Hansard -- Tuesday, February 25, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 11, No. 14 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tabling Documents		5011
	Auditor general's report on Bill 9, 2003, Auditor General Act

Second Reading of Bills		5011
	Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 10) Hon. R. Neufeld P. Nettleton J. MacPhail P. Bell R. Hawes

Tabling Documents		5022
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Budget Debate (continued)		5023
	Hon. S. Santori

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's report on Bill 9, 2003, the Auditor General Act.

Bill 10 amends six ministry acts: the Coal Act, the Hydro and Power Authority Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Mines Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and the Utilities Commission Act. With this bill we aim to improve client service by cutting red tape and streamlining regulation.

The changes we have introduced encourage greater investment in the mining, oil and gas industries and energy sector, and reduce the cost of government. By encouraging investment and fostering private sector growth, we will increase revenues that help support government's priorities like health care and education.

The proposed amendments to the Coal Act streamline regulatory requirements. The chief coal commissioner, instead of the minister, will now have authority for regulations to establish and rescind coal reserves. A redundant requirement to publish in the Gazette the creation and cancellation of coal reserves is eliminated to avoid duplication. The requirement already exists as a part of the Regulations Act.

The goal of the amendments to the Hydro and Power Authority Act is to obtain cost efficiencies and better service for B.C. Hydro customers. The definition of what constitutes support services for the purposes of outsourcing is clarified. By outsourcing administrative functions such as customer service, B.C. Hydro will be better focused on its core business: generating, transmitting and distributing electricity. It is these activities that generate revenues and benefits for all British Columbians. The changes support the province's new energy plan announced November 25, 2002, Energy for our Future: A Plan for B.C. Policy action No. 4 of the energy plan commits B.C. Hydro to seek outsourcing opportunities for the delivery of services where costs can be reduced for electricity consumers and quality service maintained.

Amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act are also aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on industry and at making the rules and processes clearer and more effective. The chief gold commissioner, rather than the minister, is assigned authority to establish and rescind no-staking reserves. This change will eliminate unnecessary steps in the authorization process. One subsection is being repealed to eliminate an unintended requirement for Environmental Assessment Office review of small projects that would otherwise be exempted by the reviewable projects regulation.

The Mines Act is amended to remove unnecessary regulatory requirements and cut red tape for people and businesses involved in mineral exploration and development. These changes prevent duplication of permitting processes where another authority is better positioned to regulate. The amendments make possible increased protection of the environment through enhanced compliance and enforcement authority. Strengthening wording in the act provides the ministry with the legal authority to obtain injunctions against operators who operate a mine without a permit. Providing the chief inspector with the ability to exempt an area from mine designation on a site-specific basis will better serve the needs of the public and industry by eliminating unnecessary requirements. Mines will no longer be required to maintain an employment register. This information has not been utilized for ten years, and no other industry maintains similar registers. The repeal of this regulation lessens the burden on mine managers so that they are free to get on with their business.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act is amended to facilitate streamlined administrative processes, to clarify some provisions and to eliminate unnecessary provisions. The changes will provide industry with the increased safety and flexibility necessary to develop these resources while maintaining the government's commitment to high environmental and health and safety standards. The creation of a new water source well class will facilitate regulations and processes more suitable for these types of wells.

The director of petroleum lands is granted the authority to designate geological zones for tenure administration purposes. An unnecessary provision is repealed, which pertains to the former British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. The corporation is now dissolved, and all outstanding contracts have been dealt with.

Clarity is established with regard to the issuance of a certificate of restoration for a properly abandoned, reclaimed well, test hole or facility. The issuance of a certificate is not to be based on information available at the time of issuance. The owner's obligation to properly abandon the well, test hole or production facility continues despite the issuance of a certificate, if new information becomes available to indicate the abandonment was not done in accordance with the regulation.

Administration of regulations governing water source well-drilling, operation and abandonment will

no longer take place through provisions for petroleum and natural gas wells. The Oil and Gas Commission is enabled to specify by regulation that sections of the act that currently do not apply to water wells can be made applicable.

The act has been amended to delete an antiquated provision believed to date from the national energy program era. The national energy program no longer exists, and petroleum prices and production are market-driven.

The Utilities Commission Act amendment clarifies that companies providing support services are not public utilities for the purposes of the Utilities Commission Act. The commission's role will be to regulate B.C. Hydro, including costs associated with support service agreements, not the entities providing support services.

These changes have nothing to do with privatizing. B.C. Hydro is not for sale. Its core assets — the dams, reservoirs, generating stations and transmission and distribution systems — will remain in public hands. This is a key new-era commitment.

The changes also have nothing to do with deregulating B.C. Hydro. The changes simply clarify the act so that B.C. Hydro can achieve cost savings and other efficiencies for ratepayers by entering joint ventures for non-core support services.

The various amendments going forward today under this ministry bill will help benefit British Columbia's mining, oil and gas industries and energy sector by reducing red tape and creating a better investment climate. These changes are part of our commitment to remove barriers that stand in the way of economic development and investment. By encouraging investment and fostering private sector growth, we will increase revenues that help support government's priorities like health care and education. Several changes also support the province's new energy plan announced November 25.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for a chance to respond in second reading to the introduction of Bill 10.

What we are witnessing today is the initial privatization of vital public services. Let's call a spade a spade. I say it's time for this government to come clean with the people of British Columbia. What's at stake here? A lot.

The provincial government stepped in and bought B.C. Electric way back in 1961. About a year after that, the government merged B.C. Electric with the Power Commission and created B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro is one of Canada's largest electric utilities, serving about 95 percent of our province's population. It keeps the lights on in our homes, it keeps industry running, and it maintains and attracts jobs throughout the province. It contributes a great deal when it comes to provincial revenues that support other programs like health and education — between $700 million and $800 million each year since 1998 when it comes to taxes, water rental and dividends.

Beyond the numbers, though, B.C. Hydro is also a symbol of British Columbia, coming about, as it did, in a period of the greatest economic expansion and growth ever witnessed in British Columbia. This essential Crown corporation is about so much more than megawatts and gigawatts — so much more. That's because B.C. Hydro belongs — or it did — to British Columbians. It's a symbol that makes us part of what we are in a meaningful way.

Bill 10 and the energy report would turn its back on this history and this importance in the cause of the passing fad of electricity deregulation. In just a few short paragraphs in this legislation, conveniently buried among changes to a bunch of other statutes, we have the putting in place of a new paradigm when it comes to power in British Columbia — legislative confirmation beyond a shadow of a doubt, and beyond the somnambulistic denials by government members, that B.C. Hydro will not remain B.C. Hydro, the utility we have known and are proud of. It will be out of our hands. The many benefits and the certainty that it brings will vanish.

To British Columbians who are deeply concerned about this, let me give the inside story on what we've been hearing from the government members. Like testing for echo in a tunnel, like a broken record, you will hear from the government members that B.C. Hydro is not being sold. Not true. Like such repetitive sayings, the meaning behind what's been said has, in fact, not been fully explored or thought about in any significant depth, which is so required here.

Let's examine this mantra in terms of Bill 10 — that B.C. Hydro will not be sold. Wait a minute. There's a proviso — that the so-called core assets of B.C. Hydro will remain in public hands. I move an amendment to that mantra so that it now reads: "B.C. Hydro will not be sold piecemeal or as a whole."

Let's look further. Are we really supposed to believe this unique redefinition of core asset? What, in B.C. government–speak, is a core asset? The government would have us believe that core asset is limited to the generation, transmission and distribution functions of B.C. Hydro. Not so.

However, as Paul Harvey would say: "And now for the rest of the story." The government appears to be playing fast and loose with just what constitutes a core asset of B.C. Hydro. To my mind, each part of B.C. Hydro is a core asset for British Columbians. This includes customer services, human resources, information technology services, financial systems, purchasing and disbursement functions, and so on. All these are key to making B.C. Hydro what it is today. After all, you can't sell off all the players on the Vancouver Canucks, just keep GM Place and still expect to win the Stanley Cup. You can't privatize parts of B.C. Hydro and say that you're not privatizing all of it, no matter how many times you repeat it. Let's be clear: the government has yet to call a spade a spade and tell it like it is when it comes to these energy changes.

It's a tip-of-the-iceberg kind of thing. There's a lot going on underneath the surface that has yet to be revealed. Peering beneath the government's redefinition of core assets is very revealing as being the first step to the wholesale privatization of B.C. Hydro. That's because as go the core assets, so are all the assets endangered. Once the first dominos fall and the privatization processes begin, there is no stopping them until the last domino falls in this utility.

Here's how Bill 10 stickhandles around this one. It talks only about what the government claims may be deemed support services for the purposes of outsourcing. These support services, such as those related to billing and collecting fees, are what the government is calling non-core services. What are identified as core services according to the government? These are identified as B.C. Hydro's production, generation and storage and B.C. Hydro's transmission and delivery of electricity.

What Bill 10 doesn't tell us is what these core assets will look like when they're all torn apart. The government, fearing the immediate and legitimate public outcry, doesn't have the guts to tell us how this is all going to play out in the real world. They keep us guessing, because they really don't know themselves. You operate on the vital organs. You disconnect one part from another in order to create a hybrid Frankenstein that you secretly hope will lurch on to become independent. Just don't tell the people your true intentions.

This isn't a friendly game of charades. This is, as the Premier writes in the energy report, something that's key to our future. This is our energy policy for British Columbia. British Columbians don't have time to play 20 guesses when it comes to their futures. They don't have time for such party games. As I wrote back in November, make no mistake: taking control of transmission from B.C. Hydro is the key move — the death knell of B.C. Hydro as we know it. Public control and participation will be gone. In all jurisdictions in which public utilities have been privatized, this has been one of the first steps.

The isolation of the transmission system is that all-important first little baby step to privatization that grows into unstoppable leaps and bounds. B.C. Hydro is presently much like a self-contained organism, with certain required parts that are necessary to keep it functioning as it does. It's an integrated whole incorporating generation, transmission and distribution functions. This helps B.C. Hydro capitalize on the efficiencies of the integration of those functions.

In short, B.C. Hydro, as a self-contained, complete organism, has a competitive advantage. The old adage fits: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Creating some kind of genetically modified version of B.C. Hydro unnecessarily tampers with B.C. Hydro's competitive advantage. This paves the way and sets in motion an unstoppable mudslide of events that has only one conclusion: the wholesale privatization of B.C. Hydro.

Let me go into this. You break apart the transmission function from B.C. Hydro to give access to that transmission to private power producers. Private power producers do not currently have transmission rights. This means they can't really interfere with B.C. Hydro's present ability to operate in an efficient, integrated manner. They can't really interfere with the important public objectives of B.C. Hydro either. You separate the transmission, and then you give private producers equal call on the transmission grid. And B.C. Hydro's competitive advantage? Two sheets to the wind, Mr. Premier — gone.

B.C. Hydro will no longer be able to guarantee power delivery as and when required or at a cost consistently less than its competitors. Once B.C. Hydro is a less universal utility to the people of British Columbia, the reasons for maintaining a public utility of any kind begin to fade away. The dimmer switch for B.C. Hydro is gradually faded from bright to black. That's not Power Smart; that's power dumb.

Private power producers already have access to the transmission grid, so there's no need to do this breaking up. Then the government says it wants to use its energy policy to kick-start industry, to create all those jobs it keeps promising. Every industry in British Columbia and virtually every job and every person needs affordable access to electricity. The certainty of this access at reasonable cost will be lost. The energy sector alone employed 35,000 people in 2001 and generated $2.4 billion in provincial revenues. That's money for health. That's money for education. That's money built in, which we would see kissed goodbye, and that's a setup that British Columbians will have no say in. They will not be asked for comment, since Bill 10 squirrels off the providers of the support services beyond government oversight.

This is not what we want to see — power regulation sunk in the Accenture waters of the Bermuda Triangle, trading public accountability for Enron accounting. Not a good deal, folks. This packs a lot of wallop in a little bill. It's the kind of legislation we could describe as: don't be so much afraid of what's in there but of what's not in there. That's what delivers the Mike Tyson punch to British Columbians.

As an absolute minimum, I have to demand this government put all their cards on the table now. Let's hear the rest of the story. Let's see a government that comes clean with the people of this province it purports to be looking out for. Let's see a transparent energy policy that doesn't lurk in the shadows. Let's see what we're really dealing with when it comes to breaking up B.C. Hydro, privatizing B.C. Hydro, because then we can fully assess the end results and the true costs for British Columbians.

The people of B.C. deserve to know what's at stake. British Columbians need to have their say. Let the dialogue begin. It's happening already throughout the province. The government has just not been listening. That is why I'm standing here today. Without exaggeration, British Columbians have literally sent me thousands of communications that I have received on this issue. Give British Columbians the opportunity to

truly deliver their views to this government before this energy policy is enacted.

If you deliver the lumps, the government should be prepared to take them as well. It's time for reflection from a government that claims to be in a consultative mode. I call upon this government to demonstrate the leadership, to have the courage and the intestinal fortitude as government to simply back off for a while and restudy the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Debate continues on second reading of Bill 10 with the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: I noted with interest the comments from the member for Prince George–Omineca. He carries with him a weight beyond just the rest of us on this matter, because he has literally put his career on the line over this issue of the privatization of B.C. Hydro. I expect that while many in the chamber had their heads down, they were listening very carefully. As he was correct — as he resigned from the Liberal caucus — in his predictions, I'm sure his words today will be determined to be prescient as well.

I'd like to carry on from where the member for Prince George–Omineca left off, which was to give a detailed, thoughtful and, I think, understated prediction of where B.C. Hydro is about to go in the privatization route. I want to talk about the intent behind this and the sneakiness of this government in so doing. It is unbelievable how this minister, the Minister of Energy and Mines, could have stood up yesterday and said…. But I'm sure the spin doctors in Martyn Brown's little group told him to do this — to say these are housekeeping changes, minor changes.

I'm sure he was told deliberately to understate his second reading comments, as he did today, as if he were almost bored with what he was saying, it was so routine. The fact of the matter is that this is legislation that will change forever the way B.C. Hydro operates, and the relationship between B.C. Hydro and the shareholders. It will change forever the B.C. Utilities Commission — forever. Would you know it by anything that the government told you? No — just the same way that yesterday people on Pharmacare couldn't figure out a darn from the government's own spin about how much more they were going to pay for Pharmacare. The news release, the comments from the Minister of Energy and Mines, didn't tell you at all what was going to happen.

Normally, one would turn to the legislation. Here's the explanatory note from this government on what they're doing. This government has given new meaning to explanatory notes. Unlike any other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, where explanatory notes are supposed to be neutral and informative, this government uses them to further its spin.

Here's what the explanatory note says about the radical changes to B.C. Utilities Commission and the carving out forever of one-third of B.C. Hydro from being covered by the B.C. Utilities Commission regulation. This section allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate certain agreements into which British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has entered or may enter and sets out the results of that designation. That's what the explanatory note is about this government privatizing a third of B.C. Hydro and removing that third of B.C. Hydro from B.C. Utilities regulation.

We can't rely on the new explanatory notes — the new spin in the legislation. We can't rely on the news releases from the minister responsible. We can't rely on his comments here in the Legislature. Let's just see exactly what it is they are doing and how they're breaking their promises on this matter.

Here's what the energy plan tabled by this very same minister, the Minister of Energy and Mines, said about the B.C. Utilities Commission in Energy for Our Future: A Plan for B.C. "The B.C. Utilities Commission will be strengthened and will fulfil its mandate to protect the public interest by reviewing and approving energy rates, reliability standards and other conditions of service." Really.

They go on to say: "As part of the re-regulation of B.C. Hydro rates, the B.C. Utilities Commission will be reviewing the corporation's costs to determine that they are in the ratepayers' interests." Really.

Next: "The Utilities Commission Act will be amended to focus more on performance-based and results-based regulation, including negotiated settlements, and to define effective consumer participation." Really.

Another quote from this government's own energy plan: "The structure of the B.C. Utilities Commission, and its mandate in strengthening B.C. Hydro and other distributors, will be strengthened."

This is a great one: "With the return to B.C. Hydro rate regulation, a strong and competent regulator is needed." That would be the exact same B.C. Utilities Commission that's having a third of its job taken away today. That's the report that was just released late last year, after sitting on the minister's desk for months and months.

What did the government promise during the election in their New Era document — dead NED, as we call it, because it's so full of misleading and broken promises. N, E, D — New Era document. Dead NED — it's dead because all of the promises are broken.

Here's what they said in dead NED: "Restore an independent B.C. Utilities Commission to re-regulate B.C. Hydro's rates." Today there's a promise broken, because here's what Bill 10 does. Bill 10 says that fully a third of B.C. Hydro services will now be removed from B.C. Utilities regulation.

Support services. That's what they're called. It's as if support services didn't count, as if somehow industry could tap into those hydro lines themselves and as if

somehow the consumer would know exactly how much electricity they're using and that they're being charged a fair rate. It's as if somehow the support services that ask British Columbians to become energy efficient and remind British Columbians to become energy efficient are irrelevant. Somehow this government makes it sound as if there are a few women typing up a few notices in the back rooms, and therefore it's irrelevant to what the whole hydro system is.

I will tell you this. Without those support systems, B.C. Hydro cannot function and will not function. B.C. Hydro rates will not stay stable without those support systems. The consumer will have no idea what the terms and conditions are of B.C. Hydro rates without those support systems. Industry will have no idea what its costs are or how to control those hydro costs without those support systems. This government makes it sound like it's just a clerical move, and therefore there's no need to have it part of the regulation under the B.C. Utilities Commission.

They've removed the support systems from any regulation. But do they say that even those costs associated with the Accenture deal can't be considered in hiking our rates? Oh no. It's a two-sided loss for British Columbians in this bill. The contract with Accenture for a third of B.C. Hydro services cannot be examined by B.C. Utilities Commission, but no matter what those costs are, those costs can be passed on to be considered in a hydro rate increase. So, the secrecy prevails. The secrecy around what that Accenture deal actually will cost taxpayers and ratepayers will never be known. No matter what Accenture charges us, that gets passed on to us as ratepayers.

Gee, that's a good deal for British Columbians, isn't it? That's a real breakthrough. "No, no," says the government. "It's not privatization, but just in case it is and the private sector is going to rip us off, we're going to make sure that it's not subject to any regulation and any review." That's what this government has done. The bill specifically removes from public scrutiny the costs of the Accenture deal, and the consumer will be subject to a rate increase based on the costs of that deal. Yet there will be no oversight of that deal — none whatsoever.

There's another dead NED promise: the most open and transparent government. When's the government going to stop saying that? How silly do they sound when they claim to be the most open and transparent government? What do they do today? They come in here, and they legislate secrecy for fully a third of B.C. Hydro. That's what they do.

We have a situation here where the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, the shareholders of B.C. Hydro, the British Columbians, lose not once but twice. What's driving this? Why is this government shrouding the Accenture deal in secrecy? Well, maybe because it costs so much. Maybe it's because the Accenture deal is a bad deal for British Columbians, and this government doesn't want anybody to know. That would be a good start.

I note from the estimates in the budget for '03-04 that this government, the Minister of Finance, for the first time in over a decade anyway, is predicting an actual loss for B.C. Hydro — an actual loss of $70 million for '03-04. Now, it's not like they're taking away the money they're transferring out of B.C. Hydro. Just like every previous government did, which seems to upset the Vancouver Sun so much, there will be a dividend payment from B.C. Hydro of $350 million this year to this Liberal government. Even though the Vancouver Sun likes to say that it was the bad old NDP that treated B.C. Hydro like a cash cow and took $200 million one year and $300 million another year, this government is taking a $350 million dividend from B.C. Hydro. Fine. That's fine. That goes to pay for our health and education.

This Liberal government is doing exactly the same thing the Social Credit government did and the NDP government did — right there. But unlike previous governments, when they transfer that cash dividend, B.C. Hydro ends up with a loss of $70 million. How did that occur? Could it be that this government is actually paying for the transition costs of about $60 million, the changeover costs from the public sector to the private sector? Could it be that? Could it be that this government is giving $60 million out of ratepayer money to privatize the support services? Yes, it could.

This government is taking out of B.C. Hydro $60 million to pay for the costs of transferring support services from the public to the private. Well, there's another good deal for the ratepayers then. Accenture gets all of the goodies and all of the benefits, and in order to give them all of these benefits, Hydro ratepayers have to pay $60 million. What is it about this that Accenture shouldn't be paying? Why is it that for the first time in ages, B.C. Hydro will run a deficit and the deficit is almost exactly the same as the money this government's shovelling off to Accenture? Why is it? Why is it that the government won't reveal the profits and the terms of that contract to see how much money Accenture is making? Is it that they're embarrassed that they're not forcing Accenture to pay for the transition costs to privatize, that they don't want anybody to know it's the Hydro ratepayer who will be picking up those costs in a way like we've never seen before? Of course it is. That's exactly what it is.

Has this government treated Accenture with the openness and transparency they deserve? No, not at all. Not only are they not requiring the contract with Accenture to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission, as it has promised repeatedly, but they are also removing the cost of this contract from the rate structure equation. Now, is there any precedent for this? Absolutely not. When B.C. Gas went to a contract arrangement with Customer Works, that had to be approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

J. MacPhail: Yes, exactly the same circumstances. That had to be approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The support services for B.C. Gas had to be ap-

proved. Now this government is making itself exempt from the rules that it applied to the private sector, B.C. Gas. What was good for the private sector and, in fact, what is a normal process for determining what a Hydro rate should be, this government has now exempted itself from.

The question is begged: if the Hydro transfer — the Hydro privatization of support services, the giving of the contract to Accenture — is such a good deal for B.C. Hydro customers, why the secrecy? Why the special treatment? Why the qualifications in this bill that keep the public out? Well, it may be because every Liberal MLA just marches to the tune of Accenture. They've become good little Accenture soldiers. Not only have they lost their independence completely, but they've become loyal Accenture spin doctors themselves.

The public won't have any idea what the Accenture deal means. B.C. Utilities Commission is now prohibited by law from looking at that contract. Whatever Accenture does in terms of raising costs gets passed on to us, but the Liberal MLAs march to the tune of the Accenture drum like we've never seen before.

Independent analysis? It doesn't exist amongst the Liberal MLAs. They take Accenture's pretty blue and yellow and green shiny paper documents, and they spew out the words as if they're their own. The Liberal member for Burquitlam wrote to his own city council, attacking them, attacking the city council for allowing a director of the B.C. Citizens for Public Power to appear on the agenda of the council's last open meeting on January 27. He goes on to quote about how they should take into consideration his words as opposed to "misguided allegations" — I'm quoting from the letter exactly — "when deciding on what the views as a council should be on B.C. Hydro and Accenture."

Here's a letter — the member for Burquitlam attacking his own city council, Burnaby city council, for daring to seek some views on the privatization of a third of B.C. Hydro, accusing them of listening to misguided allegations. What does he do? How does he prove his point? He takes verbatim — verbatim — Accenture's spin, verbatim Accenture's propaganda.

We did a line-by-line from the Accenture documents and the letter written by the member for Burquitlam. While attacking the independent research done by the Citizens for Public Power, the member for Burquitlam merely is a good little Accenture soldier and marches to their drum and attacks his own city council, who are thoughtfully reviewing the matter of the privatization of B.C. Hydro.

In fact, it's a bit shocking that the Liberal government with their hundreds of spin doctors, with their new millions of dollars in the public affairs bureau, would allow this kind of mistake to go through. They're usually more sophisticated than that. They normally change a word or two. They normally don't just take it holus-bolus from their friend Accenture and put it out. I'm sure there's someone in the public affairs bureau who has lost their job over this — or maybe in caucus.

Maybe in that multimillion-dollar operation in the Liberal caucus there will be someone, or maybe it was just that the member for Burquitlam is a good little Accenture soldier. Maybe he is. Maybe other Liberal MLAs aren't writing letters that just quote directly from the Accenture propaganda. I hope we don't discover any more ridiculous propaganda letters like this.

Another day, another broken promise by this Liberal government, and what does it mean for British Columbians? It will mean less access to information about their own corporation. It means privatization of a third of British Columbia Hydro, and it means rates will go up. I guarantee it. I guarantee that the cost of the Accenture contract will mean that hydro rates will go up. We already see that the cost of the Accenture contract means that for the first time in many years, B.C. Hydro will be forced to run a deficit, and then there will be a rate increase that follows.

I guarantee it. Just the same way we knew MSP premiums were going to go up, just the same way we know that seniors in the majority will be paying more for their Pharmacare, I stand here today to guarantee that hydro rates, directly because of the Accenture contract, will rise.

P. Bell: I find some of the comments that have been floating around the House today somewhat ridiculous and certainly not accurate. The member for Vancouver-Hastings suggested that we have this multimillion-dollar caucus, and I would ask to remind her that perhaps the reason why we have a multimillion-dollar caucus is because there are only two members of the opposition left in this House. Perhaps in the last election, the people spoke very clearly in the province that they wanted change and that they were looking for the type of direction offered in the New Era document — truly a profound and incredibly successful opportunity they've leaped upon to allow us to move forward.

I'd like to review briefly, if I may, the New Era document. You know, it was very clear in the New Era document that we supported the continuation of the ownership of B.C. Hydro's core services. The then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, made it very clear that those core services included the generation facilities, the dams, the water. They included the power lines throughout the province. That was the extent of what we said, so why the Leader of the Opposition would think otherwise, I'm certainly unclear.

The second thing we said that was absolutely key and critical to this component is our support of independent power projects. This is a significant opportunity for us in this province to grow our resource as a whole, to develop jobs, to create opportunities for people. I firmly believe in what the independent power producers in British Columbia can produce for us. I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense.

We also said something else in the New Era document, and that was that this government placed its

highest priorities on health and on education and that we would focus all of our resources on health and education. With that said, I'd like to move back to a comment I heard earlier in the House today. That was a comment that said if it ain't broke, then why are you trying to fix it? I'll tell you. This government is absolutely committed to dedicating its resources to health care and education. If we can take something and make it better, why would we not do that? Why would we not take that opportunity to take those dollars that we're currently not spending effectively within the B.C. Hydro system and move those dollars into areas that are much more beneficial for British Columbians as a whole?

The Accenture deal that is referred to here is contractually obligated to save this province $250 million over ten years. That's $25 million a year that can be spent on health care. That's $25 million a year that can be spent in our education system, on our kids. If you ask me if I would rather spend that $25 million on a bloated B.C. Hydro that is not operating effectively or if I would rather spend that on our kids or on our patients, I choose our kids or our patients every single time. There's no question in my mind at all about that.

I'm not suggesting that B.C. Hydro is completely broken, but if you don't look to improve something that you have on an ongoing basis, then eventually the thing will become broken. I think it's incumbent upon this administration, on this government, to make the best use of every single dollar that we have available to us. When the minister is able to create a significant savings, a quarter of a billion dollars over ten years, I think we have to take advantage of that opportunity.

One of the tremendous things about this government is the opportunity for individual members to speak to issues and to have direct involvement in them. I can tell you that one of my fears coming to government, especially knowing that it was probably going to be a fairly large caucus after the last election, was: would I have the opportunity to be able to actually significantly impact the shape and the direction of government? I can tell you that through the processes our Premier has set up, every single member of caucus has a significant ability to speak out, to mould, to change, to work with the direction of government. If there is a significant issue, I felt that every single time I've been confronted with it, I've had the ability to impact that decision and move it in the direction that was in the best interests of British Columbians and that was in the best interests, certainly, of my constituents.

I'm very proud of the mechanisms that the Premier set up through the government caucus committees, through our caucus as a whole, through our legislative committees and certainly through this House. It's created the ability for us and alleviated the fear I had initially that I was not going to be able to have an impact on the direction of this government. I'm very pleased with the mechanisms.

I think that every single member of our government caucus has had the ability to work with the Minister of Energy and Mines and make sure that this deal, and the general direction that we are taking B.C. Hydro in the future, is to the benefit of all British Columbians. I am confident that that is exactly the case.

There are a few other brief comments that have to do with this particular piece of legislation, Bill 10. One of the comments I hear on a regular basis from individuals is that if we go down this road with Accenture, it will open the doors to NAFTA and require us, through the North American Free Trade Agreement, to open up all of our facilities to free trade with the Americans. Clearly, that is not the case. We have put the time and the due diligence into ensuring that, in fact, the North American Free Trade Agreement does not apply in this case, that we are able to retrieve these components of B.C. Hydro if the deal does not work out. In fact, part of the deal we have is that we can do that. If Accenture does not meet its contractual obligations, we have the opportunity to retrieve this, and I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense.

A couple of other key components that I think are applicable to this deal. There is no transfer of assets in this deal. Now, how can you have a sale…? We've referred to this as a sale. Different members of this House have referred to this as a sale. Some of the individuals out in the community…. We're not selling assets. We're contractually moving in the direction of having someone else help provide support services to us. In fact, this is a joint venture. This is something that we are doing collectively. B.C. Hydro is working hand in hand with a private sector partner and creating opportunities for British Columbians.

Now, you may ask: how are we going to save $250 million? The same folks that are working for B.C. Hydro today are going to be working under the new joint venture agreement, so you may ask: how would you save $250 million? Well, this is the really exciting part of this deal for me. This is the really exciting part, because you know what? This new joint venture partner is going to go out and market its resources North America–wide. They're going to provide the same services that they're going to provide for B.C. Hydro to other utilities and sell those services throughout North America.

You know what that means, Mr. Speaker? It means more jobs for British Columbians. It means there can be more people working in British Columbia in this new venture than work in it today. These are good-paying jobs, family-supporting jobs. It makes a tremendous amount of sense, and it required a lot of vision on the part of the Minister of Energy and Mines to go down this road. I think, really, it makes a tremendous amount of sense.

To summarize, you often want to ask: what are the advantages of doing this? The opposition and our critics rarely ask that question. They rarely point out the benefits to going down this particular road. Well, as I see it, there are three significant benefits.

Certainly, the first one is the cash incentive — $250 million over ten years; a quarter of a billion dollars that we can spend on health care; a quarter of a billion dol-

lars that we can spend on education; a quarter of a billion dollars that will go back to British Columbians. That's a significant advantage, a significant benefit.

The second big benefit to us here is the potential for an increase in the employment market in British Columbia. We know that Accenture plans to go out and attract other businesses to come to this joint venture, to offer those services. Who knows? Perhaps British Columbians will be the call centre and the provider of services, whether it be for a utility in Washington State or in Florida or in California — who knows where that may be? — but the good news is that we will, in the long term, be able to provide those jobs.

The other real significant and key opportunity is that this Accenture, this new joint venture company, will be a British Columbia–registered company. It's going to pay taxes in British Columbia.

Now, I don't know how anyone can walk away from significant benefits like that. A quarter of a billion dollars in savings, more employment, more high-paying jobs in British Columbia and a company that's registered in British Columbia and that's going to pay taxes in British Columbia. This is a great deal for British Columbians. The naysayers either clearly do not understand what's being done here, or they haven't taken the time to actually read the documents and understand the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that this is a great deal. The minister has worked hard to put this together, and I congratulate him on his efforts.

R. Hawes: It's a pleasure today to rise to speak to this bill and to try to put into context and allay some of the fears that are being spread by those who, it seems, constantly want to spread misinformation in this province and want to get involved in fearmongering and want to try to knock down anything that this government is trying to do to repair the damage that was done by the last bunch.

Let's start by talking about the core assets of B.C. Hydro. They have been described as generation facilities: the dams and the transmission lines. Is there anybody who thinks that the billing section is a core asset? Is this "B.C. Billing Corporation"? Is this "B.C. Service Department"? I don't think so. This is B.C. Hydro.

What people are concerned about is the protection of those facilities that will deliver electricity to their homes and ensuring that we have a price advantage in this province that we've enjoyed for so many years. That is protected. We have said that the core assets of B.C. Hydro are not for sale. The core assets of B.C. Hydro are not for sale. No, we won't be selling the core assets of B.C. Hydro. I don't think we should sell the core assets of B.C. Hydro, and the minister agrees. The government says that they won't be selling them. How many ways can that be said before these people understand that the core assets are not being sold? They're not on the market. They never were planned to be on the market.

The government has said consistently, from the New Era document prior to the election right through to today, that the core assets of B.C. Hydro are going to remain in public hands, owned by the people of this province. Yet the fearmongers who speak against anything that goes on in this government continue to talk about privatization of B.C. Hydro. It's not on; it's never been on. It's amazing to me that you can say it over and over and over, and they just keep coming back. It reminds me of dealing with my kids when they were about five years old. "Daddy, can I have some candy?" "No, not right now." "Daddy, can I have some candy?" They just keep going. That's what these people are doing. It drives you crazy. How do you deal with somebody who doesn't want to listen?

The front end of B.C. Hydro is being outsourced. Outsourcing isn't a new phenomenon. Outsourcing is going on all over North America as large companies, large entities, start to realize that it's better for them to concentrate all of their attention and expertise on the areas in which they are expert and in which they actually generate their money.

In the case of B. C. Hydro, it's the generation and transmission of power. It's not billing for power. It's not having a service department. It's not the front end of B.C. Hydro that makes B.C. Hydro money. You have to have that front end. All across North America large entities are starting to realize that if you hire people who are expert at doing that front-end work and you concentrate on that which you are best at doing, in the end you have a more profitable and better-running organization. That's what's happening here.

There are some monolithic thinkers out there who just simply can't grasp the concept of outsourcing, who think somehow that having someone on a desk making up a bill is part of an asset. That's not really an asset. The core assets of B.C. Hydro are being preserved in public hands.

I heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings saying there was no oversight here. Somehow we're going to have Accenture come here and take over with no oversight. That can't be further from the truth. As I understand it, the board of directors of Accenture is going to have seven on it — three from B.C. Hydro, if I'm not mistaken. I'm looking over to the minister, and I see he's nodding his head in agreement. That's the way I had understood it. I think that's oversight.

We have a place at the directors table for this new British Columbia — I think maybe the members opposite ought to hear that name: British Columbia, not Bermuda — entity. This is a British Columbia entity. It's going to be employing British Columbians. It's going to pay taxes in British Columbia, not Bermuda.

All of the fearmongering that surrounds what Accenture is, is part of the propaganda that member just spoke about a few moments ago. She talked about the Accenture soldiers. She spoke about how we here perhaps are trying to hide a bad deal; we knew it was a bad deal with Accenture, and we're trying to hide it. Can anyone really, really imagine how silly…? I mean, that's just ridiculous.

There are 75 members in this caucus who are in support of this deal, because we have talked about it at great length. There was a lot of concern earlier that has been allayed, because there's been very careful consideration of this deal. It is a deal that is good for British Columbia. Can you say $250 million over ten years? We estimate that's a minimum, because Accenture — we will have a form of partnership with them — are going to go out and market that service to other utility companies which, probably wisely — just like B.C. Hydro — will understand that the front end of their office is better in someone else's hands, such as Accenture that specializes in this. They, too, will want to generate more profit for themselves. As Accenture's British Columbia corporation becomes more profitable, we will share in those profits generated from those to whom Accenture is also going to contract. So $250 million is a minimum estimate, and we could generate substantially more.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the cost of transferring was $60 million, or she's got figures about how we're paying Accenture somehow to take on this deal. The fact is that there's $44 million being transferred as a result of the liability we have for those employees who have worked for a long time for B.C. Hydro. They have pensions and sick-day buildup and all kinds of benefits that they have built up in their time with B.C. Hydro, and they are transferring to Accenture. The union contract has been renegotiated to allow them to move over to Accenture, but the benefits they've built up under Hydro rightly need to transfer with those people. Hydro is transferring money to look after those benefits, as it should. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition would have preferred that those folks who have worked for a long time for B.C. Hydro and have been loyal employees should somehow be cut off with nothing. But that's not what's going to happen. Yes, the liability that exists today is being transferred along with the funding stream to meet that, as would be expected and as should happen.

Every time you talk about something that's going to have anything to do with private free enterprise in this province, there is a group who light their hair on fire and go crazy about it. They think everything is better in government's hands.

I keep thinking about how, maybe a year ago, both opposition members spoke at some length about a company called Sodexho that's involved with the food service in the health industry around the world. The possibility that the B.C. government might talk to them in any capacity had them just electric. This was something that shouldn't happen.

I went to the website and looked up Sodexho on the computer, and I found that they are an international company with hundreds of thousands of employees. I phoned and asked them about some of the allegations that had been made about their operation. I was absolutely amazed to find out the good work they do around the world, the kind of corporate conscience they have and the excellent record they have in so many locations internationally. It was a completely different picture than what the opposition had painted for this free enterprise company. I think the same thing is happening here with Accenture. It's not Accenture that's the enemy here, as far as they're concerned. It's free enterprise that's the problem. We don't like seeing free enterprise in this province when we can grow government, and we can get government unions that are going to pay big money into our campaign coffers. That's what we like — at least from the perspective of….

R. Hawes: I hear the Leader of the Opposition. It sounds like she's agreeing. I know that she does know that the major source of funding for her operation has come from these unions. I know that if that is cut off in any way, there will be a lot of difficulty within her party. So we've got to keep that cash cow rolling. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House put the people of the province first. We want to make sure that the needs of the people of this province are met before the needs of our political future or our political party. That's a fairly substantive difference in the government we now find in place here in this province than where it was for the past ten years, when there was an awful lot of pandering to their own self-interest that was driving the policy of this province.

The energy policy. For the first time this province has an energy policy. Really, what that says is that we have a plan for energy in this province, something that hasn't happened before. B.C. Hydro is no longer going to just be stripped as a cash cow, as the Leader of the Opposition admitted a few moments ago. That's what her government did for so many years, leaving no money in B.C. Hydro for it to reinvest in itself. The transmission lines are now in a terrible state with huge investment required and no money to do that upgrade to the transmission lines.

Of course, the generation facilities. The legacy that was left to us 30 years ago by W.A.C. Bennett has sat just generating cash for a big black hole that the previous government threw the cash into. That has not had reinvestment, so we're at the stage where, especially in low-water years, we're now net importers of power from the United States. We have to rely on the United States to get power in this province now, because our need for power has grown and our generation capacity hasn't kept pace because money has been stripped out of B.C. Hydro for so many years.

That forces us now to go to IPPs, independent power producers, in order to increase our capacity because B.C. Hydro has been left with a debt load, aging generation facilities and aging transmission lines that the previous government refused to reinvest in. They needed every dime they could get out of B.C. Hydro so that they could afford to pay for those programs that the government unions so greatly took and, of course,

This Accenture deal is a good deal for British Columbians. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sale of the core assets of Hydro. I know that the other member of the naysaying side is about to speak, probably soon after I sit down. I know we're going to hear more tales of woe: the world is ending, and the sky is falling. You know, the sky is blue, and the sun is shining in British Columbia.

For the first time in ten years we can see beyond the horizon, and it's wonderful. It's just absolutely wonderful to be on this side of the House, on the side of right where we know the province is moving in exactly the right direction. We have come down with a budget that shows we have a plan that's moving us on track and on target to balance the budget without a bunch of fudging, without a bunch of transfers from pension funds, etc., which the previous government liked to wave around, talking as though they had balanced a budget. Life in British Columbia is good, and it's good for all of us for the first time in a long time.

With Accenture, B.C. Hydro is going to be moving in the right direction, back to the stage where it's truly generating funds for those of us in this province from things other than the sale of electricity and counting on high markets and electricity to the United States at high prices. We're going to be looking at a Hydro that's efficient and is in the hands of the government through Hydro — public ownership.

R. Hawes: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is hallelujah. As the Leader of the Opposition has just said: "Hallelujah." She understands now. We are on the right track. In looking at her face I know she now realizes the error of her ways. We accept your apology. We accept the apology from the Leader of the Opposition for her errant ways over the last decade. With that, one last statement: the core assets of B.C. Hydro are not for sale.

Deputy Speaker: With closing second reading remarks, the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's certainly interesting to listen to the spirited debate in regard to Bill 10, a bill that will allow B.C. Hydro to actually save money. I know that's kind of something that didn't fit in the last government's agenda, but this is a way that B.C. Hydro can actually save money for its customers. It's a good deal for British Columbians.

We go back to the energy plan. The Premier instructed me when I was appointed minister to develop an energy plan for the province because British Columbia did not have an energy plan — the member is quite correct — that looks forward into the future, that is a benefit to all British Columbians. Whether it's us here or our children who are coming later, it will be a benefit to them. This energy plan is a great plan, and it again protects the core assets of B.C. Hydro — the dams, the transmission, the distribution. The core assets of B.C. Hydro remain in public hands. The people of British Columbia continue to own those assets. The revenue and the benefits generated from those assets will still belong with the people of British Columbia. That is one thing the Premier was very clear on: we do not sell the core assets of B.C. Hydro. He said that time and time again, and he lived up to that, and we developed a plan that will take us forward.

This bill allows outsourcing, as I said earlier, and it describes the outsourcing that can take place. It is not uncommon in large companies to outsource their services. It makes really good sense. B.C. Hydro is an excellent company. They know how to generate electricity, they know how to transmit electricity, and they know how to sell electricity. They know how to get every dollar they can when they sell it to other markets, but there are other people that have expertise in providing the ancillary services B.C. Hydro requires. We'll save about $250 million, actual dollars, in the next ten years — the length of this contract.

It's always interesting to go back in time — and just a short period of time. We've been in government for how long — 21 months?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Eighteen months — there we are. We already have an energy plan in place; we're already in the House; we're moving forward for British Columbia. But one has to look back to see what took place in those dismal ten years when the clouds were around and there was no sun shining. I want to go back and talk a little bit about the things the Leader of the Opposition talked about when she said: "Oh, it's so terrible because Accenture will be non-regulated. It's cloak and dagger. It's secret."

Well, let's go back in history a bit and read what the NDP were doing when this member was in power. I can't read the whole note because it will take me quite a while, but I will read the relevant parts. It's a confidential note, and the date is very important: December 21, 2000. That was the last government.

First point: "In July 2000 the board of directors of B.C. Gas and B.C. Hydro agreed to pursue the creation of Servco and Retailco, two companies that will be jointly and equally, 50-50, owned by B.C. Gas and B.C. Hydro. Both Servco and Retailco would be non-regulated" — get that dirty word: non-regulated. "Servco and Retailco would each have their own boards of directors, CEOs and management teams." Hmm. Was the Leader of the Opposition saying that Accenture should be regulated? I don't know quite how that works. In the year 2000 it shouldn't be; in the year 2003 it should be.

Second point: "Due to the costs involved with setting up a new customer information system and the steps required to obtain regulatory approval for

Servco, the time line for the launch of the new company was adjusted.…" Remember, this is the new company. They're doing this. They never told anyone in this House. I was in this House. They never told one of us they were doing this.

"…the time line for the launch of the new company was adjusted at a recent meeting of the steering committee." They had a steering committee. They were moving forward with these two companies. This is the past administration. "The new launch date will be April or May of 2001." Interesting date, isn't it? "Servco was originally scheduled to launch as a legally operating company in January 2001." This is the last administration.

This is really interesting: "Preparation for deregulation." Now, you will recall the Leader of the Opposition talking about how we're deregulating and how terrible it is, and Citizens for Public Power are saying we're deregulating. We are not deregulating B.C. Hydro. It remains under the B.C. Utilities Commission. In fact, it was just put under the auspices of the B.C. Utilities Commission again.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Listen up, member. "Preparation for deregulation. The residential natural gas distribution industry in B.C. is scheduled for deregulation by November 2002. By joining forces now, B.C. Gas and B.C. Hydro" — B.C. Hydro — "will be well positioned for deregulation." Who was going to deregulate B.C. Hydro? It was the NDP. Remember the date: December 2000. Let's go….

Hon. R. Neufeld: Here's another point — another point. This describes the makeup…

Hon. R. Neufeld: "…who would have been directly impacted by the creation of Servco include B.C. Hydro, all…."

Deputy Speaker: The minister has a statement to make. Let's listen to the statement, please.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know the Leader of the Opposition would rather not hear this. "The employees who would have been directly impacted by the creation of Servco include B.C. Hydro: all customer service employees, including CASC, call centres, community customer services, training and development, systems and finance, and all T and D employees in the meter shop and the revenue metering department as well as meter technicians in the field resources group."

That almost rings true with how we're moving forward with Accenture. They were already moving forward with it at that time, but it….

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is the last point, Mr. Speaker. This is the last point, and this proves that they were already doing it without telling the public, without having reviews, without having public involvement of any kind. They didn't let this House know. At least we had the guts to stand in this House, bring forward the legislation that is required and stand before people and spend a year and a half developing a plan.

This is the last point I would like to read out of this confidential document. "No job losses will result at B.C. Hydro or B.C. Gas as a result of these joint ventures not going forward." You're right.

"Employees who had moved or were in the process of moving to Servco" — so they already had Servco in place — "and Retailco will return to the positions and areas they previously held in the respective organization."

The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the member for Burquitlam, who wrote a letter. He did write a letter to the city of Burnaby as a result of a visit by the B.C. Citizens for Public Power, who are going around the province selling their point of view. This is led by a Mr. Veerkamp. This relates to a date too, and these dates are important: March 25, 2000, in the Vancouver Sun. Remember December 21, 2000 — the confidential document out of B.C. Hydro?

Before I go any further — the confidential document in the fall of 2000 that came out of Treasury Board that says: "Sell big-ticket, symbolic assets, of which B.C. Hydro is one.…" This came out of the NDP in the year 2000. Where were they going? They didn't tell us a word about it.

Here's Mr. Veerkamp in the year 2000, because he was on the NDP agenda then: "We are the only province in Canada where the private sector will soon be designated an endangered species. Where do all the jobs come from? The private sector." This is Mr. Veerkamp, who is now saying it shouldn't be the private sector.

"We need a smaller, smarter government that will focus on people-friendly policies. The government needs to cut taxes, cut subsidies, encourage investment and sell those Crown corporations and government agencies that are commercially viable." This is the same person that went around and whipped up a storm….

J. MacPhail: The member is reading from documents that clearly are public documents. Could he please table them — all of them?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is the same gentleman who went to the Burnaby council and tried to whip up a storm that we were doing something wrong. This person, when the NDP was in power, was saying one thing because the NDP at that time — again, look at the date, year 2000 — were going to sell B.C. Hydro, deregulate it. They didn't care about the people in B.C. They didn't care about the people who worked for B.C. Hydro, and they certainly didn't care about the people in the province of British Columbia.

We're moving forward. We're keeping B.C. Hydro as a core asset — the dams, transmission and generation. There is a deal being worked out between B.C. Hydro and Accenture. This legislation will allow that to complete, and you will soon be able to read that whole deal, except for the commercially sensitive parts of the deal.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, there will be some things that will be commercially sensitive. The member should know that from being Finance minister for a number of years. Maybe I should withdraw that. Maybe she doesn't understand that, and that would be better.

There was an independent analysis of the deal that's been worked out. It's been with the Finance ministry, my ministry. There's been an outside auditor. There has been a third party. Nesbitt Burns has reviewed the deal. I think all those things are pretty open, pretty clear, out there with the public — that this is a good deal for British Columbia.

We want to move forward in a clear, open way. The Premier has been very adamant about this. We're transparent. We tell people exactly what's happening. This piece of legislation allows that to happen, to take place and to benefit the province of British Columbia, B.C. Hydro, and all of us for many years to come.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have something to table. I table two documents that were asked to be tabled earlier.

Hon. S. Santori: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to resume my response to the budget. Where I left off yesterday was to speak a bit regarding the ministry, and I want to continue from where I did leave off.

I concluded, basically making the statement that our government was very big on the Internet, whether it was used for checking ferry schedules, finding out about government policies and services or selling products and professional services virtually, whether we used it for booking vacations, paying our bills or shopping in the comfort of our own homes. Our government is encouraging that shift in a very big way. We're moving an increasing number of government services and registries on line, including B.C. bid tenders, single business registration and change of address, adoption and foster parents registration, rural property tax appeal, the government lobbyist registry and the mobile home registry.

We are moving forward on our promise to expand access to high-speed Internet services. For example, in my riding of West Kootenay–Boundary, a pilot project is taking shape. A community-based initiative, the Columbia Mountain Open Network, plans to bring high-speed access to local high schools allowing two-way video conferencing for education. This technology will enable the district to offer a broader curriculum than it could otherwise, and it will assist significantly in addressing the challenges the district faces with declining enrolment. As a side benefit, the network will offer less expensive broadband access to businesses and individuals.

Similarly, my ministry is leveraging the government's own network to bring Internet to very small communities. We've built on the SPAN-BC network to bring the Internet to many dial-up users for the first time ever in smaller communities like Atlin, Bella Coola and Tahsis, to name just a few.

The electronic world provides a tremendous opportunity for British Columbians — opportunities which will assist in the delivery of health care and education. It will increase public access to government services. It will allow businesses to expand their markets far beyond their communities.

But as we expand access to the advantages of the electronic world, it is critical that we deal with the issue of personal privacy and the potential danger of not protecting it. Polls and surveys have shown high levels of concern over the use of personal information over the Internet, and that concern is a major roadblock to electronic commerce.

Before our government came into power, the federal government developed what would amount to default legislation — federal privacy rules that would apply if provinces didn't set their own within three years. These federal regulations best suit large, federally regulated organizations, not the small and medium-sized businesses that make up the bulk of B.C.'s economy. We feel that a made-in-B.C. act will serve B.C. businesses better, and this spring I will introduce legislation to protect British Columbians' personal information that is held by the private sector.

There is no question that our government regards B.C. as overregulated and that we're working on drastically reducing the red tape burden. You can rest assured that when it comes to privacy, we won't be making rules for their own sake. Our driving force is to ensure we create a balance where the public is reassured that their personal information is protected and, at the same time, B.C. businesses are positioned to take full advantage of commercial opportunities in electronic commerce. To that end, clarity, common sense and an ease of implementation will be the hallmarks of our new personal information protection act.

As I said earlier, it has been a challenging year and one that involved making some very tough decisions, but I am confident that if government stays the course — and we will — all British Columbians will reap the benefits in the future, and we will see a province that offers opportunities for everyone regardless of where they choose to live in this great province. As a government we have accomplished a lot in the last year, but much more remains to be done, and more tough decisions may be required.

I want to end with a final statement, and that is that a government that doesn't make tough decisions and difficult choices is more interested in keeping their job than in doing their job. We are on track in returning this province back to where it should be — the number one province in this country to live, to work and to play in.

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

	YEAS — 64

Falcon	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Cheema
Hansen	Santori	Barisoff
van Dongen	Bray	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Anderson	Jarvis	Penner
Chong	Coleman	Neufeld
Abbott	Stephens	Nebbeling
de Jong	Bond	Clark
Collins	Plant	Murray
Hagen	Thorpe	Orr
Nuraney	Brenzinger	R. Stewart
Bell	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Hunter	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Visser
Lekstrom	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Bloy	Suffredine
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 3

MacPhail	Kwan	Nettleton

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY