Hansard -- Monday, February 24, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 11, No. 12 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Private Members' Statements		4959
	Crime E. Brenzinger Hon. R. Coleman The provincial transportation strategy B. Suffredine Hon. J. Reid Mining in the economic heartland of B.C. P. Bell Hon. R. Neufeld Options in education L. Mayencourt W. McMahon

Motions on Notice		4967
	Pharmacare program review and income testing of seniors (Motion 5) J. MacPhail S. Brice P. Bell J. Kwan R. Nijjar

Deputy Speaker: Our first topic this morning is on crime, and it will be given by the member for Surrey-Whalley.

E. Brenzinger: Today I rise to address a very serious issue in my riding of Surrey-Whalley. It is the issue of crime.

I am pleased the Premier will be holding a dialogue on crime, which will bring together community leaders, MLAs, law enforcement experts and others in pursuit of better ways to prevent and combat crime in our schools and on our streets. This kind of dialogue needs to occur. We need to come together to share ideas and develop strategies to make our communities safer.

It seems, too often these days, the media spotlight is on Surrey for yet another incidence of crime. Constituents in Surrey-Whalley deserve to feel safe in their own community. A constituent wrote me to say: "In many cases it seems the police have their hands tied by a revolving-door court system that does not serve the interests of justice." They continue to write:

Many, including my father and uncles, went to war to protect our freedom, yet we are creating a society where the people in our community feel unsafe. This is just not acceptable in our city, in our provinces or in our country. We cannot, and I will not, stand idly by as our citizens are preyed upon.

We have developers interested in spending millions of dollars right in the heart of Surrey-Whalley — economic growth that is badly needed — but they are reluctant. Crime and drugs are prevalent in such a concentrated area; it is scaring investors away.

Regularly, I receive letters and phone calls about local crack houses that have been busted, but the dealers are back in business the day after because they have just moved to another location nearby to continue their activities. Constituents ask me why. Why do their Block Watch efforts and continuous reports to police appear futile? Why are the repeat offenders back on the streets the next day? Why does it seem like the rights of criminals take precedence over the rights of law-abiding citizens?

The consequences of breaking the law need to be enforced. I know the RCMP are working hard to do their job enforcing the law and arresting lawbreakers. However, it often seems their efforts are impeded, whether it be difficulty in getting a warrant in a timely manner or a repeat offender being released back into the community so quickly after being arrested.

I was recently informed of a man that was released on bail after being accused of possession of stolen property. This person is currently on probation for uttering threats, assault, possession of stolen property, breach of conditional sentence and, once again, for possession of stolen property. He has an extensive criminal record, including four convictions of possession of stolen property over $5,000, three convictions for assault and two convictions for theft under $5,000. I could keep going, but I would run out of time. It is amazing to me and my constituents that a person who is on probation for theft, has been convicted many times for theft and currently is accused of theft is still allowed out on bail. It underlines the fact that changes need to be made.

Recently the city of Surrey put an action team together consisting of the police chief, fire chief and all the city departments. It is modelled after the broken-windows theory, which was developed by U.S. criminologist George Cowling and was effectively used in New York City and Boston. The theory holds that if small problems go unattended, it sends the message that the community doesn't care, and criminals will push the envelope and get away with increasingly more serious crime. Pretty soon things become bad enough on the street that law-abiding people begin to move out and the neighbourhood continues to decline. However, if the laws already on the books are enforced, it sends a strong message to criminals that the community will not tolerate their actions.

For the broken-windows theory to work, there has to be consistent, predictable, vigorous law enforcement. There has to be community prevention, and the city has to pay attention to things like graffiti cleanup, trash cleanup and ensuring the parks are clean. I am pleased to hear our mayor's commitment to zero tolerance for crime in the area and that the first 20 new police officers should be ready in Surrey by July and that over the next three years we can expect a total of 60 new ones. But it takes more than a commitment from the city and the police. There is only so much the community can do. The courts must be on side. They need to be able to keep multiple offenders off the street and behind bars. The judiciary and the police need to have the power to keep these criminals off the street.

The people of Surrey-Whalley are resilient, and they are tough. They are fighting back, but they can't do it alone. It's time for every level of government to pitch in. The city needs to continue to be persistent in enforcing the bylaws and tearing down the crack houses. The owner of these properties needs to be held accountable. It is time for the police to have the tools

they need to arrest these criminals and the tools to do so in a timely manner. It is time for the courts to be able to keep these people behind bars and to sentence offenders to appropriate time. It is time to show our community that criminal activities will not be tolerated and offenders will be punished. The time to act is now.

I look forward to the comments of the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for bringing this issue to the Legislature. It's something, frankly, that we all deal with on a daily basis in law enforcement, particularly the issue in and around repeat offenders and the broken-windows theory that was actually used effectively both in New York and in Boston, as the member said.

Recently I read an article where a judge said that as an individual, they did not read the media, did not watch the media and did not listen to the media. That led me to the concern of how somebody in the judiciary can understand the pressures on communities without paying attention to what's going on in communities when they're going to render a decision in our court system. That concerns me, because there is a problem out there. There is a perception in the community that we are soft on crime. There's a perception in the community that police are doing the job as best they can, but when they reach our court system, it's letting the community down. We have to address that.

One way we will address that, as the member said, is in a dialogue on crime. We will bring these parties together to actually have this discussion and let them know that these are pressures facing our communities, and we need to do something about it. It's time we pushed back with our entire system, whether it be judiciary, prosecution, policing and community involvement — to push back and take our communities back and get control of where we live again.

We cannot have a situation where the overburden of paperwork and work that has to go into filing a charge in our province makes it such that police actually don't have time to do their jobs. We need to look again at having at least charge approval for summary conviction offences for our law enforcement so they're not tied up doing a bunch of work that isn't necessary when people enter our court system and plead guilty. We need a shift with regards to how we handle things like tele-warrants and things like that, so the police in the communities can react quicker to do their job and so when they're doing their job, coming out the other end when the charge is laid, there's going to be some response to that charge — not, as the member describes, where you have a multiple repeat offender who is on the street before the police can even get back in their car from court, when somebody has committed crime after crime after crime.

There is a story out there that's true, as I understand it, of a person who was actually charged multiple times for auto theft — when I talk about multiple times, we're talking 14, 15, 16 times — who went to court in a stolen vehicle and was still released back into the community. My understanding was that the system was devised for people that were a danger to society or had a likelihood of reoffending. They were supposed to be taken through incarceration and treatment so they would stop doing the crime, not given some kind of badge of honour they could walk out of a court with and talk to their buddies with regard to the fact that they actually drove to court in a stolen car and are still back on the street.

We have to, as a community, take back what we're doing. We have to push back, and we'll do that through a dialogue on crime to enjoin everybody in the discussion so they'll understand the pressures that these communities are feeling and seeing. If we do that, I think that we can actually get Whalley back to where Whalley should be and the downtown east side back to where the downtown east side should be — and other areas of communities too. Every single community is starting to see small areas which will grow if we let them get out of hand to where they will have the same difficulties, whether you are in Kelowna, Prince George, Abbotsford, Langley or Surrey.

We're all facing the same stresses, and we have the same concerns in our community. That is, we want a justice system that works for the people who pay for it, a justice system that is backed up where our police and communities work together to have long-term sentencing and programs that will reduce crime in our communities to the point that we can now feel safe again.

It is a commitment of this government to safer streets and safer communities. It was in our New Era document through our dialogue on crime, through what we're doing with policing and its reorganizing and restructuring and through the work that we'll do with our court system.

I believe we can get there, and I believe we can be successful, but we'll have to do it together. We can do it together through initiatives like the member's opposite, who has brought it to the House today. We can continue to push back so people understand: we want to have our communities back. We want them safe, and we want them to be places that are livable and enjoyable for the people that live in British Columbia.

E. Brenzinger: I would like to thank the Solicitor General for his comments. Having been a police officer himself, he brings a wealth of experience and firsthand knowledge to the challenges faced by police officers in their field every day.

It is well known that crime and drugs go hand in hand. I've spoken before about the vicious circle of drug abuse and crime. All of our communities are struggling with crime problems. The impact on Surrey-Whalley has been devastating as people no longer feel safe. It is time to turn things around.

It means identifying the deficiencies and ensuring that a comprehensive plan is in place to support each pillar. It means educating our youth and showing them the consequences of drug abuse. Programs such as DARE, the drug abuse resistance education program,

are being used to educate our children about not getting involved with drugs and crime.

It means giving our RCMP and our courts the tools they need to punish criminals and show that justice is being served, and it means getting more treatment facilities into Surrey to give people with addictions the tools they need to get better.

Deputy Speaker: For our second topic today, the provincial transportation strategy, the member for Nelson-Creston.

B. Suffredine: This morning I want to make a few comments on the impact that the new provincial transportation strategy will have on tourism and industry. After decades of neglect, major progress is now being made to strengthen transportation infrastructure in the Kootenays and throughout B.C. We cannot continue to neglect our transportation infrastructure. It's vital to the growth of our heartlands economy and tourism in particular.

For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, I should make it clear that I am from the heartlands. My riding of Nelson-Creston enjoys a variety of opportunities. For example, the forest industry is and should be a strong contributor to our economy. It depends on transportation, though, to get raw materials to the mills and products to the market.

The mining industry is also found in the Kootenays and was historically B.C.'s second-largest industry. Mining built the Kootenays. Nelson has buildings built from brick and concrete rather than frame construction, because the wealth that brought mining to the Kootenays made people build buildings that were intended to last centuries.

Back-country trails that access great wilderness parks like Kokanee Park were developed to access mines like the Joker. Mining depends on transportation. Next comes tourism. We have some of the greatest skiing in the world. Whitewater, Red Mountain, Fernie, Kimberley, Panorama and Kicking Horse Resort all offer outstanding downhill ski resorts. Heliskiing and snowcat skiing abound. We have fabulous hot springs and golf courses that suit the needs of everyone from amateur to professional.

Sometimes we get complacent and fail to recognize the opportunities that are there for us all if we'll just take steps to realize them. People in the Kootenays often say there aren't very many opportunities for young people — a fair comment if there's a negative attitude to developing those opportunities or if government fails to recognize the opportunities and encourage that development. Tourism needs transportation. Last spring I spoke in this House about the International Selkirk Loop. This great asset can develop only to the extent that transportation will permit it.

The coordinated transportation plan begins the process of addressing this. The expansion of the Cranbrook Airport to international status, extending it to a 9,000-foot runway, will mean planes can arrive loaded with tourists from faraway destinations. I know there's still much work to be done to make it a reality, but many people can identify with the fact that underdeveloped countries like the Dominican Republic or Mexico have international airports that hundreds of people at one time come to in a plane and land in places like that. We have tourism attractions that are the equal of any of those countries, but until now in the Kootenays we have failed to take the initiative to make ourselves accessible.

The expansion at Cranbrook will make the Kootenays accessible to international travel. The Cranbrook Airport is also an example of how the team approach can pay off. The airport is not in my riding. It is virtually on the boundary of Columbia River–Revelstoke and East Kootenay — again, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, both heartlands as well. While it is always tempting to think locally as an MLA and be parochial, the entire Kootenay caucus agreed to put aside parochial considerations and unanimously back this airport extension project.

We in Nelson-Creston and the member for West Kootenay–Boundary recognize the significant value to the region and tourism opportunities. We had no difficulty in making a commitment that a development like this in the East Kootenays would benefit us. Picking our most important projects so we could get the most benefit for the whole region will pay dividends. The team approach is also making gains in the Kicking Horse Canyon. While this will require federal dollars too, it is now the number one priority for the province in highway construction. The $670 million spent in our region will bring benefits in construction jobs and tourists that will visit the whole region, not just the Kicking Horse Canyon.

Transportation means opportunity. Fuel tax to fund transportation is a solution that will pay many dividends for us in the Kootenays. Regional transportation advisory committees will ensure that expenditures reflect local needs. Highways 3 and 95 and the Kicking Horse Canyon will develop the entire region. Job generation from construction will benefit us all in the short run, and then tourism and industry next. These are real jobs — good-paying jobs — for the Kootenays. I am particularly pleased that the planning of the Needles bridge is back on the agenda after four decades. Currently, there is no way a tourist can pass through the Arrow Lakes without having to cross on a ferry. This bridge will open access to the Okanagan, so tourists can enjoy the recreational opportunities the Kootenays have to offer.

We will not borrow to do these projects. Each project must be fully funded before it can begin. Our children and grandchildren should inherit an asset with value, not a huge debt to repay for worn-out and outdated infrastructure. I have in the House today a great group of residents of the Arrow Lakes who are donat-

ing their skills and time to find ways to fund the cost of building fixed-link crossings of the Arrow Lakes. I sought the help of the people who live in Edgewood and Nakusp to solve the ferry issue forever. They are producing a plan that will raise the funds needed to create opportunities for Arrow Lakes residents, which had not seemed possible since the mid-1960s when the government of the day abandoned them. I hope we will soon be advancing with an ambitious job creation, tourism and transportation project that is fully funded and not borrowed. Progress like this proves the team approach works. By working together with the Ministry of Transportation, wise choices have been carefully made for the Kootenays and for British Columbia.

I'm excited about the future of transportation, tourism, mining and forestry in the Kootenays. Our time is at hand, and I look forward to comments from the Minister of Transportation in response.

Hon. J. Reid: I have had the frequent opportunity to discuss with the member for Nelson-Creston the unique situation of his riding and the transportation needs of that riding, and the challenges. Certainly, he has outlined many of the projects we have discussed. What's even more encouraging is that he has outlined some of the solutions that we can look forward to.

While we're looking at the transportation plan that's been put together, it is a significant component of the Premier's heartlands economic strategy that does provide economic activity and the backbone of all economic activity in this province.

We have about $66 billion worth of assets in our road infrastructure in the province. It's terribly unfortunate that over the decade of the nineties, the side road system has really been suffering at the expense of the main road system. While about 34 percent of the side road system is in good condition, a good 76 percent of the main road system is in good condition. This means we really have to invest, as the member said, in that side road system, which has provided for forestry, mining and tourism opportunities — and even greater tourism opportunities as we move forward — as well as the roads the member has certainly mentioned, bridges instead of ferries, and an airport in Cranbrook.

We are looking at the transportation infrastructure as a much broader picture and trying to make sure that we are working together with all the pieces to facilitate the growth and the development we would all like to see in the heartlands of this province, which benefit all of us equally.

I would just like to mention the regional transportation advisory committees. Already I'm getting requests far beyond the capacity of even the funds we are talking about generating over the next three years in gas tax, because transportation is a key to every activity in this province. It's important for people to understand how these decisions are going to be made and how priorities are going to be determined where funding is going to be applied in transportation.

The regional transportation advisory committees are citizens from the different regions of the province. Some of them will be representatives from the regional boards — one representative for the majority of regional boards — and the other part of the committee is made up of people from tourism or industry or other levels of expertise in their local region. Together they will be looking at all the competing interests in the region and giving advice back to the ministry as to where the dollars are going to get the best return. When we look at forestry, when we look at transportation, when we look at bridges, when we look at tourism and agriculture and farming, when we look at border crossings — all of those initiatives — we will have to make decisions and assess priorities.

We are taking an excellent, bold step forward in saying that we are going to have dedicated funding for transportation so that we can have assurance that these deficits will be addressed, that the roads will be improved — and again, not just roads but other means of travel and other links that we have in our transportation system.

I look forward to working with the member for Nelson-Creston on his ideas and his initiatives, because it is partnerships that are going to enable us to extend those dollars as far as possible and achieve more with them. With the interest of community partners, with their imagination, with their dedication, I look forward to seeing great results — whether it be, as the member said, with the Cranbrook Airport, when we're looking at the federal government working on the Kicking Horse, or when we're addressing some bridge issues in the member's riding. We look forward to those discussions and those solutions.

B. Suffredine: I want to thank the minister for her response this morning, but more importantly, I want to thank the Premier, the minister and the cabinet for something the province has needed for years: a government that listens to people and responds to their needs.

Whenever a new government is elected, it takes time to implement policy. What sometimes seems easy to those outside government is much more complex when you try to achieve it from inside government. The discussion about inland ferries and tolling is a great example. The Premier, the minister and the cabinet listened to the concerns that people raised. They responded in a way that was designed to address those needs and to take into account the effect that tolls were likely to have on tourism and industry, and to reflect the budget needs as well.

Listening is the key to good government. This minister has demonstrated that she knows how to listen. I want to thank her and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time to address this, this morning.

P. Bell: I'm very pleased to speak about what I think will be one of the key economic development

tools in the heartlands in the years to come. I'm speaking about the mining industry. Once a proud and prosperous industry that provided many thousands of jobs in the heartlands, mining is just simply a shadow of its former self. Prior to the last decade, it was not uncommon for upwards of 30 major mines to be operating simultaneously in the province. Each of these mines would employ up to 400 people or more in high-paying, family-supporting jobs. The mining industry pays the highest average salary of any industry: $77,000 plus per year.

What happened to mining? Not to harp on the past, but the nineties happened to mining — a political regime that drove mining from the province. The words "Windy Craggy" still send shivers up the spines of anyone involved in mining. Fifty million dollars was spent by the private sector to explore this rich deposit, and with the stroke of a pen, the NDP took that all away.

That mine had an estimated $15 billion worth of metal. Think about how many hospitals could be funded with that money. Think about how many schools could be funded with that money. Again, not to harp on the past, but there are minerals all over the world. We're in a globally competitive environment. If we don't work globally, the industry won't come back to us.

A few weeks ago I attended the B.C. and Yukon Mining Association convention in Vancouver. Talk about exciting. The mining industry is pumped and ready to go in B.C. The keynote speaker, Bob Friedland, president and CEO of Ivanhoe Capital Corp., spoke to about 800 people. He really energized the crowd. In fact, he gave us many reasons to be optimistic.

China is a huge, growing market for minerals. In China there are more people — listen to this; this is important — 18 years of age and under than all of the people in the United States and Great Britain combined. That's a huge dynamic. These youth are being educated in English. They're being taught the ways of the western culture. Their expectations are that they will own a house, they will own a car, and they're going to own all the toys we are so fond of. In short, this is a huge consumer society, and it's growing at an unbelievable pace.

China has been building huge smelters to fill the 22 percent growth per year in the demand for minerals, specifically copper. In the fourth quarter of 2002 the Chinese bought all of the surplus copper on the world market. That's all of the surplus copper. This has driven the price of copper in the world marketplace from 66 cents a pound to 77 cents a pound. That's a 17 percent increase in just the last four months. The great news is that B.C. has some of the richest copper deposits anywhere in the world — literally world-class deposits.

Till ten weeks ago it was not legal to own gold in China. In early December gold was trading at about $326 an ounce. Just a few weeks ago it closed at $370 an ounce. That's a 13½ percent increase in just eight weeks. You know what? In B.C., where you find copper, you also find gold, so that's more good news for B.C.'s mining industry.

There are many, many reasons to be optimistic about the potential of mining in B.C. What have we done to help mining along? I'm proud of the work that the Minister of Energy and Mines has done in laying the groundwork for growth. The minister has been very proactive, taking steps to get the international mining community to recognize British Columbia. One key piece of legislation that was passed early on was the elimination of PST on production equipment and machinery for the mining and logging sectors. The implications of this removal of PST is $75,000 on the purchase of a $1 million piece of equipment. There are many pieces of equipment worth $1 million or more operating in each mine.

Another key reform was the introduction of the 20 percent flow-through share credit. This puts us on an even plane with Ontario and Quebec and has allowed the exploration industry to raise money.

Yet another key initiative was the two-zone process for land use in B.C. As simple as this sounds, either you are now allowed to operate in a given area, which works out to about 87 percent of the province, or you're not allowed to operate — about 13 percent. This is significant, as it removes the uncertainty around development. It's nothing for a company to spend $250 million on a mine before it goes into production.

I'm excited about the opportunities we have in front of us. I can tell you that in my riding, we will be one of the key beneficiaries of the new era in mining in British Columbia. Many members will know that the Northgate property known as Kemess is located in my riding. This mine has made a significant investment in the past few years in what the owners anticipated would be a turnaround in the economic policies of this province. Kemess has about 400 staff, many of whom live in my riding. Each of these employees contributes to the tax base of the province, keeping our schools and our hospitals open. In fact, Kemess contributes about $36 million a year to the economy of B.C.

As I pointed out earlier, the Minister of Energy and Mines is very progressive in developing appropriate policies in B.C. This government has listened to industry, it's reacted, and now we're ready for the investment that comes with that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's always a pleasure to listen to members of this Legislature talk about mining in a positive way. That's probably one of the biggest things we have to overcome in British Columbia — to start thinking about industry, whether it's mining or any kind of industry in this province, and to start talking about it in a positive fashion. We actually require and need these products that are mined from the earth and that we have in such abundance in British Columbia in our daily lives.

Every day we get up, and we actually…. If you look around, and you look in this building and see the stone

and the rock and the concrete, that's all a result of mining. Those are just a few things to mention in this building. But if you walk down the street anywhere — Vancouver — and look at all the huge highrises, they're being built of concrete. It's mining; it's gravel extraction and the cement industry. It all has to do with mining, and it all has to do with development in this great province of ours.

In British Columbia we have a long, long history of mining. Mining has actually opened up this province. It opened up the Kootenays. The gold rush and those kind of things opened up the Cariboo. It opened up the northwest in British Columbia. Coal in the northeast and on Vancouver Island actually had a large effect on what happened on Vancouver Island over the last 100 years or so. It is all very important to British Columbia.

As the member pointed out, mining jobs are the highest-average paid jobs that we have of any industry in the province. They're secure jobs. Once a mine is found and built — and it costs anywhere from a $300 million to $1 billion investment by someone — those jobs are usually permanent for at least 20 or 30 years depending on the ore body, sometimes even longer. We have the Sullivan mine in the Kootenays that was there for a long, long time. It's just closing down now, but it provided thousands and thousands of family-paying jobs in that region of the province of British Columbia. It didn't just benefit that region of the province; it benefited all of British Columbia. We should remember that. It benefited each and every one of us, whether members live in downtown Vancouver or they live in the heartlands of British Columbia. We all share equally in that benefit. We should remember that many of the services that the mining industry gets — whether it's heavy equipment, whether it's fuel, whether it's the technology to do the mining that they do…. All of those kinds of things originate usually in a large centre. Vancouver is second to none in North America in providing those kinds of services to the mining industry. So people who live in Vancouver hugely benefit from the mining industry, but it's usually thought that only those who live in the heartlands benefit from the mining industry. That's not true, and we have to get that message out to people.

We should also remember that since mining came to British Columbia, it's only affected about 1/10 of 1 percent of the land base — about the same size as Surrey. Put that in perspective. In the whole province, mining has only affected about as much ground as Surrey covers. It's not hard on the environment. Mining can be done in an environmentally sound, responsible way, and we have a number of mines that are operating in the province — lots of coalmines that are operating in the southeast and in the northeast yet, and there are metal mines across the province.

The member spoke about one in his constituency, which is looking to expand, and that's great stuff. Our metal ores go all around the world: Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, China — the member spoke about India — the Netherlands, and our coal is exported all over the world. They bring huge benefits to the province of British Columbia that we need so that we can continue to provide health care and education, as we have for a long history, into our future and into our children's future. They also require these products that are produced. They require and should have good health care and good education. They should also be able to have good, solid jobs in communities where they can raise their children. Mining plays an important part.

I notice my time is up. It's always so hard to contain yourself when you're talking about such good industries. One last point: the exploration dollars in British Columbia are going up. They're on their way up. They were on their way down under the NDP, but they're on their way up. Now we are 9 percent of the total exploration dollars spent in all of Canada. That's double what it was two years ago.

P. Bell: I'm sure anyone who listened to that understands why the mining industry is moving forward in the province of British Columbia, with tremendous leadership that is provided by the minister. It's truly exciting where this industry can go. You know, I'd like to just expand, if I may, for a moment on the minister's comments around the size of the land base that's consumed in the province. We did a little research to try and put some arms and legs on the actual size of the land base that's consumed by mining. We tried to find an area where there was a large population, so the people could look at the boundaries and actually consider the impact. Logically, we looked to Vancouver as being the area that we would want to describe.

I would like for a moment, Mr. Speaker, for you to imagine the area that is encompassed by Hastings Street on the north of Vancouver — and I think everyone's familiar with where Hastings Street is — Denman on the west, Kingsway on the east and Marine Drive on the south. That area, as I've defined it, would contain the entire land base of every active mine in the province of British Columbia today. I can tell you that there's a lot more environmental damage being caused by the residents of that area than there is by all of the mines that are operating out there right now.

It's simply not accurate for the environmental community to come forward and talk negatively about the industry that drives the lifeblood of our province forward. They are the very same people who don't want us to privatize liquor stores. They're the same people who don't want us to find efficiencies in hospitals. They're the same people who don't want us to change the school system, and yet they don't want us to drive the economy forward. I find that incredibly frustrating. They are the people that don't understand the dynamics of this industry.

I can tell you, I visited the Fording coalmine in the Kootenays last spring, about this time of the year. As we drove into the mine area, there was a whole herd of elk on the side hill. It was because of the grasses that had been replanted and the reclamation of that project.

Mining is environmentally friendly. It's really the lifeblood of our economy. When we use the term "heartlands," it's the heart that pumps the fresh blood out into the rest of the body. The rest of the body is certainly this lower mainland area that we refer to. Without those resources and without those dollars, there is no Vancouver and there is no Victoria.

I'm firmly onside. I say to the naysayers: come on out and take a look at a mine, and if you don't like what we're doing in mining in this province, then look in your own back yard and ask what you're doing in your neighbourhood to look after your environment.

L. Mayencourt: There are a myriad of reasons why parents and school boards may be interested in pursuing what is commonly called a year-round school calendar. With that in mind, we implemented changes last year that allow B.C. school districts the freedom to explore and adopt local calendars that meet their communities' needs, to increase student choice in class schedules and to decide how best to utilize their school buildings efficiently to reduce capital costs. It allows them to adopt these new school calendars after consultation with parents and employees in affected schools. I applaud that change.

To begin, I think it is important that we distinguish what is meant by a year-round school calendar. It is not based on students attending school throughout the entire year. It's more appropriately described as a balanced schedule. It takes the traditional, long summer recess and reallocates it throughout the year.

A common example of this principle in action is called the 45-15 calendar. In that model students attend school for 45 days, then have a 15-day break, and so on throughout the year. Additionally, students in that model have a prolonged seven-week vacation during the summer. We have a school in Maple Ridge, Kanaka Creek, on a slightly different calendar, where students attend school for three months and then have a one-month holiday throughout the year. These represent a balanced calendar that can enhance student learning.

In some cases this type of calendar is used to get better value out of school buildings in a district by utilizing them year round. In that example a multi-track calendar is employed with three or five different groups of students, each with their own balanced calendars, rotating throughout the school year.

Extended days — adding an additional 45 minutes to an hour to each school day — is also considered a cost-effective option for overcrowded schools. I understand we have six secondary schools in Coquitlam that operate on this principle, thereby accommodating an additional 1,900 students in that district.

Similarly, extended days might allow school schedules to better align with parents' work schedules. This has been the case in Boundary school district, where a school in Grand Forks adopted a modified schedule so that families could have a better opportunity for spending time with their children. Another example exists in Williams Lake, where it becomes uneconomical for truckers and loggers to work during spring breakup. That board decided to do a pilot project where the children were allowed to have a different schedule so that they could have time off when their parents had vacation time. That program was a success, and the school continues on that program. Prince George school district has engaged parents, teachers and trustees in a discussion of a four-week calendar as a method of meeting financial challenges.

Surely the most compelling argument for a modified school calendar was one that was advanced by Dr. Carolyn Shields at the dialogue on education hosted by the Premier earlier last year. Dr. Shields, a professor and head of the department of educational studies at UBC, is a leader in the educational movement. She has a deep commitment to social justice, academic excellence, and structural and cultural change in our school system. She spoke of the important opportunity to restructure the school year in the interest of equity, wellness and achievement.

She's uniquely positioned to share her knowledge of the promise and potential of modified school calendars. She stated:

She articulated the benefits that accrue when we establish more balanced calendars under three distinct banners. The first is the regular rhythm of learning; the second is the summer learning loss; and finally, the potential for remediation, for acceleration, for enrichment opportunities that occur when we use the reallocated vacation time between terms for learning activities.

She found that the more regular rhythm of schooling and learning under this model created wellness, less burnout, better motivation for both students and teachers. It created better learning outcomes. Teachers reported that they spent more time on teaching and learning. It created safer schools with less vandalism, reduced tension, fewer suspensions and disciplinary incidents, and it provided opportunity for greater learning by using the intersession time for enrichment.

Studies have shown that advantaged children get more educational value than disadvantaged students. One reason is that advantaged students have access to more opportunities to enrich their education during the summer break through enrolling in summer camps, vacations with family, sport activities and the like. Disadvantaged children — children at risk in families facing economic challenges or families that otherwise don't have the resources or the energy to provide for summer camp, trips to the aquarium, skating lessons, etc. — lose more of their educational value during a long summer break.

Year after year, a gap widens in the achievement levels between these two groups. Changing the school calendar seems to benefit both groups, because the summer learning-loss time is reduced. Their learning environment is safer. It's calmer, more balanced, and there are better and more frequent opportunities to get into remediation programs before the learning gap widens.

I would appreciate it if my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Education, would comment on this important matter.

W. McMahon: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak on this very important issue, an issue that touches students, parents, teachers, staff and, in the broader sense, our communities throughout British Columbia: flexibility in the school calendar.

I worked for Windermere school district when, in the late 1980s or early 1990s, the school calendar was modified to allow for a two-week spring break. Parents, teachers and staff were consulted, and the majority felt this change would be beneficial. Rather than having five professional development days throughout the year, the teachers started school a week early with professional development activities, and this allowed for the extended spring break.

Tourism drives the communities in this area during the summer months, and everyone is busy — from students with summer jobs, their parents with exceptionally busy work or business schedules, to those involved in the forest sector. At spring break the tourists haven't peaked yet, and more than likely it's spring breakup, and it's an easier time for families to get away. Therefore, it made sense.

In looking at the whole issue of flexibility within the school calendar, I believe that students will have their best chance at success when they are no longer serving time, but when time is serving them. When travelling the province as Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Education, I heard that some students, particularly those attending intermediate or secondary schools, may have the ability to learn more if they are allowed to start school later in the day. This is something that may warrant more discussion, and it can, because of the flexibility school districts now have to meet their community's needs. I suspect my mother would have appreciated some type of flexibility when it came to getting my sister off to high school. She was not a morning person, but she certainly excelled later in the day, and there was no choice then. She was either late, or she was not going to school.

Alternative school calendars can help maintain students' interest in learning. When periods of classroom learning are followed by regular vacations, interest remains high to the end of that period. This is the balance my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard is speaking of — the balanced schedule. It seems to me that June is a month of track meets and field trips; for secondary students, it's exams. Everyone's ready for summer vacation. The first month is busy. The second month drags a bit, and I'm sure that, as parents, most will agree those last two weeks of summer holidays before school starts again drag on for the kids and their parents.

What does year-round schooling mean? Many think it means that students go to school all year. In most cases, they are in school the same number of days as students on the traditional calendar, but instead of two months of summer holidays, their schedules would include several shorter vacations spaced throughout the school year.

Within our communities, many people question why schools are vacant so much of the time. I am often reminded that they are paid for with our tax dollars. A flexible calendar will allow school building capacity and maximize the use of facilities. It has been documented in some states that it reduces teacher burnout, student stress, drop-out rates and discipline problems; increases student retention and achievement; decreases the amount of school vandalism and break-ins; and allows families to take vacations at times that are more advantageous, avoiding crowds and inflated rates. I believe that my colleague has addressed this issue. It is certainly worth the discussion — single-track schedules or multi-track schedules, year-round schooling versus traditional schooling.

There are advantages, but we must also recognize the challenges. Think of this: elementary schools on a year-round schedule but middle and high schools on traditional schedules within communities and different schedules for parents who have children in both schools. It may not allow flexibility for parents with day care options or for schools with custodial staffing or busing schedules in our heartlands communities.

In recognizing the benefits, the flexibility is there. It's open for discussion. As the member for Vancouver-Burrard stated, changes have been implemented that allow B.C. school districts the freedom to explore and adopt local calendars that meet their communities' needs. I believe the stakeholders are interested and are looking forward to the discussion.

L. Mayencourt: I am grateful to my colleague for sharing her insights on this topic.

Recently I spoke with a mother in Richmond about the year-round calendar. Her daughter Madison attends the Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School in Richmond. That school is currently considering a balanced calendar similar to the one at Kanaka Creek. The parents and teachers at Spul'u'kwuks are excited about the potential to further improve the excellent learning opportunities for children in their district. The school board is consulting with parents, teachers and other school board personnel to take advantage of this improved flexibility. We've given them the ability to make decisions that reflect their students' needs and local priorities. It restores the flexibility that boards need to manage our education system.

Creative and innovative ways of restructuring education at a local level to meet those needs must also

take into account the need to control spending and cost. Cost savings alone cannot determine important decisions such as changes to the school calendar. The question must always be: how will these benefit students and improve learning in our classrooms? What if the Richmond school board were to find cost savings through a modified calendar? What if they used that precious saved resource to support enriched programs for disadvantaged children at Spul'u'kwuks or at other schools in their district? Who can know what an impact that might have on a child and, therefore, what impact that can have on learning outcomes in that district?

There have been many variations on the traditional school calendar tried throughout B.C. since flexibility was enshrined in legislation. As school boards experiment with their options, we'll likely see more districts following suit, and I trust that some very successful and innovative programs will emerge. For now, I wish the staff and parents at Spul'u'kwuks the very best as they work together in the interest of equity, wellness and achievement.

Deputy Speaker: That concludes private member statements. I would like to thank the members for their presentations this morning.

J. MacPhail: This motion stands in my name on the order paper. We bring this forward today. The motion says:

I bring this motion forward today to debate, although the government has decided to introduce its Pharmacare cuts today at 10 a.m. While we will be debating this, I'm sure the government members will stand up and say: "What a ridiculous motion. We've already made the changes." However, it was on the assumption that this government would actually take seriously all of the concerns that seniors and low-income people have raised in this province about cuts to Pharmacare. Yet we see that those concerns have been ignored, and the government today has introduced major cuts to Pharmacare.

I don't expect that the Liberal government will do anything other than call my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me fearmongers. We were called fearmongers when we stood in this House and raised the alarm about what the government's policy on income testing for seniors would mean.

We take our advice directly from the people who are affected by these changes — people like Martin Amiabel, who is joining us today and is with the B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization; people like Jack Nichol, who heads up an organization of hundreds of thousands of retired workers; Art Kube, who is with Seniors on Guard for Medicare; Rudy Lawrence, the president of the Council of Senior Citizens Organization in B.C. They are here joining us today in the gallery listening to this debate. We have taken our advice on this matter directly from them, who have to live every day with the consequences of these proposed changes.

Government documents leaked to the opposition laid out a pretty stark plan to make low- and middle-income seniors pay much more for the medicines they need. Those documents included the knowledge that the government would make 420,000 seniors pay more and only 20,000 pay less, and that 130,000 families would pay more and 160,000 would pay less. We now know that the government has done some work in response to the hard work done by seniors, such as those joining us today, to change the program so that at least on paper, the numbers look less threatening. While I have only had a few moments to examine the announcement today, it is only on paper that the numbers look less threatening. It actually means that not only will seniors pay more for their drugs, but also low-income families will be paying much more for their drugs than they did before.

Here's what it means overall. This is the bottom line of the Pharmacare changes. It amounts to this first and foremost: the government is putting less money into the system — $90 million a year alone less into the system — and more people are having to share in that less money. There's less money for more people, and the government is trying to sell that as somehow benefiting more people. The most important number that everybody has to keep in mind is that this government is taking $90 million out of the pockets of British Columbians for them to pay for the same benefits they had just a year ago.

This government's not doing it by smarter buying practices. They're not doing it as a result of better prescribing practices. They're not doing it by holding the pharmaceutical industry to account. They're not doing any of that. That would mean that they would have to attack their friends. That means they would have to take on those people who donated so generously to the Liberal election. Instead, what they're doing is saying that any increase in drug costs will come directly out of the pockets of British Columbians, but in the meantime we're going to take $90 million more out of your pocket just as we sit here. The government is going to make those $90 million in savings by making seniors, who need their medicines to stay healthy and stay independent, pay more.

People are saying: "Oh, seniors are much better off." Well, first of all, I think it will come as news to British Columbians that unless you were born in 1939 or earlier, you have no hope in heck in this province of ever being called a senior — ever. Unless you're going to turn 65 this year, forget it. Forget it. All of your benefits as a senior, after working hard all your life, are now gone. They've basically said to the seniors: "We're going to make you pay more for your drugs even though you are seniors, but after you guys pass along" — not pass on, but pass along up the age scale — "nobody else is going to have the benefit of a seniors drug program."

This government tries to make it sound like seniors will be better off. There isn't one senior in this province — who is a regular senior, who uses her drugs in a regular fashion — who will be better off. The average single senior makes $25,000 a year. Her drug costs are about $800 per year. She'll be paying more than she did under the previous government. She'll be paying more. Under the previous government that senior had to pay a maximum of $200 per year, and she will be paying more.

It just gets worse. They've resorted to moving to a system of family income so that now the numbers look good — or look better, anyway — for what the threshold is for how much you have to pay — but it's family income. A family with income for seniors of between $33,000 and $50,000 will be paying more for their drugs — a lot more. If you've got a family income over $50,000, you'll be paying a heck of a lot more for your drugs. Tell me of one senior who's better off under this government with Pharmacare. Not one single senior in this province will be paying less for their drugs than they did under the previous NDP government. Every single senior is paying more, and in many cases lots more.

They call it Fair Pharmacare because they say that 100,000 or so more families are going to be covered by the program in a more effective way. That's not true. That is simply not true. What this government has done is say that poor people are going to be paying more for their drugs, not less. Under the old system, under the previous government, if you were a low-income family of $25,000 or less you didn't pay anything for your drugs — none. Now you have to be a low-income family of less than $15,000 for the government to pay your drug costs. If you're a minimum-wage worker working full time in this province, the government has just raised your drug costs. That's what they did.

Under the former government you got your drug costs covered if you were a minimum-wage worker in this province. Now you're paying hundreds of dollars. How is that fair, Mr. Speaker? I can hardly wait for the Liberal backbenchers to get up and explain how poor people in this province are better off. I can hardly wait. They'll stand up, and they'll obfuscate. They'll say: "Oh, we made it fair for everyone." Here's what this government did. They're making huge cuts to Pharmacare and spreading the reduced amount amongst more people. That's what they're doing.

The Quebec experience was carefully detailed in what it means when you raise costs for prescriptions. The Robyn Tamblyn study of income-testing changes looked at changes in coverage in Quebec in the 1990s. In the 1990s the Quebec government significantly changed its prescription drug program. Previously, social assistance recipients and seniors aged 65 and more had to pay only $2 per prescription. Under the new plan in Quebec, those beneficiaries had an income-tested deductible with a minimum of $200 being paid each year.

Here's what happened with just those minor changes. Here's what happened in Quebec. Seniors essential drug use, the essential drug use that keeps them healthy and independent, decreased by 9 percent. Less-essential drug use decreased by 15 percent. What did it mean for the elderly? Hospitalizations were up 35 percent. Physician visits were up 13 percent. Emergency room visits were up by 50 percent.

A recent paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal examined the change to an income-based policy on inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions by Manitoba children. That study showed that the change to income-testing was associated with a decrease in the use of inhaled corticosteroids by higher-income children with severe asthma and did not improve the use of these drugs by low-income children. Those are just two examples.

The medical research is rife with examples of how income-testing, how making people pay more for their medicines, results in worse health care decisions. The medical research is now also becoming significantly clear on the value of programs that governments can implement to contain the rising costs of drugs by holding the industry accountable.

Let's make it clear today that not only is the government taking $90 million out of people's pockets; they're also saying any new innovations that will keep seniors in their homes longer, any new innovations for poor kids whose parents are minimum-wage earners, will all have to come out of that person's own pocket. This government isn't going to put any more money into Pharmacare — not a red cent.

Even those that argue that the increases in drug costs have far exceeded what is legitimate…. There are still some legitimate growth pressures on Pharmacare costs. How about newborn babies? How about people moving to the province? How about increased use with more people coming? No, none of that is funded by this government — none of it.

The $700 million that was paid for Pharmacare last year is now going to be at the level of about $610 million. Any new person has to share amongst that. Any increasingly ill person has to share amongst that. Any new Canadian has to share amongst that. More and more British Columbians are sharing less and less money, so it's not just a $90 million cut. That's just the beginning. It means for any increased pressures, you're going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul. I can hardly wait for a Liberal backbencher to stand up and say this

is great news. Fair Pharmacare — get less coverage and spread it more thinly amongst more people.

Does the government actually try to control those drug costs? No, they're not doing a darn thing. They announced in December that they were going to investigate ways of controlling drug costs. Have we heard a thing from this government about that? Not a thing.

The Liberal-dominated Health committee in their first year said this: "Since B.C. introduced the reference drug plan policy in October 1995, the controversial program has been the centre of much discussion and study." The reference drug program is the program introduced by the previous government that actually controls drug costs. It doesn't take it out of the pockets of seniors, but controls drug costs.

Indeed, since that time several other reports have been brought forward, prompting one of the most respected political commentators in the province to write about the reference drug plan. Vaughn Palmer, December 4, 2002, goes on to say: "The B.C. Liberals cannot have been gratified by the findings of their panel on reference-based drug pricing, the previous government's policy of promoting lower-cost drugs." He's referring to the fact that this government's own panel, looking at the reference drug plan, said: "It's a good thing; keep it going."

"B.C. has gone further than most jurisdictions with reference-based pricing and has figured prominently in several academic studies."

He then goes on to quote not only the panel report but the Harvard report, and then he goes back to say:

What has the government done since that time? Absolutely nothing, except to attack seniors and low-income families. They'll have to pay more out of their pockets for their drugs — seniors, a lot more. Low-income families: if you earn between $15,000 and $25,000 as a family income now, you'll be paying a heck of a lot more for your drugs. In fact, you'll have to start paying for your drugs, which you didn't have to

before. Wow. And that's fair. Isn't that fair? If you're middle income — if you're between $30,000 and $50,000; family income, let's not forget — you'll be paying more for your drugs as well. But oh no, this government takes the easy route.

Last week I had to laugh about how everybody lapped up: "This government is staying the course, on track." Staying the course? What, from a week ago, when they raised gas taxes? In one week they could claim to stay the course? And yet everybody, all the business community, gave them: "Oh, isn't this great, they're staying the course."

The only way they're staying the course is to take more money out of the pockets of the people who can least afford it, and today is another example of that. Ninety million dollars more they're taking out of the pockets of British Columbians who can least afford it from a health point of view and a financial point of view.

The government hasn't given one inch to the pharmaceutical companies, hasn't backed away one inch from their support for the pharmaceutical companies.

J. MacPhail: Hasn't backed away one inch. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry for misspeaking myself. It hasn't backed away one inch from their solid, undying, unrelenting support for the pharmaceutical industry. They've gone back to the back rooms one more time to consult with those who brought them here, with those who brung 'em to the dance — the pharmaceutical companies; those who gave them over $100,000 to get elected — the pharmaceutical companies.

They haven't given one hint that they're going to do anything to get drug costs under control, and there's a good reason for that. It's easier to take $90 million out of the pockets of British Columbians than it is to say to the pharmaceutical companies: "Gee, will you still give us those big, fat financial donations in 2005 if we ask you to keep your drug costs just to a little bit less?" The pharmaceutical companies have already said in the back rooms: "No, we won't. Don't you dare do anything to prevent us from making our big profits. Get the money from the seniors. Get the money from minimum-wage workers. Get the money from middle-income families. Make them pay more. Don't take it out of our profits. Don't you demand anything of us, Liberals. We're the ones that brung you to this dance."

It will be those interests that will be able to defer any government action that might impact upon their bottom line, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest that controlling drug costs and allowing British Columbians access to the best prescription drug treatment is the best way to protect taxpayers.

The best scientific evidence says: allow British Columbians the proper prescription drugs. Make sure they're not being overprescribed. Make sure you buy in bulk. Make sure you use generic. Make sure you have a reference drug program. Your health care costs will actually go down, because people will be able to stay in their homes. They'll be able to live independently. They won't be hospitalized. They won't be showing up in the emergency room because of lack of prescription drug treatment. That's the most cost-effective use of health care dollars. No, that doesn't help pharmaceuticals. That doesn't allow pharmaceuticals to make their big profits and continue those donations to the Liberal Party.

Just the same way as in fish farming, let's set the best scientific evidence aside — cover our ears, cover our eyes, cover our mouths and deny scientific evidence about the harmful effects of fish farming on wild salmon stock. We're doing that now. Let's ignore the best scientific evidence around how to run a prescription drug program. Let's just cut, cut, cut. Let's make seniors pay more. Let's deny.

This will be the first government to wipe out seniors, actually. This will be the first government to declare that if you're born after 1939, you're no longer a senior. Boy, who knew they'd be able to use their overwhelming majority to do that? They've done it, and they've done it all in the name of supporting the pharmaceutical industry. What a sad day for low-income families. What a sad day for seniors.

Any Liberal MLA who stands up here and tries to explain that this Pharmacare program is better for British Columbians, answer this question: how is taking $90 million and cutting it out of the Pharmacare program making people better off? How is saying that any new person arriving in British Columbia — whether it be a newborn baby who needs drugs, an immigrant arriving here or a senior moving from Saskatchewan — has to share in exactly the same dwindling pot as if they had not come to British Columbia…? If 20,000 people arrive in British Columbia this year, they will have to share amongst the same $600 million as if they had not arrived. Why would anyone want to come to British Columbia?

S. Brice: It's quite astounding, actually, to hear some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, I suspect that Hansard must find themselves mystified to be absolutely certain that the attributable comments are being made to the appropriate member.

Certainly, in this House we have listened ad nauseam, quite frankly, about how rich supporters of the B.C. Liberals have been paid off for all and any number of programs. Here is a program that is designed to give the most support to those British Columbians who need the most support and to ask those British Columbians who, by dint of either good fortune or hard work, have a bit more to pay a bit more. Hark — is that Tommy Douglas that we hear rolling over in his grave? He could not possibly support a position taken by a

provincial leader of an NDP party that would see more support going to those who need it more.

This is a fair and compassionate program that was announced this morning by the Minister of Health Services. You know, I was almost heartened in some respects by the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, because I knew that when she started throwing in fish farms and everything else but the kitchen sink, she really had precious little to complain about with this program that was announced today.

When you go back and look at what's happened, where we are today with Pharmacare isn't new. It's been growing. So I look back into the archives of 1993. I go back ten years, and I see at the time the government was already expressing concerns about the viability of Pharmacare. It was not sustainable. To quote the NDP Minister of Health of 1993: "Really, we're looking at means-testing not just for Pharmacare but with other medical coverage. We should be looking at helping people who need it most."

S. Brice: Means testing — a direct quote by the Minister of Health in 1993. What happened in 1993 in response to the Minister of Health's proclamation? A Pharmacare panel was struck headed by Dr. Howard Petch, the former president at the University of Victoria, a well-esteemed individual. They went around and met with folks, knowledgable people throughout British Columbia. The Petch report provided the NDP with some solid recommendations for making the Pharmacare program more fair — fair, a word we've heard a lot this morning. The report recommended basing the program on ability to pay with contributions rising or sliding on a scale according to income. They recommended a system which the panel felt would ensure full access to the system for the working poor while wealthy seniors would pay their fair share of the cost of prescriptions.

There's like an echo in here. It's a ten-year-old echo. We hear this coming back. This was a good recommendation ten years not acted on, and I think it was probably not acted on because the government of the day knew that when you start changing these things, it does cause angst, and it is easier to sidestep it. The NDP ignored the panel's recommendations and the recommendations of the B.C. Pharmacy Association of the day. The resulting decisions, however, that the NDP made…. I only put these out to show that anytime you're talking about something as precious to people as health care and Pharmacare, it is very critical that you don't start throwing grenades into a very incendiary situation. At the time the NDP came out with their own program, ignoring the Petch report, anti-poverty activists said it would penalize the poor. The Council of Senior Citizens of B.C. organizations said the NDP plan was a cruel, heartless attack on seniors.

Now, I don't suspect it was cruel, and I don't suspect it was heartless. I suspect it was an attempt by the government of the day to try to work with an ever-growing Pharmacare budget and to try and make some changes. But I think it is very disingenuous of the Leader of the Opposition to have filled this chamber over the weeks and months leading up to this, commenting on the fact that we're going to be cutting people off, cutting seniors off. I notice now we didn't hear the word "cutting" seniors off. We heard: "Getting more money from seniors, getting more money from the poor." Obviously, even in the last hour, the Leader of the Opposition has had to change her own rhetoric.

So what does this Fair Pharmacare program provide? Well, it is a good program. It is based on fairness, and it is based on the best interests of all British Columbians. It is fair, it is sustainable, and it is equitable.

This plan will offer financial assistance to those who need it most and ask those who have a bit more to pay a bit more. It will cover everyone. This idea that we're going to sort of wipe out the definition of seniors — totally and utterly preposterous but, once again, hyperbole, hoping that if you throw enough out there, enough people will get frightened, and it will take a lot of work by those with the information to put that disinformation to rest…. Even with all of the changes and even the people in the highest bracket, when they come up to their deductible…. Nobody, even at the highest level under the full universal plan, will pay more than 4 percent of their income. That is not wiping people off Pharmacare. That is not eliminating the category of senior.

Fact: 84 percent of all B.C. families will pay the same or less for their prescriptions. That is a fact.

Fact: lower-income young families will be supported with their drug costs. [Applause.] Yeah, I say. There are people in our province, young families with children, who have needs, and they have not been getting the support they need. They need some assistance. They're at the breaking point. They have ongoing medical costs. We as a government say, you know, that the pot is not totally limitless. We have to control the costs as best we can, but we will try to direct some more towards you so that you can help your family make it through what are already very challenging times if you have a child with high medical costs.

The Leader of the Opposition…. It was easy when she was dealing with the leaked documents, because of course, leaked documents can't be verified. Leaked documents can be produced anywhere, so of course, in those days when she was dealing with leaked documents, it was easy to throw out any kind of information and just hope that some of it might stick.

In actual fact, this program is an elegant way of moving to a universal program but acknowledging that those who are currently seniors or about to become seniors will not have had a chance to plan this into

Fact: Fair Pharmacare will be evaluated by the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at UBC to monitor the impact, because it is very important that when we put these programs in, we do hope that they do not have unintended consequences.

The Minister of Health Services has listened, has taken a very, very challenging topic, has discussed this with seniors organizations and has brought forward a Fair Pharmacare plan. I know that all reasonable British Columbians, when they look at it, will say that it is a reasonable and good plan, it is sustainable, and it is fair.

P. Bell: I must say, I'm confused. I'm confused for a number of reasons, but I have to tell you, I'm really confused. Normally, what I hear from the members of the opposition is: "Tax the rich. The rich can pay, so tax the rich." Certainly, we saw that continuously through the 1990s. In fact, I took the opportunity to read the biography of one of the Premiers through the 1990s, and he was quite proud of the fact that he was able to tax the rich.

Now, what confuses me here is that, in fact, that's what we're doing. We're creating an income-based model here that will actually put the burden on those individuals who are most capable of paying for their higher drug costs, so I'm confused that the members of the opposition would not support this. I thought they would embrace this change, because it truly does something that they find quite equitable. Conceptually, the idea of someone who is a very high-income senior being capable of paying perhaps more than someone that's a low-income senior….

But I want to ask a question: where were these members through the 1990s? It's unclear to me that they would come forward on a proposition such as the one that's been put forward today when, in 1992, they increased the deductible for Pharmacare in British Columbia. In 1993 they increased it again. In 1994 they were on a roll, so they decided to increase it again and then again in 1996.

What did we see through the 1990s? We saw continual increases and cranking up of Pharmacare. Not only did they do that, but they hit the people who could least afford to pay it the most. It was the low-income individuals who ended up having to pay that extra money, so I'm confused. I'm really confused. I don't understand why it is that these members would not support a significant change like this, which truly has dramatic ramifications and very positive ones.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings said that…. I believe the words were something to the effect that not a single person will pay less under this plan than under the old plan.

P. Bell: In fairness to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I'm prepared to accept that she wasn't prepared to come in and discuss this today. It was an announcement that was made at 10 o'clock this morning by this government, and I accept that probably she hasn't had the opportunity to read the documents. I know she's very busy.

There's just two of them left here in the House as a result of the last election. I'm not sure why that occurred. Perhaps it was because of some of the changes they made through the 1990s that were not embraced by the public as a whole.

I think, really, the member needs to go back and review the documentation. Perhaps it would be opportune for them to request a briefing from the Minister of Health Services so that they clearly understand what's going on. Certainly for me, it is very scary that they would make statements in this House that are inaccurate, that are not represented appropriately….

P. Bell: The member, I believe, has stated there is no one that is better off. I would like to use perhaps a couple of examples, if I may. A good example of this would be a single mother who makes, say, $28,000 per year, with an eight-year-old daughter who has significant challenges with her health — perhaps asthma, perhaps diabetes, something of that nature. Under the old Pharmacare system, that individual would pay $1,300 per year prior to the deductibles kicking in and reaching the maximum threshold. Under the new Fair Pharmacare, that same individual will pay $825 a year. That is a savings of $475.

J. MacPhail: No, you're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. A diabetic pays way more.

P. Bell: I'm not sure that the member for Vancouver-Hastings sees this as being unfair. I mean, to me, I think this certainly is someone that the member for Vancouver-Hastings professes to be representing. As I understand it, this member would profess to represent someone of that nature.

Let's look at another example. Let's talk about a couple who have worked hard all their lives, and they've saved. They've done their best, but they aren't big income earners — an older couple with perhaps a combined income of $23,000 per year. Both of them are under the age of 65, so they haven't kicked into the lower rates yet, which I believe the previous government considered to be acceptable. Certainly, they left it that way for a long period of time. Well, they increased the deductibles, but aside from that, they left it that way.

Again, we have a family that has higher-than-normal drug costs, something perhaps in the neighbourhood of $2,000 per year. Under the old Pharmacare system, that family would have paid $800

per year in deductibles. Under the new Fair Pharmacare system, they're down to $675. That's a savings of $125. And I should say, Mr. Speaker, these are real examples. These are examples that we actually went out, collected the data on and verified that this is factual. All of these examples can be substantiated.

I have another one I'd like to move on to — another couple — and this could be representative of some of my constituents. I represent a large rural community. There are lots of folks in small farming communities and lower-income people. In this case, we're talking about a couple that just work seasonally — perhaps in the forest industry, perhaps doing some spacing or tree-planting. Perhaps they have a small farm, and they have an income of, let's say, $17,000 per year. We'll use that as an example. Under the old Pharmacare system, that family would have paid $800 in their initial deductibles. Under the new Fair Pharmacare system, now they're down to $525. It's a substantial difference.

There are people who will pay more. We admit to that. We actually admit to the fact that there are people who will pay more under this system. Let's use this one as an example. We'll talk about a retired professional couple, a couple who have had very good years financially. They've done very well, they're retiring on a large income, and they're able to enjoy that substantial income. Let's use as an example $56,000 per year.

The member, again, likes to comment that we should tax the rich. I know that comment comes out a lot, although I have difficulty with that, but I understand that's their perspective. Under the old Pharmacare system, that couple would have paid $550 per year. Under the new Pharmacare system, they now pay $1,650. So the members are right. There are a few people who will pay more, but there are many, many people who will pay much less. I think that's significant.

We have looked at who truly needs the help in the system, and we've responded to that. I'm extremely proud of the Minister of Health Services. He has worked endless hours to put together a plan that is affordable. It's efficient, and it responds to the needs of the key people out there in society who need the help. As the member from Saanich commented earlier, there are 280,000 low-income families who are going to pay substantially less for their drugs now than they were before.

For the first time, if you're a low-income family, you'll be treated equitably. You'll be treated as seniors would like to be treated. What is the difference between a young family, someone who has big drug expenses, and Jimmy Pattison? I know times are tight, and I think Overwaitea is doing okay as far as I know; I haven't looked lately. I think he can probably afford to pay a little bit more. That's a classic example of an individual who would be prepared, who is happy, to pay more. He understands the dynamics of our society and where we have to go and the changes we have to make. I'm really pleased.

I must say, I'm confused. I know the member would agree and probably accepts the fact that I'm confused. I really am confused that conceptually…. While they would normally comment that we should tax the rich…. We've created a system here where high-income earners are going to pay more for drugs, but low-income earners will in fact benefit in a big, big way.

I think there are big opportunities under this program, and I think there are challenges. As the member stated earlier, we need to move forward, and we need to find many other ways of controlling drug costs. I have a good friend in Prince George who has rheumatoid arthritis and is one of the benefactors of the new drug Remicade. His life has changed dynamically. As a society, we feel compelled to provide drugs like that to individuals who can benefit from them. I tell you, he's a classic example of someone who would not have qualified for help under the old system, but under the new system he will in fact receive the help he so desperately needs. He's a retired teacher and has worked his way along, but under the old system he would have had to invest substantial dollars into the Pharmacare system.

Under the new system…. I might remind this House, as well, that this government is the government that approved Remicade for distribution in the province. I believe — although the minister is not here today, I'm sure he will be able to ensure that this comment is accurate — that we were either the second or third province in Canada to approve Remicade as a drug we would fund under Pharmacare.

I think this government has been incredibly compassionate and has demonstrated the need to come forward with a fair system. I think if the member would take the time to receive the appropriate briefing on the changes we have made here today…. Again, I accept that the member has not had the opportunity to receive that briefing. Once the member has had the chance to go away, receive the appropriate documentation and understand the dynamics of this program, I am very confident that the member is going to come forward and acquiesce in this House, understand that she's made a severe error and support the system.

J. Kwan: Much of what I have to say has already been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I do want to raise some issues here, which the government bench members failed to acknowledge, with the announcement that was provided by the Minister of Health Services today.

The fact of the matter is this: this government now has changed the definition of who is poor and who is rich. I guess under this new category, people who earn somewhere between $15,000 and $30,000 are deemed to be rich. Quite incidentally — I want to give one example — previously under the Pharmacare system, if you earned somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000, you did not have to pay on a percentage basis for Pharmacare coverage. Under this so-called fair plan you do, because this government then deems that you are somehow rich.

Let me just give you an example of somebody. Let's say $16,000 is the annual income — not just for one

individual but for a couple, because now the calculation is on the basis of a family unit. Actually, under this scenario you're better off if you're alone. But no, what the government has done is that if your family unit income is somewhere between $15,000 and $30,000, you have to pay on a percentage basis — 3 percent. If you made $16,000 a year, you would have to pay 3 percent of your income into Pharmacare. How much does that come to approximately? It's about $480. What it was under the NDP was $200. Then the government increased Pharmacare coverage to $275. The deductible is now at $480, and somehow that is better.

Incidentally, $16,000 is about the amount a person makes when they're on minimum wage. I read in the paper today that $16,000 is the bonus the Deputy Minister of Human Resources gets for cutting people on income assistance, whether or not that person needs income assistance. She had a quota to meet, and she met that quota, and now she gets $16,000 as a bonus for cutting income assistance recipients. That money is deemed to be rich for someone's annual income and a family unit's annual income, so those people would have to be charged for MSP coverage.

This is how the government defines good news. It is stunning how they define good news. Then the members from the government side go on to say how wonderful this is. They go on to say: "Look, if you have someone who's really, really sick, don't worry. Your MSP coverage will be better."

You know what? My father, just to use an example, is a diabetic. He takes pills. He has to use the strips to test his urine to see whether or not the sugar level is above or at normal rate, or wherever it is at. He has to pay for that now.

J. Kwan: That was cut by this Liberal government. He did not have to pay for that before. He now has to pay for that strip.

The medication costs have gone up, and people who are in those situations are actually worse off. You know what? Luckily, of course, from the point of view that my family are a family unit, because both my mom and dad are still with us, and they have a family unit income…. Now, I haven't actually worked out exactly where their income is at, but if it's somewhere over $15,000 to $30,000, they would actually have to pay more than before. I'll bet you that their income is probably just above the threshold, because that's what it was for the MSP coverage. As a family unit their MSP coverage just went above the eligibility for MSP premiums, so they no longer were qualified for MSP premiums. They have to pay over $1,000 a year for MSP.

Not that they're rich. Both my mom and dad worked minimum-wage jobs for the most part while raising us, and that's their income. They have a regular pension and all of those things, but not a super pension or a superior pension. In fact, they don't have any pension other than the standard CPP pension coverage. That was deemed to be over the MSP coverage for them to be eligible for premium assistance.

I wonder. I'll go and look and see whether or not their drug costs will also go up as a result of this. But you know what? It's not about my family. I want to be very clear: it's about many people who are my constituents, actually, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. We are very low-income people. Some of them are on income assistance. Many of them are on low-income working wages, making minimum wage, likely making the $16,000 a year — into the threshold in which they now have to pay 3 percent of their total income towards MSP.

I would like to challenge any MLA from the government side who would rise up and say that that is actually good news for these people. This is in the context of a whole range of other increases in costs — tax increases, if you want to call them that, whether it be the pending Hydro rate increase, whether it be gas tax increases. Actually, the PST has already gone up. There's a range of tax increases that they already have to take on. Services have been reduced, services which would have little or no access because government cut those services. That is the reality of what is happening.

The government can sit here safely in this chamber and redefine who is rich and who is not. The reality outside of this chamber does not change. People are still struggling every single day to make ends meet. People who make $16,000 on minimum wage are not rich. When the government can afford to give the Deputy Minister of Human Resources a $16,000 bonus for cutting people on welfare and then say that they cannot afford to give Pharmacare free to people who make $16,000, that is a shame.

For the member who rose up and invoked Tommy Douglas's name to say: "Hurray, this is fantastic. We're now going to charge people making minimum wage more money for MSP…." Somehow, he would be delighted that this is happening. Somehow, people who make $15,000 to $25,000 now having to pay a percentage of their income towards Pharmacare is good news. I doubt very much that Tommy Douglas would be cheering on. I doubt it very much.

If you go out there and talk to people in my community, and the people who do make that minimum wage will say that somehow this is good news for them…. Quite frankly, it isn't good news. Quite frankly, they're not the rich. Quite frankly, they're not the ones who will be out there getting a $16,000 bonus from their jobs. They're only making minimum wage, trying to make ends meet to pay for increasing costs that this government has foisted on them — cuts in services which they no longer have access to because the Liberals have failed to deliver on their promise.

R. Nijjar: I'm going to make this kind of short and to the point. We know that many of the numbers that were said outside of this House and by my colleagues — for example, the 280,000 low-income families and seniors that will pay less….

I want to step back and outside the announcement today and just look at exactly what's happening here. For years British Columbians have known that changes to Pharmacare must take place. For years they've known that not only was it unsustainable but that for years it was unfair. It's not that this government came into power and realized that now. The former government knew that, and the government before that knew that. That's not the issue. The issue is who has the guts to actually make the changes that are necessary when we know that the changes are difficult.

Now, we have an opposition who, of course, are doing their job. Their job is to give an alternate view. They're doing their job. But a part of that job, under their philosophy and the NDP philosophy, is that the way you oppose is by divide and conquer. It's by creating fear and dividing and conquering. That is the socialist way.

My colleague from West Vancouver gave similarities between the CCPA and the CCCP the other day. Well, there's another similarity. The similarity is: how do you give information, and how do you move your social justice agenda? The way that is done is to say: "You out there are going to lose. You're in fear of your life. You should be in fear of your life." You divide and conquer.

What have they done here? They're telling seniors that their life is going to fall apart. Well, what's happening is that the lowest-income people in British Columbia are going to pay less. Where is that threshold…? Based on that threshold and based on the ability of British Columbians to pay…. As our ability to pay increases, as the economy increases, your threshold may change. It has to be based on the ability to pay. It's as simple as that — for the very sake and the integrity of the Pharmacare system itself.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.