know that is what leads to a fulfilling life for seniors in their senior years, even when they do require a certain level of care. J. Kwan: The minister did advise this House yes- terday that the new assessment tool and the new cate- gory or term being used fall into at least one group called the complex care group. Then he advised that it goes from A to E, dependin g on their situation.

Gener- ally speaking, we had a bit of discussion about that as well — that these are more or less similar to those now in extended care facilities. I think we established that yesterday. The minister was not able to give me the other definition, which I believe is the assisted-living defini- tion. He advised, Mr. Chair, that I would get that by the end of the day yesterday when estimates ended. My office still has not yet received that information, but nonetheless we will continue on with a discussion, setting aside what those

definitions might be. [1515] Having said that, what I think I just heard the min- ister also confirm is that according to this report, the residential access policy, which was revised in April 2002 — and that is the admission criteria — has taken into consideration the new categories in terms of op- tions of care and housing options that the minister ref- erences. The point I want to make with this report, which I want to establish, is that the report takes that into con- sideration.

Then it goes on to say, in addition to what I read off earlier: "This policy is further strengthened by the concurrent implementation of a comprehensive standardized interRAI assessment tool in progress, which supports the decision-making of case managers regarding appropriate care settings." I assume that in that language it incorporates all of what the minister talks about — that is, to assess the person accordingly, to talk with the family and then arrive at a decision where the individual or couple, whatever the case may be, should go.

Then following that sentence the report goes on to say: "Under the new complex care criteria, the majority of clients that are assessed as high-end intermediate care, IC 3, or extended care are anticipated to continue to be eligible for residential care while the majority of those assessed at the lower-end intermediate care level, IC 1 or IC 2, will no longer be eligible." On that basis, I am a ssuming that's the premise with which the government is working and that's the policy decision, and then that is how the options and the numbers associated are derived.

That's all I wanted to establish — that we are working with the right as- sumptions. Those are the policy criteria the govern- ment is working with. This report had taken all of what the minister had said into consideration, and they still arrived at the statement, saying that those assessed as high-end intermediate care, IC 3, or extended care are anticipated to continue to be eligible for residential care, while the majority of those at the lower end will no longer be eligible.

Am I right in making that assumption, taking into full consideration what the minister has said about assessment with regard to the individual's needs and having spoken with their family? Hon. C. Hansen: I think the key word in that document that the member read out is: "Those who are assessed with a high level of need are eligible for…." It is not saying we're going to put everybody into a com- plex care facility if they're assessed as a high level of need.

The evidence does show that even those with the highest level of need can be accommodated in different types of accommodation, if there are appropriate sup- ports. They can even be accommodated in their own homes, in some cases. What it goes on to say is: "Those that are assessed with a lower level of need would not be eligible for that complex care." That is exactly the case, because what we did in the past with individuals who had a low level of need and who could no longer maintain them- selves in the family home really had no other choices out there than the nursing home.

I think we all know from family experience that seniors dreaded the point in their lives where one of their family members would come and say: "It's time; we're going to move you into a nursing home." That's in a model that, in the past, has had a total loss of independence. We also know from eviden ce that if an individual has a lower level of need and still has the ability to di- rect their own care, still has the ability to live a semi- independent life, to put them into the old style of nurs- ing home where they totally lose their independence will actually result in them deteriorating very quickly.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9005 It won't take very long before in fact they are living a life that is totally dependent, and they will lose their ability to maintain an independent lifestyle. To take someone with a lower level of assessed need and put them in a high level of ca re with 24-hour-a-day de- pendency would certainly not be doing those indi- viduals any service and, in fact, could lead to a quick- ened deterioration of their health status. [1520] J. Kwan: Maybe we can just step back for a mo- ment. It seems to me the minister is very defensive about this situation here.

All I'm trying to do, Mr. Chair, is establish some facts based on the govern- ment's own report so that I know what assumptions we're working with and then arrive at, I hope, a rea- sonable debate and gain a better understanding of how the government is planning to meet the needs of our community. That's all I'm doing. We don't need, at every question I ask on the con- firmation of facts or the basis of information, the minis- ter to advise me about the need for options of care and to take into consideration the changing needs. I fully appreciate that.

I can't reiterate any more than I already have that I fully appreciate that each individual will be assessed accordingly. Then the families will be en- gaged in a discussion with the individuals and with the health care professionals, and will determine what the best housing option for them is, with full flexibility of whatever those options might be. The report actually states that.

The following sen- tence, after I stated about those who are not eligible, goes on to say: "With the addition of assisted living to the care continuum, it is anticipated that many of the clients that would have gone to residential care will now go into assisted living. Others may remain at home or move to a cluster care setting with enhanced home support ser- vices. Such changes will expand the range of available options." It goes on to talk about the impact of admission criteria, changes in the types and numbers of residential c a r e b e d s , e t c .

T h e n i t g o e s o n t o t a l k a b o u t t h e a g i n g residential care facilities, and so on. I fully appreciate what the minister is saying. All I'm trying to do at this point is establish the basis of the assumptions on which we are engaging in this discus- sion. That assumption, according to this report, has already taken into account the notion of ensuring that there is proper assessment, that there is discussion with the families and that assisted living or staying at home or other kinds of enhanced home support services would be available for the individual to expand the range of available options.

It talks about that. Even when it talks about that, it still states, though, that under the government's assessment criteria to date, they anticipate the majority of clients that are assessed as high-end intermediate care — that is, IC 3 or extended care — will continue to be eligible for resi- dential care, while the majority of those assessed at the lower-end intermediate care levels, IC 1 and IC 2, will no longer be eligible. I think we have established that that's the basis on which the government is working. We've got to land somewhere.

The notion of targets and how we are trying to get towards some targets…. We've got to build in some targets. If, in fact, all of this stuff is not correct or the minister deems that it has not adequately taken into account the notion of providing full housing options to senior s, then the options that are before the government right now — the three op- tions…. Even though they have not arrived at which option to choose, it would say that all of those options are irrelevant, because the numbers and the assump- tions and the accuracy of the data are not the basis which the government is accepting.

I assume that's not the case. I assume the govern- ment is accepting the basis of these assumptions and these facts. They have the three options before them. At some point they will arrive at choosing which option. Am I right so far? Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, what the member has read out in terms of the assumptions and the directions that she has quoted…. Obviou sly, they're in the docu- ment, and I don't take any issue with them, if that's the answer she's looking for. [1525] J. Kwan: Well, yes.

In that vein, I'm also aski ng if that's the assumption that the minister is accepting — not to advise in this House or answer my question with respect to whether or not I've read the paragraph correctly. I know I've read the paragraph correctly on the record, so I don't need confirmation on that. What I need confirmation on, though, is that those ar e the assumptions that the minister is accepting, and that's the basis which the minister is working towards in building what needs to be done in terms of home care options for seniors. [K. Stewart in the chair.] Hon. C.

Hansen: Basically, I just want to reiterate that I think we've covered this before. The document that she's got is a planning document, and it is to set out options and to provide guidance as we move for- ward to try to find the right mix of care in the future. The sections that she read out…. I haven't got those sections right in front of me today, but I'll take her at her word that she's read them. We can move forward on that basis. J. Kwan: I don't know why the minister is actually trying to be so evasive about it. I mean, he wants to confirm that I've read the information onto the record correctly.

The minister says, Mr. Chai r, that he doesn't know what the question is. The ques tion is this. I want to see whether or not I can get confirmation from the minister that the assumptions contai ned in this report, which I've read onto the record , are the assumptions which the government is working with — that these assump- tions on the projected eligibil ity criteria, on the projec- tion of who would be eligible and who would not be

9006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 eligible for intermediate care, etc., are the assumptions that the government is working with. Without those assumption s, without confirmation of this fact, then I don't know how the government could plan ahead to say how many care beds would be needed. Even though within the three options in the report….. The minister has stated that they have not decided on which option to choose. In arriving at those options, this report advises that it used these facts and the information contained in it to formulate the three options.

What I'm seeking of the minister is, I think, quite simple, and that is for him to confirm that the assumptions and the facts contained in this report are the premise which this government and this minister are working with. Hon. C. Hansen: I'm starting to get a better under- standing as to what the member is asking for. The as- sumptions that are written into this document allow us to move forward on developing the models necessary, but the whole thing is a planning document. Have the assumptions been signed off on? No.

The assumptions are here in this context, in this document, as part of a planning process to allow us to develop the model. I think that as we move forward with the policy that will flow from this, then clearly we have to not only challenge the model; we have to challenge the assumptions. Only then are we going to be able to ar- rive at a final policy. Once we come to a conclusion of this process and we've actually developed the policy, I would be pleased to share with anybody who's inter- ested what the final assumptions are that allowed us to lock into a policy direction to move forward. J.

Kwan: This is a bit troubling. What the minister is basically saying is: "We have no targets towards when we will arrive at…." I shouldn't say that; I'm sorry — not "no targets." He actually advised earlier that he does not know when he'll have the information suffi- cient for him to choose which option to go with in terms of planning for 2006, '07 and years beyond. Ear- lier today he said he doesn't know when he'll arrive at that decision. [1530] Now, with respect to even basic information on…. Then he also advised that given the three options out- lined in this planning document….

He said that they have not chosen an option because they are still work- ing towards arriving at that decision. He doesn't know when he'll choose what opti on. He doesn't even know, of the three options, whether or not — it sounds like — these three options would in fact be valid options for consideration, because he just said the assumptions that this report had used to derive the three options are now in question. The minister himself is not sure whether or not those assumptions are accurate. Well, then that means the minister has got nothing to work with.

He has no targets, he has no time line, and he has no basis of facts to use to determine what he wants to plan towards, and that is the concept of meet- ing the needs of seniors and fulfilling the New Era document commitment for 2006 and then years be- yond. I find that rather shocking. If the minister advises that he's got…. The assump- tions in this report that I' m asking him questions about are assumptions that he said we're not necessarily committing to and we don't know whether or not we will accept them.

Well, then maybe the minister can start off by telling me what assumptions and what facts he is using as he is planning towards arriving at a deci- sion in terms of how many care beds will be needed and what kind of care beds will be needed for 2006-07 and years beyond. Hon. C. Hansen: I think the comments the member just made underscore for me that she has never been involved in a planning process before, because in any planning process they will start with making assump- tions. They will then use those assumptions to develop policy options. In this case, it's the modelling that is required.

I will take the member back to the front page of this particular document, where it is titled "Discussion Pa- per." That's exactly what this document is, so as we go out for discussions around this document…. The rea- son they set out assumptions in the start of a planning document is because they themselves are part of the discussion.

It is not a case of sort of saying, "This is our model," and then: "You know, don't worry about our assumptions because we're not going to tell you about them." We actually set out the assumptions right in the start of a good planning document, because as we go around the province and meet with the health authori- ties and other people that have expertise in this area, they're quite free to look at the assumptions that were made and to challenge them, to question them and to change them — to elaborate on them. [1535] To say that we're somehow locked into some as- sumptions that are part of a planning document would simply be irresponsible and not part of a legitimate planning process.

If you lo ok at what's happening in other parts of Canada, Manitoba, for example, just re- cently developed some projections around their needs in the future. What they've done is simply taken their historical trends over the last number of decades and just extrapolated those nu mbers forward. What we're saying is that we want to look at other options and other assumptions that we should be bringing in so that we can develop some new models that really meet the needs of individuals as we go forward. I will set out for the member what our assumptions are as we go into this.

First, we believe that seniors want more choice. Second, we believe that we have to get the best value for the taxpayers' dollars for those options that are subsidized by the taxpayers. Third, we want the best level of care for the respective needs of individual seniors. Fourth, we want to maximize the independence and autonomy of individual seniors so that they can live as independently as they are capable of at that stage in their li fe. The final assumption we have is that we want to build in flexibility, so it takes

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9007 into consideration the geography of this province and the diversity of the population in this province but is also flexible so that we don't get locked into some rigid model that isn't going to meet our needs five, ten or 20 years from now. Those are the assumptions that under- score all our planning initiatives. J. Kwan: You know, I don't need a lecture from this minister to tell me what planning documents are and how one moves forward with planning documents to arrive at a target. I know exactly how one does it.

W h a t t r o u b l e s m e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e i s t h i s . H e r e w e have a planning document that the minister has actually gotten from his ministry, which presumably he asked his ministry to conduct. It is about a year old. Within, it lays out options. It lays out some basic assumptions in terms of trying to set out how to arrive at certain targets by a certain date. Those are fairly basic facts. I fully understand that when we're doing planning work, some things may change.

I also would anticipate that someone who is prudent with their job and their responsibilities would actually set something down so that they can work towards some level of projections but build in flexibilities with the understanding that those projections may change. I do not expect someone who is prudent to say: "We do not have assumptions, and those assumptions keep changing, and we have no targets and no time lines." That's exactly what the Min- ister of Health is now saying.

If that's the case, then I am greatly worried — with what the minister says and the confidence with which he says it — that he will arrive at delivering the promise politically but as well, and more importantly, delivering the needs required by the community. If he has no plan and no projections right here and now, by 2004, I don't know how he will meet his target goal of providing for the needs of seniors in a year's time or in two years' time or at any time thereafter. It makes no sense. Interjection. J. Kwan: The former Minister of Education is heck- ling me.

The current Minister of Children and Family Development should have the gall to heckle me when she might want to look internally to her own ministry and see the chaos that is happening there. So much for the lack of planning. Maybe that is the case in point — that there was no planning, and the money has gone missing from that ministry. Interjections. The Chair: Members, order. J. Kwan: Communities are now stuck in a situation where they are at risk. Interjections. The Chair: Order. Members, please keep it on the topic of the budget items before us. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

Continue, please. J. Kwan: You know, I would welcome any of the government bench members to rise up and ask ques- tions of the minister. Hon. C. Clark: When you're done. J. Kwan: I would welcome that. Hon. R. Harris: Have a seat when you're done. J. Kwan: Well, okay. They say: when I'm done. Well, sit tight, because it will be some time. It will be some time. Interjections. Point of Order J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Chair, on a point of order, is heckling me out of turn. He is actually not in his own seat. The Chair: Could the member please return to his seat if he wishes to heckle.

Members, could we please continue with the ques- tioning of the minister. Debate Continued J. Kwan: It might be wise for the members in this House to learn the rules of the House. It has only been three years that they've been elected. They might actu- ally start to learn the rules of this House. [1540] Let me get back to the issue at hand here. The list of things that the minister identified — the notion around flexibility, meeting the needs of seniors, providing for options, etc. He says those are the assumptions that he is working with — in part. In part. According to this planning document….

And I' m not saying this is the end-all and be-all and that this is the only planning document. I'm glad the minister says that there is more work to be done and that it needs to be updated. So I asked a very simple question of the minister: what updating work is being done? What are some of the numbers he is working with, so he can advise this House of his targets in terms of trying to meet those targets, which then fulfils the commitment th at he has said in this House?

That is the political commitment of providing for 5,000 new residential intermediate care beds for seniors and the commitment of his job as the minister responsible to ensure that the needs of the communi- ties and the seniors are actu ally met and on that basis to judge — not for the minister's own assessment or his own colleagues to say how well he is doing. We know that his own colleagues, at least, are incapable of actu- ally doing any form of evalua tion that is fair and accu-

9008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 rate. All that they're able to do is say what the govern- ment and the Premier's office tell them they should say, irrespective of what the reality is. This minister, Mr. Chair, I know to be a responsible individual and very prudent in taking on tasks. He's intelligent; he's forward-thin king. I know all of that. I see it in terms of his performance. I will acknowledge the minister's good work. But if the minister sits in his chair and says, "I don't have any time lines. I don't have any targets.

I'm just sort of, you know, out there being very slippery on the slopes and not able to get any grounding with respect to any sort of targets," well, then it brings into question this minister's prudence and his ability, quite frankly, to do his job. It brings into question, in my view, the level of confidence of British Columbians trying to assess whether or not this minister says he will meet his goal — a political goal as well as the goal of meeting the community's need. It brings into question that credibility. So let me start again. Let me start again with re- spect to the notion of facts and assumptions.

Surely, if the minister says this report's facts and assumptions are not valid and they're ch anging on a daily basis, well then, to date, what information does the minister have to offer? I'm now talking not about vague gener- alities and principle statements around flexibility and seniors' independence. All of those are end goals that people want t o arrive at . I wou ld even g o so far as to say that while they may be part of the assumptions, they are really not assumption s.

They are really part of the end goal which one would use to measure how successful this government has been in trying to achieve its goal. [1545] Part of that measurement will be based on what kind of time lines the minister might have established to try and arrive at the goals that he has set; what kinds of numbers in terms of projections of seniors that would require the different levels of housing needs. What are those projections for '06-07 and beyond? How many units are actually out there in the community to meet that projected need for '06-07 and beyond?

Maybe the minister can start, then, by answering these questions and let me know what facts he's using and give me the assurance, Mr. Chair, that the gov- ernment is actually just not on a ski slope being very slippery, sliding everywhere and being completely out of control. Maybe it is the case that the government is completely out of control. I'm hoping not, because this is a serious matter for seniors. Hon. C. Hansen: The target we have set is that by the end of 2006, there will be a net increase of 5,000 beds.

We spent a lot of time yesterday afternoon as I went through CMHC number s and talked about what the health sector itself was doing towards achieving that 5,000 goal. We talked about what B.C. Housing was doing towards achieving that goal. I think the in- formation I put on the table yesterday would give any- body confidence. In fact, we're well on the way to achieving that goal of 5,000 beds. But as I said yester- day, I cannot today break down that 5,000-bed number and say it is going to be X number of these kind of beds and X number of these kind of beds, because that is work we're still doing.

We're trying to be flexible to make sure that we're sensitive to the individual needs of communities. The document she has got before her — this plan- ning document, this discussion paper — is not about how we simply get to the end of 2006. This is a plan- ning document that will develop a model that helps us move forward ten, 15, 20 years in a way that will an- ticipate the future needs. I can't say how many, for ex- ample, complex care beds we're going to need.

If we can support a senior with comp lex needs in an assisted- living environment, then we also have to be able to fund the community support necessary to support that senior in that assisted-living environment because of their complex needs. I t ' s n o t s i m p l y a c a s e o f s a y i n g t h a t w e h a v e X number of complex care beds that we're going to need in the future to accommodate seniors with complex care needs, because a lot of this becomes about how you allocate the budget resources to those needs in the years ahead.

If I have to take the budget of this ministry and put it towards complex care beds, then those are fewer dollars I'm going to have to put into the community care supports that may be necessary to support a senior who has complex needs but pre- fers to live a little bit independently in, let's say, an assisted-living environment or indeed in the family home. That is what this document is all about. We're going out and doing the responsible th ing of saying that it is not up to me as an individual person to try to pretend I have got all the answers.

We've gone out with this dis- cussion document to actually engage the health care providers in the communities and get the best input we can from people who are expert s in this field. Once we get their feedback, we will try to finalize the assump- tions, and we will try to finalize the model. Out of that we will be able to finalize the numbers we may need at any point in time, but again, we'll still try to be flexible to make sure that we meet the needs of seniors in the future. That's what this is all about.

I appreciate the member's desire to get some hard, fast numbers — that we're going to say that by June of 2006 we're going to have X number of these kinds of beds. I can't give her those kind of numbers, because we're not driving it from that perspective. We're driv- ing it from the need perspe ctive of the individuals and how government can suppor t those individuals to make sure they get the care they need. J. Kwan: The minister made two commitments. One commitment was that he will meet the New Era docu- ment of providing 5,000 new long-term and intermedi- ate care beds by 2006.

He says that was a political com- mitment. Then he made a second commitment as the Minister of Health Services, and that is that he will ensure the needs of the co mmunities are actually met — to ensure that for seniors who require the range of

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9009 housing options, those requir ements are actually there for them. That's what he committed to yesterday. [1550] In that process, in canvassing about how we're do- ing towards those goals, we established and the minis- ter put on record some numbers towards those 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds and how we're doing. I have my own opinion on whether or not the government is arriving at those numbers and whether or not the minister would be able to meet that commitment.

But I'll set that aside, because that's a political discussion I didn't want to bring into this House in this set of estimates. Today what I'm trying to establish…. I just ac- cepted what the minister has said and advised me of yesterday. I accepted his numbers. I didn't challenge his numbers. I accepted what he gave me in terms of the new

definitions for extended care, complex care groups, etc. I accepted the minister's word that he'd give me the information by the end of yesterday — the other set of

definitions with respect to assisted living. I accepted the minister's word that the information would be forthcoming. I had said we'll come back to that discussion when I receive the information. I have not yet received the information, and even then I understand. There were a lot of things going on yesterday, and things may not have arrived at my desk as the minister would have liked them to. I don't think the minister was being devious in not providing that information by the end of the day. I accept it. I'm not challenging that, and I've set that aside.

Today what I wanted to do was engage in some discussion — not political talk with the government but rather some basic, factual information — as an op- position member so that British Columbians who might be watching this debate could, based on the in- formation I was hoping to canvass with the minister and to solicit from the mini ster, judge for themselves whether or not this minister and this government are going to meet his second commitment — that is, to provide for the needs of British Columbians.

Then at the beginning of today's debate I asked the minister: is he working towards '06-07 only, or is he working towards years beyond, in terms of 2011-12 or beyond? The minister advised that in fact it's not just 2011-12; we're going far beyond that. We're going to 2020, even, and that was the prudent thing to do. I thought, great. Here's a minister who is — at least, so he says — forward-thinking about the needs of the community.

If that's the case, then it is reasonable to assume that a legitimate question, which I started off with, was to ask: let's then evaluate and see what the lay of the land is with resp ect to population base in terms of aging seniors — what does it look like? I read from the report what the projections were, and the minister rose in this House to advise that those projections were taken from StatsCan. I don't quarrel with Statistics Canada; I accept the numbers. We now have a base of what we think the aging population will look like.

That is important in understanding what the aging population would look like, because it will give y o u a s e n s e o f w h a t t h e d e m a n d w o u l d b e i n f u t u r e years with respect to different types of housing op- tions. Then the next logical thing to move to, which is what is set out in this report , is to talk about what this government is doing right now, and that is the gov- ernment's policy with respect to eligibility criteria in their assessment.

It's taking full well into consideration the flexibility the minister referenced and taking into consideration that particular person's individual cir- cumstances — whether or not the individual's own home would be available or if it's an option for the per- son to stay there with addi tional support, as one exam- ple. It's taking full well into consideration the desire of seniors who want to remain as independent as they can f o r a s l o n g a s t h e y c a n . T hat's what this report also says.

Then on that basis, this report goes on to say that with that in mind, generally speaking, we are expecting the majority — not all, not 100 percent of the clients…. All he says is the majority of them. He gives you the flexibility that there might be some movement within the client groups of who may end up going into inter- mediate care, level 3 or extended care homes — who may be eligible. It has the wording built into that flexi- bility, and then it has the wo rding to build in the flexi- bility of those who would not be eligible. [1555] I think those are basic assumptions.

I was simply seeking confirmation from the minister. I don't know why the minister finds it so hard to confirm, to say: "Yeah, that is our existing policy right now, and that's what we're working with in trying to develop what the model might look like down th e road." It's not a trick question. All I'm trying to establish is some basis to work towards so that we know with respect to some projections down the road whether or not the govern- ment and the minister are going to meet them. That is all.

Given the minister's complete reluctance to confirm this simple request of giving me assurance that the assumptions I read are around eligibility and the policy the government is working with…. Given that he is reluctant to confirm that, fo r future planning purposes, maybe the minister can tell me the current policy. Maybe the minister can tell me, because in my appen- dix I actually don't have the residential access policy. I don't have that information. Maybe we can start with this.

The minister can ad- vise me: what is the current government policy right now in determining eligibility, and what is the residen- tial access policy? Hon. C. Hansen: There is actually, I understand, a

section in the Home and Community Care Policy Manual that sets out the access policy . We don't have it here in the chamber, but I am endeav ouring to get it into the chamber as quickly as we can. J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate it if the minister could make available a copy of that residential access

9010 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 policy. Maybe for the time being, for the purposes of this debate, the minister can advise: generally speak- ing, what does the residential access policy entail? Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I dug out one of my little notes here from earl ier, because the residential access policy, as we discussed earlier, was based in the past on the assessment to ols that were in place. It used to be the IC 1, IC 2, IC 3 assessment tools criteria that were there before. We are moving towards a new assessment tool.

Based on the care needs that flow from the assessment, we then work with the individ- ual — and the family, if necessary — to determine what residential care would be preferable for that particular individual. That, in essence, to give a

summary, is what our reside ntial access policy is. I will endeavour to get more detail on that for the member. J. Kwan: Is it the case that those individuals who were assessed at what was termed as IC 1 and 2 — intermediate care level 1 and 2 — would not be eligible for extended care beds? [1600] Hon. C. Hansen: If you look back over the last…. This actually goes back to 1990. In 1990 there was about 40 percent of the residential care days in the province where individuals were assessed at IC 2, IC 1 or per- sonal care levels.

Over that period of time since 1990, we have seen a steady decline in the number of IC 2, IC 1 and certainly the personal care categories that are put into residential care. W h a t w e k n o w f r o m s c i e n c e , f r o m e v i d e n c e a n d studies, is that if you put someone into a dependent level of care — into a complex care environment — before they're ready for that, in fact they will deterio- rate. Their health would deteriorate. The short answer to the member's question is that she is correct.

We would not place an individual assessed at IC 1 or IC 2 under that old assessment tool into a complex care en- vironment, because that would not be appropriate for their needs. J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister's answer. He actually did answer my question, the last part of it — that is, to say yes. I just want to be clear. I'm not passing judgment, necessarily, on this policy. I haven't arrived at that stage yet. I haven't determined whether or not I'm go- ing to, with this debate. It depends on how the debate goes.

I'm simply asking thes e questions to determine, once again, what premises the government is operating under. That's all. The minister need not be so defensive about this, because it's not a judgment. I'm not passing judgment on whether or not this is a valid policy or otherwise. I may do that, and I'll reserve that for an- other day.

Right now I'm just trying to set out some parame- ters — in terms of where things are at and what the current government policy is — and therefore be able to assess, based on the info rmation I gather from this debate and other documentation, and arrive at my own judgment of whether or not the government is going to meet the commitment it has set out. So I appreciate the answer. IC 1 and IC 2 individuals would not be eligible for extended care beds — which is basically, by the way, what the report says. That's exactly what the report says.

Can the minister then also confirm that the criteria for assessment that we just talked about…? That is the current government policy? [1605] Hon. C. Hansen: I think what's important to reiter- ate is that we are moving away from the model she has just described, with the IC 1 and IC 2. We are moving towards the new assessment tool, and we're in the middle of that transition now. The old model was one that had been in place for a number of decades. It was the five care levels, which we re personal care, IC 1, IC 2, IC 3 and extended care. Those are being phased out as we speak.

What we are moving towards, as I mentioned ear- lier, is the new interRAI assessment tool, which is inte- grated with client preference. This is the foundation on which the final care plan is based, and I think that's important. I'm going to send the member a copy of this so that she can read through it. I won't go through it in all the detail. Just to give her a sense of the interRAI assess- ment tool, I gather it's now used in 33 countries. It's used in a number of provinces in Canada already. B.C. was actually one of the jurisdictions that piloted this, in North Vancouver, to great success.

In the assessment process….

Let me just read this here: "A joint ministry and health authority working group has been established to resolve common issues re- lated to the introduction of the new assessment process, such as identifying appropriate client groups to be as- sessed with the new tools, developing a transition p r o c e s s t o m o v e f r o m c u r r e n t c l i e n t c a r e l e v e l s t o r e - source utilization client groupings based on the need, and developing a standardized education and training program to support the implementation phase and into the future." Now, the seven major classification categories of the RAI tool are special rehabilitation, extensive ser- vices, clinically complex, impaired cognition, behav- ioral problems, reduced physical function….

I am told that there are about 30 to 40 subclassifications of these major categories. Once the assessment is done based on this new approach, then the decisions are made with regard to the appropriate residential options for the individual. This goes into assisted living, as we've talked about earlier. It talks about who can move into assisted liv- ing. It talks about new classifications for residential care assessment. I will be pleased to provide this to the member. I will make sure that she gets it by the end of the day.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9011 J. Kwan: I would assume that's along with the old criteria — the IC 1, IC 2, IC 3 — that the minister com- mitted he would provide yesterday. That's included in it. Great. Essentially, then, what the minister has put on re- cord with respect to the interRAI assessment tool and taking into consideration the concept that those who are IC 1 and IC 2, which wa s the former terminology, are really what we're deal ing with…. Those in those two levels would not be eligible for extended care.

I assume that taking all of that together is right now the current government policy. Hon. C. Hansen: Sorry. I thought I heard the mem- ber say that those assessed under the interRAI would not be eligible for extended care. Extended care is a definition that is going to become part of our histori- cal…. Interjection. Hon. C.

Hansen: Once we have gone through the interRAI assessment, the appropriate services that may be provided to meet the care needs that are identified by the interRAI would include home care nursing, pal- liative care, community rehabilitation, adult day centre, assisted living, home support, residential hospice care. Flowing from the assessment really leads us into the whole range of care options based on the individual needs of the person involved. J. Kwan: The range of care options was the list that the minister read out. Is th

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0303pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0303pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd52ed3bf9d4d305f44fe1c1e48df44def3d337b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).