Hansard -- Monday, May 12, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 15, No. 9 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6657

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6657
	School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50) Hon. C. Clark Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51) Hon. C. Clark Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52) Hon. S. Bond Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 54) Hon. C. Hansen Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49) Hon. S. Santori Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48) Hon. J. van Dongen Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58) Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6659
	Mining industry in B.C. B. Bennett Surrey RCMP award recipients commended D. Hayer Financial services industry in B.C. R. Sultan

Oral Questions		6660
	Impact of Children and Family Development ministry reorganization J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail Management of Forests ministry recreation sites R. Harris Hon. M. de Jong Physical education in high school curriculum S. Brice Hon. C. Clark Impact of Children and Family Development ministry reorganization J. Kwan Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail Reduction of government regulations T. Bhullar Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of Supply		6663
	Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Health Services Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail Estimates: Ministry of Health Services Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail

Tabling Documents		6687
	Ministry of Health Services, service plan, 2003-04 to 2005-06 Ministry of Health Planning, service plan, 2003-04 to 2005-06

Second Reading of Bills		6687
	Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Hon. R. Neufeld P. Nettleton B. Penner J. MacPhail R. Hawes Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Hon. R. Neufeld J. MacPhail

Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I'm pleased today to introduce a longtime friend. In fact, we've known each other since we were about "that high," and there are not many people who can make this claim. Both he and I were born in the town of Blue River. Now, not many people can say that; not many people really want to say that. We had a great time up there as little kids. He now lives in the constituency of Kamloops–North Thompson. He's a constituent there. He's here representing the forest industry to meet with the government caucus today. Would you please welcome Carman Smith.

Hon. G. Plant: A few weeks ago I had the honour to meet with a group of grades 5 and 6 students at Tomekichi Homma Elementary School in beautiful Richmond-Steveston. Thanks to the careful preparation of their teacher, Jacquelyn Johnston, I was asked a series of much more difficult questions than I have ever been asked on the floor of this Legislature. They have actually come to visit us all here today. They're sitting in the gallery about to watch democracy unfold. I hope the members of the House will all make them very, very welcome.

V. Anderson: I would like the House to join me in welcoming four visitors from the Working Group on Poverty who are here today to meet with the Minister of Labour: John Argue, Afsaneh Dashtlalli, Christina Davidson and Gurtej Gill. Please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, Mr. Ashley Haslett, who has joined us here today in the gallery. Ashley had a stint in the Manitoba government as the executive assistant to the Minister of Health and a little bit of time down in the government of New South Wales as a minister's assistant there. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 50. This act makes a number of changes to the School Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Education. The School Amendment Act, 2003, is about giving students a voice on school planning councils, providing more choice for students and their parents and providing all principals with the ability to accrue seniority. It's also about further eliminating red tape for school districts.

The bill will ensure that students have real meaningful input into school planning which will, in turn, improve student achievement. It will give boards the ability to permit students to continue to attend schools outside their enrolment boundary or catchment area, and it will give boards the flexibility to maximize recruitment efforts as more principals reach retirement age. It will also allow boards to spend short-term lease revenue where it will benefit students most, and that is in the classroom.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 50 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 51. This act makes a number of changes to the Teaching Profession Act, which is also administered by the Ministry of Education. The Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003, is about increasing public accountability, clarifying the role of the College of Teachers and enhancing its efficiency.

The bill will ensure that parents have the right to register complaints about teacher conduct and help increase public confidence in the teaching profession. It will change representation on the College of Teachers governing council to encourage the participation of parents and other educational partners and the public. It will require college members to report professional misconduct of another member to promote professionalism within the teaching profession. It will require the College of Teachers to prepare an annual report to increase financial accountability and to include a report on teacher competence. It will give the college the authority to set standards for teacher certification but not approve how teacher education programs are taught or administered. This bill will permit the college to dele-

gate the power of decision-making to a discipline committee to ensure procedural fairness for all parties.

I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Private Career Training Institutions Act.

Hon. S. Bond: This bill will repeal and replace the Private Post-Secondary Education Act in order to implement the core services review recommendations concerning the current private training policy and legislative model.

The bill will establish a new legislative framework for private training in the province. It will replace the Private Post Secondary Education Commission with a self-regulating board composed of industry representatives and will minimize the regulatory burden on the private training sector by narrowing the scope of registration to include only those private training institutions providing career-related training programs beyond a specified time and cost threshold.

In addition, this bill will establish a student training completion fund to provide consumer protection for the tuition fees of students attending registered institutions.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2003, which will transfer the responsibility for dealing with requests to access PharmaNet from the College of Pharmacists to a new PharmaNet stewardship committee within the Ministry of Health Services.

We are making this change to respond to a request from the College of Pharmacists that it be allowed to discontinue its responsibility for dealing with access requests to PharmaNet. Quite simply, the college has concerns over the workload associated with managing these requests, and they also feel many of the requests they receive are outside their day-to-day work and scope of interest, as requests are typically for research purposes.

The database that we know as PharmaNet contains medical histories including allergies, adverse reactions and patients' medical conditions. PharmaNet is invaluable in preventing harmful drug interactions and allergic reactions. The network also contains invaluable data on drug use patterns and trends that can significantly benefit health care planning, research and program evaluation in this province. In order to protect patient confidentiality, access to this information is severely restricted.

Our amendments will transfer the responsibility from the College of Pharmacists to the PharmaNet stewardship committee within my ministry. In order to protect patient confidentiality, this committee will be independent and will include representatives from the College of Pharmacists as well as the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

These amendments will allow access to this database for the purpose of health policy research and monitoring and evaluation of Pharmacare. In response to some very useful advice from the information and privacy commissioner, amendments to this bill will be introduced to clarify our intent in that regard.

Patient confidentiality will continue to be protected. Measures currently in place under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the bylaws of the College of Pharmacists ensure that privacy of patients is protected and will remain in place.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Santori presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S. Santori: Bill 49 provides the statutory framework for the four public sector pension plans. The amendments in Bill 49 will remove or replace obsolete terminology in this act and simplify the appointment process for the B.C. Pension Corporation management board. It will provide the College Pension board of trustees with the authority to make retroactive regulations. It will remove obsolete and inconsistent provisions in various other statutes regarding pension contribution for statutory officers.

It will legislatively transfer responsibility for the negotiation and administration of group health benefits for retired plan members from government to the pension board of trustees. It will clarify that post-retirement group benefits are not subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, and it will provide authority for the partners to the college pension plan to enter into non-statutory joint management agreements.

I move that Bill 49 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Van Dongen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. J. Van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 48. This legislation amends the Farm Practices Protection Act and the right-to-farm provisions of the Local Government Act. Together those statutes provide the legislative framework for the right-to-farm system.

The right-to-farm system enables the province to ensure that there is a proper balance between provincial objectives for agriculture and aquaculture and the farming industry standards of practice and local government regulatory authority over these activities. The system requires local governments to which the system has been applied to get the approval of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for zoning and farm bylaws. The system was established in 1995 and has operated with a high degree of success.

Through operational experience we have learned, however, that local governments have on occasion avoided or sought ways to circumvent the intent of the legislation. Also, the current wording of the act does not cover aquaculture as effectively as was originally intended. The amendments I'm introducing today address both of these matters and ensure that the legislation provides the legal support needed to achieve the province's policy goals for the right-to-farm system for agriculture and aquaculture.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003. This bill amends the Insurance Corporation Act to provide the B.C. Utilities Commission with responsibility and authority to independently regulate the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

The legislation will ensure that basic mandatory automobile insurance provided by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will continue to be provided on a financially sound, efficient and fair basis to all drivers and vehicles in British Columbia. In addition, the bill will encourage and enhance competition for those automobile insurance products that are not mandatory, such as collision and comprehensive insurance coverage.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 58 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Bennett: This is Mining Week in B.C. Miners, whether they wear a plaid shirt and boots or a pin-striped suit, are some of the most independent and entrepreneurial people in our society.

When you think about what it takes to make a mine from a chunk of rock in the mountains to the point, ten years later, when the first product is sold, you can understand how this amazingly resilient, can-do mining

culture has developed over the past 150 years in B.C. However, some people in today's B.C. believe the whole concept of mining is anachronistic. The new, high-tech BlackBerry generation has evolved beyond that primitive activity of digging stuff out of the ground, despite the fact that our televisions contain 35 different minerals and our computers almost as many.

In my riding of East Kootenay the five coalmines employ about 2,500 workers. They each make $82,000 a year on average, including benefits. What other industry pays like that?

Mining has gotten a bad rap. Mines make only a tiny footprint on our land base. Mining is an industry that has embraced high-tech more than most industries. Mining is the safest heavy industry in Canada. Mining today has a highly respectable environmental record. For B.C. to try to build back prosperity without utilizing our mining wealth is like volunteering to run a race on one leg.

This government has done a lot to get the mining industry going again in B.C., like the elimination of sales tax on mining machinery and equipment. We have the best flow-through share benefits in Canada, the two-zone land use designation and a simplified permitting and regulatory process.

But we have much further to go. After the decade of anti-mining policies from our predecessors and the loss of half of our mining industry, we must show the international investment community that we are serious about mining in B.C. We must protect mineral-rich lands for potential discovery and not lock them out of reach of our children and grandchildren. We must encourage people to go out and search the land base for minerals, we must encourage mine construction, and we must ensure that B.C. becomes competitive once again with the other mining jurisdictions in the world.

D. Hayer: I rise today to honour those who protect us, those who make our lives safe. On Thursday the Surrey community honoured the Royal Canadian Mounted Police men and women — honours that began seven years ago when I and a team of volunteers worked very hard to develop the awards program during my term as the president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce in 1996-97. We established the Police Officer of the Year Awards in Surrey. Last Thursday the Solicitor General was in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to honour those who have served above and beyond the call of duty. The Surrey RCMP detachment is the largest in Canada and is also the best in the nation. I hope they will remain our police force in Surrey for many, many more years to come.

The officers whose names I want to introduce in this House today have been exemplary in their services. Sgt. Terry Kopan was chosen police officer of the year by the community for his efforts in crime prevention and for assisting in the presentation of our 2010 Olympic bid in Switzerland. Police officer of the year chosen by his peers at the Surrey detachment is Const. Marc Searle, who has contributed hundreds of volunteer hours to making Surrey a better place to live. The award for the community policing initiative went to Christine Farrar. Rod Greenwood was named policing volunteer of the year. Corrine Marelli was the police municipal employee of the year for 2003, and the GIS Unit of the Surrey RCMP received the special achievement award. The Central City shopping centre received the police and business partnership award.

I would ask that the House join me and my fellow Surrey MLAs in offering congratulations to those exemplary members of the Surrey RCMP who worked very hard to make Surrey a safe place to live, work, play and do business in.

R. Sultan: The government has designated 2003 as B.C.'s year of forestry. The government should consider designating 2004 as B.C.'s year of financial institutions. Three developments are the reason why.

First, the B.C. Securities Commission has proposed a B.C. model for securities regulation, replacing our ancient system of prospectus disclosure with a streamlined public offering process. Public companies would continuously disclose all material information all of the time. The commission would also eliminate the registration of individuals in the securities business — thousands of them — placing onus for responsible conduct on the firm.

Second, work is underway to resuscitate international financial centres in Vancouver. The federal government gave Vancouver privileged IFC designation years ago, along with Montreal. Quebeckers with strong provincial backing picked up the ball and ran with it, and we played catch in the backfield in B.C., trying to figure out how the game was played. Today Montreal activity outnumbers Vancouver by at least 10 to 1. All of that can change with commitment from government and the financial sector.

The third leg can be further expansion of our venture capital capacity, particularly in the heartlands. The new VCC act has been well received and is doing its job. However, labour-sponsored funds are still not operating in a fully competitive mode. On another government's watch they drained $147 million of risk capital from the heartlands and put back only $12 million. They can and should change that.

These three developments can be the cornerstones of the year of financial institutions. There's a lot of employment and prosperity riding on it.

J. Kwan: In prepared comments read in this House on March 24 of this year, the Minister of Children and

Family Development said that there is no evidence to support the claim that vulnerable children are being put at risk as a result of budget cuts and the reorganization of the ministry. While the rules of this House do not permit me to note the presence — or lack thereof — of a member in this House, I wonder if the Deputy Premier can explain why the minister would make this claim when his own officials are saying that is not true.

Hon. C. Clark: I would be delighted to take that question on notice on behalf of the minister.

J. MacPhail: We have a crisis on our hands here. The opposition has come into possession of a risk register. According to the risk register, there is a high likelihood that as a result of budget cuts, none of the services required to implement his new model will even exist — resulting in mass confusion, loss of confidence and erosion of trust in the child protection system right here.

The Deputy Premier may want to just take this on notice in the absence of effective colleagues at her side, but without the support of the people who prepared this assessment the government can't proceed with the new model, and it's proceeding now. There is no time to take questions on notice. They're telling the government it's impossible right here. It's labelled the risk register. It simply won't work.

How can the Deputy Premier, on behalf of her colleagues, take a question on notice when we see that with this plan, children are at risk as we speak?

Hon. C. Clark: Despite the rhetoric of the opposition, despite the fact that they like to fearmonger and they like to try and create crisis, the Minister of Children and Family Development is continuing to work on this plan. He is very sensitive to the needs and concerns of the community out there, and this government — just like when we were in opposition — remains very, very much committed to ensuring the safety of children in our society. Children are the best investment any government can make, and we will continue to make that investment.

J. MacPhail: The risk register that we have, in which the Ministry of Children and Family Development officials participated, goes directly against what the Deputy Premier just said. It's a risk register. The minister's plan to cut the child welfare budget by 40 percent on the south Island, while implementing a massive reorganization of child welfare, is failing. It's that simple.

Service providers, even ministry officials, can see the writing on the wall: $25 million spent on a reorganization that's failed. It's only led to confusion. But most importantly, what this risk register says is that it threatens kids and puts them at risk. Will the Deputy Premier agree to put this whole plan on hold, look at the risk register, show how her government — bottom to top — is putting kids at risk? Will she then go back to her Premier, to the Minister of Finance, and demand that the funding cut to the Ministry of Children and Family Development be restored? If so, will she do that this afternoon so that the risk register cannot put children at harm?

Hon. C. Clark: The Minister of Children and Family Development has been working very, very hard on making sure this works. He makes a virtue out of the fact that he listens — not an attribute that is often seen in the Leader of the Opposition. He has gone out, and he has listened, and he has heard. That is why he is looking at the plan. That is why government is reviewing the plan. That is why we want to make sure we get this right.

This isn't just a simple matter of political posturing and using kids as political footballs in the Legislature. This is a question of making sure this plan is done right. We need to make sure that children, who are the greatest investment any government can make, are protected in British Columbia.

R. Harris: My question is for the Minister of Forests. My riding is home to a number of forestry campsites, which prove to be very popular for both constituents and tourists. The decision to comanage some of these sites, however, has raised the concern in my riding and all across the north.

While being interviewed on CKPG radio, the Premier said the Ministry of Forests was conducting a review of this issue. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what progress has been made on this issue and when the review will be completed?

Hon. M. de Jong: As most members of the House know, last year we announced we were looking for partners…

Hon. M. de Jong: …to comanage the more than 900 rec sites that British Columbians value. Thus far we are in negotiations with groups that will lead to comanagement agreements for well over half and, as a result of a portion of the review that the member referred to, have been in a position now to offer assistance with respect to ensuring there is liability coverage for those partners. We expect that will further enhance our ability to create those comanagement partnerships that will allow us to keep that valuable recreational infrastructure open and available to all British Columbians.

S. Brice: My question is to the Minister of Education. I realize the consultation which the minister engaged in, in terms of graduation requirements, came as a result of extensive consultation with parents and students and educators. The decision was to not include physical education as a requirement. Given the….

S. Brice: Given the very serious situation of child-youth fitness, I was personally disappointed in the decision. However, I was encouraged that there was to be a requirement in the graduation portfolio for demonstrated physical activity. I wonder if the minister would elaborate on that and give this House some assurance that there would be some rigour required in that very important aspect of our children's development.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Minister of Education has the floor.

Hon. C. Clark: When we did the public consultation on the discussion about grad requirements — we were out there for about a year and a half talking to people — we talked about a phys ed requirement, making it mandatory in grades 11 and 12. It was something that I was quite interested in seeing happen, but 90 percent of the people we spoke to and who made submissions didn't think it was a good idea. It was a question of listening to the people and making sure that the grad requirements that we brought in met their expectations.

That doesn't mean we don't think that physical activity and enhancing a level of physical activity is important for kids. We need to make sure that kids have a love of an active lifestyle. We also need to make sure that young people, particularly young women, graduate from high school with a healthy body image and a good approach to eating and to their lifestyle, which will mean a healthy society.

Here's what we've done. We are going to require that every child who graduates demonstrates that they have had at least 80 hours of documented physical activity in addition to the required mandatory physical education up to grade 10 inclusive. We are going to be looking at the curriculum, and we're going to be working with the Ministry of CAWS to make sure we have healthy kids graduating from our schools.

J. Kwan: If the Deputy Premier actually cares about children and their education, maybe she should take a look at the risk assessment here. According to the risk registry, there is a high likelihood that as a result of budget cuts, none of the services required to implement this new model will even exist, resulting in mass confusion, loss of confidence and an erosion of trust in child protection systems.

The Deputy Premier may want to deny there's a problem, but without the support of the people who prepared this assessment, the minister responsible cannot proceed with this new model. They're telling the minister that this is impossible, that it simply won't work. How can the Deputy Premier continue to say that everything is fine and things are proceeding accordingly? The government needs to step back, put this model on hold….

J. Kwan: The government needs to step back and put this model on hold and ensure that children and youth are protected as this government claims that it's going to be doing.

J. MacPhail: It didn't come from your side. You were forced to participate in it. It's the agencies that deliver the services, not you.

Hon. G. Collins: Without a doubt, I think that there will be, from time to time, disagreements between the agencies that are paid to provide services and the government who pays the bills. However, on this very serious matter, the member…. I have not seen the document she has in front of her, although I've seen

other documents that indicate there are challenges in this ministry in 2004-05 as the changes and the implementation of this plan come into phase. That is why…

J. MacPhail: Mental health risks escalate. Sexual exploitation on the increase.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

Hon. G. Collins: That is the exact reason why we are reviewing the plan and the service plan of the Ministry for Children and Family Development. The goal remains to make sure that children and adults that are vulnerable and that need attention and need care are provided with that. That is the whole goal. The whole review of this ministry's plan is based on the feedback that we've received from people out there around British Columbia. Comments….

Hon. G. Collins: That is why we have engaged in the review. It is because….

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, we all care about children. The challenge is to listen to what we hear from people out there — to listen to service providers, families, the aboriginal communities and the professionals in the ministry — and make sure we have a plan that will work. That's why we are reviewing the plan. We're reviewing it now — unlike what was done by the previous government when that individual sat around the cabinet table, when they swept it under the carpet month after month, year after year. We know what the impact was on children in British Columbia.

T. Bhullar: My question is directed to the Minister of Deregulation. Can the Minister of Deregulation tell the House about deregulation and if he is meeting his self-imposed deadlines on deregulation?

As a side note, I did read a letter from the Barbers Association. They don't sound very happy. Just some free advice — it's not legal advice, so it's free: do not attend any barbers, or we might have a by-election in Cloverdale.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'd like to thank the member for that question. The member will be happy to know that my visits to the barber are more infrequent as I get older.

For the question that the member posed, I thank you. We did have a target in the ministry to achieve a 12 percent net reduction by March 31 of the proceeding fiscal year. I am pleased to inform the member and the House that we have, in fact, exceeded that target. We're just over 13 percent. That represents over 60,000 regulations that we no longer are burdening British Columbians with. We're doing that, member, while protecting the important interests of public health, safety and the environment.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

Hon. G. Collins moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Health as well as the estimates for the Ministry of Health Services.

The Chair: I call the committee to order, and we will take a ten-minute recess.

R. Lee: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House 28 grade 5 students of St. Helen's School from my riding of Burnaby North. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Ramalho, as well as several parent volunteers. They are Ms. Frafca, Ms. Bruschetta, Mrs. Alberti, another Mrs. Alberti, Mrs. Luongo, Mrs. Whol, Mrs.

Cortese, Mrs. Herdman and Mrs. Debenedetto. Would the House please give our visitors a warm welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are actually two motions that will constitute the votes for the Ministry of Health Services, and one is the main vote, which is vote 29, that was tabled in February. The second is the vote that reflects the increase, the supplemental estimate that was tabled today.

I'm going to propose to the opposition, Mr. Chair, that we put the vote 29(S), which is the supplemental top-up, and we just deal with that one. Then it won't impede any of the discussions we want to have around vote 29 itself, if that's appropriate to the member.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will speak to it very briefly, and if it's appropriate, we can put the vote on that and then get to the main motion itself — the main vote.

This $319.4 million reflects the increase in federal money that will flow as a result of the agreement between the Premiers and the Prime Minister in early February. This is a commitment we made as a government that every dollar that flowed from the federal government would, in fact, be added to the budget. When our budget was tabled in February, we did not know how much that would be in each of the coming fiscal years. That has just been finalized of late, and we now have that number so we're able to present that supplemental estimate.

If it's agreeable to the opposition, we can put that vote. I will then move vote 29, and we can deal with the whole range of issues that need to be addressed.

Just to clarify and confirm that after the passing of this vote, any question after the passing of this vote that would have arisen out of the original vote will be able to legitimately be put under the general estimates debate?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll start with an overview of our service plan and some of the budget highlights just as a way to introduce the whole subject. I'd first like to introduce some of the ministry officials who have joined me in the House today. To my immediate right is Dr. Penny Ballem, who is our deputy minister. I'd also like to introduce Tamara Vrooman, who is the deputy minister responsible for strategic initiatives. Behind me is Marnie Mitchell, who is the executive director of the Pharmacare branch, and also Steven Brown, who is the assistant deputy minister in the ministry.

I'd like to start by just acknowledging the huge contribution that's been made by staff in the ministry. They have done an enormous amount of work over these last almost two years now since we formed government. I've certainly learned to appreciate the dedication and the hard work they bring to this ministry, and I must say I appreciate it very much.

I would also like to acknowledge the nurses, the doctors and the other health professionals and support workers throughout our health care system who really make the system work for British Columbians. I think, by and large, we have a first-class health care system in British Columbia. It's not to say there's no room for improvements, because we all know there is room for improvement. We can get into some of those issues throughout this debate. But it is those workers, those front-line staff, who actually are providing care to British Columbians, who really deserve the credit for the positive attributes of our health care system in this province.

As members are aware, the Ministry of Health Services 2003-04 Estimates document that was tabled on February 18 by the Finance minister showed a $10.185 billion budget for the Ministry of Health Services. The supplementary estimates, which were introduced today, will increase that budget by $319.4 million to bring it up to its total amount of $10.505 billion.

As noted in the Ministry of Health Services new service plan, increases have also been identified for the '04-05 and the '05-06 years. The targets that we have for those years are for an increase of an additional $398.2 million for the '04-05 year over what had been tabled on February 8. That is an increase of this current amount that's in our budget today and an additional amount of $78.8 million, or a 0.8 percent increase over the prior year.

Then in the third year of our service plan, '05-06, there will be an increase of $595.6 million over what was tabled February 8, and that is an increase of $197.4 million, or 1.9 percent over the immediate prior year.

We are requesting approval for the supplemental estimates, which we have dealt with earlier. This will apportion the amount that was increased as a result of the first ministers' accord on health care renewal. Because none of these additional funds were reflected in the ministry's '03-04 estimates and the interim service plan, it is the combination of the supplemental estimates and the amounts tabled in February that will constitute our full budget.

The federal accord that was originally announced in February will result in the allocation of approximately $1.3 billion in additional federal funding to British Columbia over the next three years. That new federal funding is in three distinct categories. The first is the Canadian health and social transfer — CHST, as we refer to it — which will provide to British Columbia

$333.1 million over that three-year period. There is also the health reform fund, which is an additional $780 million over three years. Then finally, there is a diagnostic and medical equipment fund of $200.1 million over the three-year period.

We are pleased to note that the office of the auditor general has agreed to support the province in the recognition of the CHST fund increases over the three-year period, starting with this current fiscal year. This fund will be used to protect British Columbians against catastrophic drug costs as a result of the new Fair Pharmacare program. The Ministry of Health Services has also incorporated new performance measures into its new service plan to measure and report on the number of British Columbians who are adequately insured under their prescribed drug costs, and this year the Fair Pharmacare policy will be evaluated by the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, which is located at the University of British Columbia.

This addition was requested by the office of the auditor general, and we are certainly pleased to incorporate his suggestions for enhancing our ability to ensure maximum effectiveness from this funding. Defining and meeting clear targets is certainly nothing new to this government, and we welcome the opportunity to develop further performance measures. It is all part of government's demonstrated commitment to a system that focuses on openness, results and accountability.

We've established the following priorities with regard to the new federal funding. The first is to buy system improvements; secondly, to provide a stable, predictable funding base for the health authorities; thirdly, to provide one-time health authority transition funding to invest in redesign; and finally, to meet the requirements of the federal government.

I should perhaps point out that the federal dollars come with expectations that are yet to be defined. Although the accord specifies the types of services the funding must be used for, the level of enhancement will be determined partly through the performance indicators and targets that are not yet agreed upon by federal, provincial and territorial governments. They are being worked on now, and it's our expectation that those will be finalized by this fall.

However, we are concerned about the lack of information at this point about what levels of new services health authorities will have to provide in order to meet the requirements of the accord and whether the funding will indeed prove to be adequate to meet those future provisions. The new federal funding is a valuable part of our reforms to provide better patient care and sustainability for our health care system. However, we face increasing pressure and demands on health care and will continue to explore long-term solutions with our partners.

As members are aware, the Ministry of Health Services previously issued an interim 2003-04 to 2005-06 service plan — so the service plan to cover that three-year period. The Ministry of Health Services has now updated that service plan, which is also being released today, and this revised plan presents the objectives, strategies and performance measures for the ministry and for B.C.'s health care system. It also includes information pertaining to the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

The key changes from the interim service plan to the final service plan are as follows: the restructuring of core businesses to better define the role of the ministry versus the role of the partners, such as the health authorities and physicians who deliver front-line services; to reflect new strategic priorities that the ministry is initiating to meet budget targets in '05-06 and beyond; to ensure long-term sustainability of the health system; and, finally, to reflect performance measures and targets that have been updated to reflect both the ministry's new strategic priorities and the potential reporting requirements for federal health accord funding.

As stated earlier, given the relative timing of the federal-provincial discussions, it is possible that further changes will be required to the '04-05 through '06-07 service plans to accommodate new performance indicators that may be required as a result of that federal accord. The service plan reflects our first priority, and that's patient care. This year's service plan has a stronger emphasis than ever on outcome-based performance measures to improve patient care and detailed strategies to meet them. Members should be aware that the new accountability measures for the Ministers of State for Mental Health and for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care have also be included in the final service plans.

This year's plan refines performance measures first introduced last year to strengthen reporting and accountability on health services provided to British Columbians. In the service plan we have focused on a number of objectives and strategies, including supporting the appropriate use of hospitals and health services; helping British Columbians maintain and improve their health, including appropriate coverage for drugs; improving primary care and chronic disease management; and, finally, creating a broader range of care options to give seniors greater independence, choice and quality of life while meeting their health care needs.

We will also focus on the continued development of plans and strategies to address the burden of disease on society and on providing better care for those who need the system the most. Our focus includes prevention, better management of chronic diseases in their early stages and integrated care for the small minority with multiple or severe chronic illnesses and extremely high health care needs.

We will continue to refine performance expectations with our partners — the health authorities, the physicians and the other service providers — and we will continue with our reforms aimed at providing better patient care and system sustainability.

We're staying the course with health system redesign. The addition of $319.4 million in supplemental

estimates that we dealt with today as a result of the increased federal funding brings total provincial expenditures on all health services across government — so that's the health services provided by government, not just by the Ministry of Health Services itself…. That total amount now increases to $10.7 billion in the 2003-04 fiscal year. This now represents 42.3 percent of total government spending, the highest portion ever.

Health spending has grown by more than 78 percent over the last ten years. Between 1985 and today our health care costs have tripled, and yet the pressures keep on mounting. Across Canada and in British Columbia our health care system is being strained by growing demands and rising costs. We need a system that can be responsive to challenges and change — challenges like the unexpected and devastating emergence of SARS or the West Nile virus —, which bring new and unforeseen costs to the health system.

There are longer-term challenges like the aging population and aging facilities, pharmaceutical costs that were going up 14 to 15 percent a year and new compensation pressures. We have increased the health budget for the last two years because we believed that it was necessary, but we recognized that simply adding more and more money into the system will not overcome the structural problems within that system, which is why the changes we and the health authorities are making are so critical to the long-term survival of the public health care system that we all cherish.

This service plan will guide the management of the ministry and health care in British Columbia as we work towards improving patient care and building a more modern and sustainable health care system for the future. We have redoubled our efforts to develop step-by-step goals, strategies and performance measures to help us create a future where we can respond to change from a considered, thoughtful vantage point instead of the panicked, ad hoc approach of the past. We will continue to face these challenges by developing strong relationships with our partners, clearly defining performance expectations and actively engaging in our stewardship role.

As noted earlier, the health authorities will receive a total of $130 million from the federal health accord lift. I know there are lots of people that are looking at the new federal moneys as some kind of a panacea for the challenges in health care. I would like to just put that amount of money into perspective, because $130 million in increased money is obviously important and will provide for better opportunities for better patient care, but it also funds the health care system for a total of 92 hours. The cost of running our health care system is about $1.4 million an hour, so while it's helpful, it is certainly not the panacea for the challenges.

In addition to that $130 million, there is also $60 million that will flow to the health authorities in additional money for medical and diagnostic equipment. Health authorities will also receive an additional $8 million reallocated from within the ministry's existing base budget, for a total increase of $198 million to the health authorities in this current fiscal year. The plan is to provide base dollars to the health authorities upfront and continue with the existing performance expectations. These funds will support transition in this current fiscal year so that new expectations can be established for the following two fiscal years.

Health authority performance agreements and acute care access standards, three-year service redesign plans and budget management plans — all these are in place and being refined continually. These initiatives are already demonstrating the value of this approach in better management of the health care system.

I'd like to conclude by acknowledging the hard work and dedication of our health professionals at work every day in British Columbia to provide high-quality services. The fact is that despite increasing systemic pressures, British Columbians continue to enjoy world-class health care in this province. Each year approximately two million British Columbians go to an emergency room. About half a million will receive some kind of in-patient surgery or treatment, and the vast majority find the system works smoothly and efficiently.

We don't always know how to show that the system is working well or how to identify where and when it may need work. We are moving B.C. health care into the twenty-first century, where the system will be increasingly measured on patient outcomes and clear performance standards. The plans we are submitting today will increasingly lead to a system where success is not just anecdotal. It is measurable, and it will lead to a system which is even more deserving of British Columbians' faith, pride and confidence.

I would be pleased to entertain whatever questions the opposition would like to put forward.

J. MacPhail: It is good news for British Columbians that the federal government is pumping money into the system, and it's not a moment too soon. I wasn't actually going to address this part of the debate until later, except that the minister provoked me by saying that they are going to do things differently than the panicked, ad hoc ways of the past.

Isn't it good news that this government, since its election in 2001, has had increased transfer payments from the federal government for health care? This government, this Liberal government, has not had to suffer any cuts in transfer payments for health — none whatsoever.

Let's just be realistic about this. The health care system was not operated in a panicked, ad hoc way in the past, but it was under duress — massive duress — not because of anything any provincial politician did but because of the federal government itself. The very same Liberal federal government that is now doling out money to this Liberal government at the provincial level was making massive cuts in transfer payments for health from 1994 onward. In '94 a cut, in '95 a cut in federal transfer payments for health — in '96, '97, '98 and '99. At the last half of 2000 money started to flow again just prior to this government getting elected.

What did this then opposition, now government say while those massive cuts were being made in transfer payments to the health care system? The now Premier stood up and said: "Oh, those cuts aren't deep enough." In fact, at the time that the health care system was being funded to the tune of about $6 billion in this province, he said: "That should be enough. That should be enough for the health care system." Not one iota of slack or understanding or positive feedback did the then opposition give to the then government at all about those cuts in transfer payments — not one.

Yet throughout that whole period of time health care funding wasn't cut by the provincial government. Even in dire economic straits because of the Asian economic downturn, the then administration funded the health care system, making up for every cut dollar from federal transfer payments, and the then opposition said: "How awful." Not one iota of understanding — not one.

In fact, they would use surgical wait-lists — isn't that interesting — as an example of how awful the health care system was. Isn't it interesting? We'll get to that to see how well we're doing there. They would prey upon seniors and the effect of the health care system on seniors even though the system was fully funded. Every single dollar cut by the federal government…. Paul Martin, the then Minister of Finance who got his great fiscal record on the backs of the province, was cutting dollars every year, and British Columbia was the only province who didn't pass those cuts through to the patients or families of British Columbia.

It was a cheap shot — completely unnecessary for the Minister of Health to talk about the 1990s as being panicked and ad hoc. If anything was ad hoc, it was the way the then Liberals in opposition defended our health care system against the federal Liberal cuts.

In fact, they didn't defend the health care system at all. They embraced the cuts the federal Liberal government made. But it's good news. Thank God, the federal Liberal government is restoring health care payments to British Columbia. This government will benefit from that. They won't have had to do one iota of health care management in the face of massive federal transfer payment cuts — not one. Their record will be judged on their well-being, their efficiency and their expertise alone in managing the health care system. They won't be able to turn to Ottawa and do anything except say thank you to Ottawa for giving back the money that was cut miserably from the health care system in the 1990s.

The first area we need to look at in terms of the well-being of the health care system is in the area of Pharmacare. I want to quote from a study that was released last month, on April 23. It's from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It was released out of Ottawa. I'm quoting from the news release attached to the study. It says: "Expenditure on prescribed drugs continues to increase, occupying a larger proportion of total drug spending in Canada, according to a new report released today by the Canadian Institute for Health Information."

The report is called Drugs Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2002. It is a study that includes a discussion of factors affecting drug expenditure. The report covers all drug expenditures, both drug expenditures made privately and publicly, both prescribed and not prescribed. There's a wide variation in terms of provincial comparisons, but the study does make provincial comparisons. It says:

For those watching, British Columbia is at the head of a lot of the tables, but what does that mean? Let me go through the table, if I may. This was released less than a month ago, three weeks ago.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information is a non-partisan…. I think it's even non-political; I'm not sure. No, it's funded by the provinces. It's funded proportionately from provinces, but it is an academic research body based on real evidence that it gleans from expenditures from every province. Here's what it says: "The total drug expenditure, as a percentage of total health expenditure, in British Columbia is 12.5 percent."

Well, that's a lot. I agree; that's a lot. That means one out of every eight dollars in the health care budget is spent on drugs. But what are we in comparison to other provinces? Well, it turns out that the Territories are, across the board, less, but in terms of the provinces, we are the second lowest in drug expenditure as a percentage of total health expenditure. Newfoundland spends 14.5 percent; P.E. I., 17.5 percent; Nova Scotia, 16.7 percent; New Brunswick, 16.7 percent; Quebec, 17.6 percent; Ontario, 16.1 percent. Manitoba spent 12.1 percent; Saskatchewan, 13.9 percent; Alberta, 13.7 percent. British Columbia is the second lowest of the provinces at 12.5 percent.

However, what does it mean for real people? That's a statistic; that's a percentage. What does it mean for real people? The total drug expenditure per person is the lowest, except for Nunavut, in all of Canada. The total drug expenditure is $406.80 per person. What did they spend elsewhere? Newfoundland, $453; Prince Edward Island, $501; Nova Scotia, $497; New Brunswick, $490; Quebec, $506 per person; and Ontario, $533 per person. Manitoba spent $424. Sorry, Manitoba is again lower than we are, and Saskatchewan is $423. Oh no, I'm sorry. I'm misreading it. Ours is $406 per person. Manitoba spent $424; Alberta, $435; and then B.C. at the lowest, $406 per person. We have the second-lowest percentage expenditure of the budget on drugs,

of the total health expenditures in the country. We have the lowest per-capita costs, per-person costs of drug expenditures.

The next one is the prescribed drug expenditure as a percentage of total drug expenditures. That's the percentage of all drug expenditures prescribed by doctors and, therefore, affected by our Pharmacare program. Well, let's see. How does British Columbia fare there? It turns out that we're at the low end — not quite. We're at the second lowest amongst the provinces. Oh no, I'm misreading again. I've got to get my glasses checked. That'll cost me ninety bucks. We're the lowest of all the provinces in terms of the prescribed drug expenditure as a percentage of total drug expenditures.

In British Columbia, out of all the drug expenditures, the prescribed drug expenditure is 74.5 percent. Other provinces are 80 percent, 76 percent, 78 percent, 83 percent, 76 percent, 76 percent and 77 percent. There's British Columbia, amongst the provinces, at the bottom. We're doing pretty good compared to the rest of the provinces. In fact, we're the best. We're the best in terms of managing expenditures and the percentage we spend on drugs.

What does the public get for that, though? What do British Columbians get for those good numbers? Well, they get the best coverage of all of the provinces. Isn't that interesting? The public prescribed drug expenditure, as a percentage of the total prescribed drug expenditure — now, what does that mean? That means: how much is paid out of the public expenditures as a percentage of all the drugs.

In other words, what do your tax dollars get for you? British Columbia is at the top. Well, they were, as of 2000. Of all prescribed drug costs, 53.7 percent came out of the public purse for British Columbians. What did other Canadians get? Other Canadians got 44 percent covered — that was Alberta — 43 percent in Saskatchewan, 45 percent in Manitoba, 43 percent in Ontario, 48 percent in Quebec and 39 percent in Newfoundland.

British Columbia has the lowest per-capita cost of drugs. British Columbia has the lowest total prescribed drug costs per capita. British Columbia has the lowest prescribed expenditures as a percentage of total drug expenditures, and they have the highest amount of their prescribed drugs covered by public expenditure. What was wrong with the Pharmacare program that's specific to British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, I have a lot of respect for CIHI and the work that CIHI does. They provide some very valuable and objective data. I think it is very useful.

I don't believe that you can measure the success of a health care system by simply how little you pay per capita for medications. There are medications developed that actually take pressure off our acute care system. There are certainly conditions that in the past would have required surgical intervention, which now can be treated with a pharmaceutical product. Therefore, in those cases, an increase in expenditure in a drug budget might actually save the overall health care system money and provide better care for individual British Columbians.

I think the point the member raises…. To address her specific question, I think the problem we had with the Pharmacare system before was that it was not fair to certain families in British Columbia compared to other families. I'm sure the member, like all MLAs in this House, each January or February receives letters from low-income families, non-senior families, who are struggling, under the old Pharmacare system, to come up with their $800 deductible, where they have to pay out of their own pocket 100 percent of their drug costs until such time as they would hit their $800 ceiling. Only then, in the past, would the Pharmacare system click in. At the same time you had high-income seniors who would be paying a maximum of $275 per person for their drug costs over the year.

While it's true that British Columbia was paying the highest percentage of prescription costs of any province in Canada, which the member noted, we could not say that that financial assistance being provided by the taxpayer was in fact fair to all families in the province. The new Fair Pharmacare program that took effect on May 1 addresses that, so that low-income non-senior families will in fact see their benefits under Fair Pharmacare increased. They will get more financial assistance under this new plan than they would have before.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's a new argument that the minister has had to come up with in order to justify the labelling of his program, called Fair Pharmacare. We'll get to individual cases. We'll get to how fair Pharmacare is under this government.

This minister and his colleagues said over and over again that Pharmacare wasn't sustainable, and he would label the increases every year. That was why, he said, money had to be cut out of Pharmacare. Indeed, that's why they cut the growth of the Pharmacare budget for two years. In fact, the Pharmacare budget, under the previous vote, was going down by $90 million. Now, thank God for the federal government, because the federal government sent a whole whack of money to British Columbia, and this minister is being forced to put some of it into Pharmacare, so the Pharmacare budget's going up now.

What was it about the Pharmacare success story I just read out to the minister that he disagreed with? He said that it was good, that certain health outcomes are better managed by prescription drugs than not. What was it that made him so upset about Pharmacare that these wonderful outcomes listed — where B.C. was at the top of every good statistic, led the country in every good statistic around Pharmacare…? What was it that made him so upset? What was it that made him change his mind from saying that Pharmacare was unsustainable to saying that it wasn't "fair"?

Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to start by reminding the member that when she was the Minister of Finance

in this House, she actually brought down a budget that showed only a 2 percent increase in the Pharmacare budget. Yet they knew at the time there were cost pressures in Pharmacare of over $90 million that they did not fund, and they did not explain at all in that budget how they were going to manage those risks. One of the things I think the member has to admit is that we have been transparent with all of the issues and the challenges around our Pharmacare budget — indeed, the whole Health budget.

What we were facing under Pharmacare was a budget of approximately $714 million that was increasing at a rate of 14 and 15 percent a year. That would actually result, over the long term, in not being able to sustain a Pharmacare system. I think that we want to make sure there is financial assistance for low- and middle-income families in particular, so that they can afford the medications their doctors prescribe to them. It's only by changing the system so that it is sustainable into the future and we can live within our means that we're going to be able to assure there is access to necessary prescriptions.

I think when the member talks about B.C. being number one in all of those indicators, she fails to recognize that while B.C. may have paid out of taxpayers' funds 53 percent of the health costs, they weren't always going to the right people. Some of that 53 percent of medication costs in the province funded by the taxpayers was going to some very wealthy families in British Columbia, at the same time that some very poor families in British Columbia were not getting assistance under the Pharmacare program.

We have changed it to bring more fairness to low- and middle-income families in British Columbia. It's the right thing to do.

J. MacPhail: We'll get to that in a moment — how much people support this government's change. Again, let me be clear. This is a new message. This is new spin from the minister — that it's fair and that they had to do it because Jimmy Pattison was getting his drugs for free and poor people weren't getting their drugs. Well, that's balderdash. That's absolute balderdash, and we'll get to that in a moment.

The shift, in terms of applying an income test, is nothing more than this government trying to reduce Pharmacare. That's why they started out: to cut the amount of access British Columbians had to Pharmacare. Let's be clear. Any work this government does around Pharmacare better improve those numbers and not make them worse. We have the lowest per-capita cost of drugs, and that's because the previous government actually took on the pharmaceutical companies. This government won't.

We had the lowest per-capita costs of drugs. We had the lowest percentage of our health care budget going into prescription drugs. We had the greatest portion of prescription drugs being paid out of the public purse. I'll just read this last one here. We also in British Columbia had the lowest amount of prescribed drugs as a percentage of overall drugs. Therefore, the number of prescriptions wasn't out of control. That was great news for British Columbia. Everything this government does to Pharmacare will be tested against these numbers — from best in Canada in every category to now. We'll see what happens.

Of course, unlike the previous government who had one hand tied behind their back by the cuts in transfer payments from the federal government, this government is getting — let's see — how much more money from the federal government to put into Pharmacare? Their budget for Pharmacare prior to the largesse earlier this year from the federal government was going to be $614 million — a cut, a real cut of about $87 million.

Now we see that the revised estimates…. Let me just see. The revised estimates are that there will be $743 million into Pharmacare, an increase of…. Yeah, that's right. Maybe the minister could confirm for me. Because of the federal government largesse, instead of cutting the Pharmacare budget by about $87 million, they will be increasing it year over year by about $41 million because of the federal government. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: The numbers that the member indicated are correct. We will see an increase, or we do see an increase in the Pharmacare budget for this year by $41 million. We will also, as she knows, see an increase the year after, the year after and the year after that. We do not project that there will ever be a decline in the Pharmacare budget.

I do want to come back to a point the member said about the fairness message. I don't know if she had a chance to listen in on the press conference when we announced Fair Pharmacare back in February. That message around the need to address the inequality of benefits to different families in British Columbia has been very much central to all of the discussions and all of the messages — whether it's been things I've said in this House or whether it's been interviews that I've engaged in or, indeed, the initial press conference when we announced it.

I would also point out…. She mentions that right now British Columbia, as she indicated, is the top when it comes to the percentage of prescription costs borne by the taxpayer. She mentioned that the CIHI numbers for 2000 show that at 53 percent. I'm not sure that's necessarily something that shows B.C. is the best. It just shows that B.C. taxpayers are footing a greater percentage of those costs than any other province. Under the new Fair Pharmacare system, what we anticipate is that instead of being at 53 percent, it will be at 47 percent. Of all the prescriptions purchased in British Columbia, 47 percent of the costs will, in fact, be borne by the new Fair Pharmacare program.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, it would be awful for British Columbians to actually have their government deliver the best service in the country. I can see why the minis-

ter would object to that — the best record for public resources being used to pay for prescription drugs. That's not a good statistic. I say that sarcastically for those who only read these words. Of course it's a good statistic. Value for your tax dollars, it's called.

But when you also combine that with that we have the lowest per-capita costs of prescription drugs, it makes a wonderful statistic. It means British Columbians are getting better value out of their tax dollars and greater coverage because they ain't giving it away to the pharmaceutical companies — until this government was elected. That's what it means — lowest per-capita cost of drugs and highest coverage out of your tax dollars. That's what that means. It's a wonderful story that can simply not be challenged by anybody in the Liberal government as not being good for British Columbians. But we'll see. We'll see.

I already know now that one of the stats is going to be decreased by over 10 percent. We're going to go from 53.7 percent of prescription drug costs paid out of the public purse — after you've paid your taxes, of course — down to 47 percent. Let's see. That's 7 percent on 53 percent. It's about a 12 percent cut. It's about a 12 percent reduction in the benefit that British Columbians get from their taxes. That's what it is. Lots and lots of British Columbians will be paying more for that reduced coverage. Gee, that's good news, isn't it?

The minister said that he was going to be taking on drug costs in British Columbia. I noted that one of the announcements he made to a question — in the fake question period, I call it, but whatever…. It's when the Liberal MLAs…. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano asked a question about a particular drug, and the minister stood up and said: "Oh, that particular drug is working. We've got a low-cost alternative." Perhaps the minister could just refresh me about the answer that he gave to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, because I have some questions about it concerning the Pharmacare program.

Hon. C. Hansen: The announcement that we made last week was the listing of a new drug that has been developed. It's called rabeprazole, or I guess the more common name that we may come to know it as is Pariet. This is a proton pump inhibitor. There are three drugs existing from three different companies that had been listed previously. This one, evidence shows, is equally as effective as those products. So we have listed this drug with a preferential listing over the other drugs, and it is a saving to the Pharmacare budget over the next three years of $42 million.

Hon. C. Hansen: The company that developed this new drug approached the ministry with a proposal that this drug be listed. We then went out to the other three companies and asked for their suggestions regarding how we could better control the very rapidly rising costs of proton pump inhibitors in our Pharmacare budget. Each of those three companies came back with various proposals, but nothing really achieved the kind of savings that the preferential listing of this one drug would achieve.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so the drug company approached the ministry directly. Then what procedure did the ministry follow to put the listing of that drug company forward?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the member knows, a very thorough review is done of new medications that come forward to assess the clinical trials that have been done and the other evidence that is available. We also looked at what other jurisdictions had done. In the case of Ontario and Newfoundland, they had gone down a similar route — although not exactly the same — with regard to the listing of this drug. This then, ultimately, came before the drug benefit review committee. The drug benefit review committee, which is a body within the Ministry of Health Services, came forward with their recommendation to me.

J. MacPhail: I want to know what process was followed that didn't involve the minister's own officials.

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things that the provinces and the federal government have collaborated on over the last two years is a common drug review process. What we found was that each province was going through its own review in terms of the efficacy of a new drug. It was really a duplication of what should be the same scientific process of evaluation, and yet there was a duplication of costs, effort and time delays with all jurisdictions undertaking the same process. So the provinces collectively, the Territories and the federal government, with the exception of Quebec, agreed to come together to collaborate on what is now referred to as the common drug review.

What will happen is that as a new drug comes forward, one of those jurisdictions will take the lead in doing the assessments necessary. While I'm not sure off the top of my head exactly which jurisdiction did the assessment for the common drug review, it was done and then shared with all of the other 13 jurisdictions that are participating.

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that information at my fingertips. I will endeavour to get it for the member.

Hon. C. Hansen: The therapeutics initiative in British Columbia is certainly part of the common drug review process. As drugs come up for review, there will be new products assigned to the TI to review on

behalf of the other jurisdictions. The whole idea of the common drug review process in Canada is to avoid the kind of duplication we saw in the past and the unnecessary duplication of costs.

J. MacPhail: Well, if this drug review was done, why was it the drug company that approached the minister? Why wouldn't it be the minister initiating this? If there was a common drug review program done, why did it come from a drug company approaching and lobbying the ministry directly? I don't understand.

Perhaps the minister could explain to me the changes that have been made in how a drug gets listed for the drug of choice. I simply don't understand it.

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member, I'm sure, knows, when drug manufacturers come out with new products, they will bring that information to the provinces. Once the notice of compliance has been agreed to by Health Canada, which indicates that a product is safe, then those products are brought forward to the various provincial governments.

In this case, that was no exception. What this particular company came forward with to all provinces in Canada was their pricing. They proposed that this be put forward as a preferential listing in British Columbia. In doing so, we wind up with the same benefit to patients that is needed and yet at about a 40 percent saving to the taxpayers — and not just the taxpayers. For the 50 percent of drug costs that is not borne by the taxpayers directly, then certainly those British Columbians get the benefit of this lower price as well.

J. MacPhail: The minister somehow says: "As the member knows…." Well, I don't know. That's not the way it was done before, so things have changed, and I want to know how they've changed. Whoever is listening from the Ministry of Health Services, could they please tell me which province did the drug review on that particular drug? If they could get it to us soon, that would be great. Thank you very much.

That's not the way it was done in the past. It was a completely independent process. Is the listing of that drug…? The member says it was a preferential listing. Is it part of the reference drug plan, or has the minister created another category?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, the preferential listing is a program that was created when her government was in office. It is not part of the reference drug plan, but certainly there have been no changes in the various programs that fall under Pharmacare — whether it's reference drug, low-cost alternative or the…. I forget exactly what the other terms were, but this is under the preferential listings.

J. MacPhail: So we'll see, because when I heard the minister give the answer to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, my antenna went up — about, "Wow, this is a change, a drug company working directly with ministry officials" — and I wanted to know what the independent assessment was for the choice of that drug company. Who did the independent assessment is key to this debate right now, Mr. Chair, because the minister put that forward as a wonderful example of how this government is keeping drug costs under control.

Harvard Medical School said — they released a study, and the minister is well aware of it — that the reference-based pricing for prescription drugs should not be scrapped. They said: "Implementing an entirely new policy could have severe consequences for patients and Pharmacare managers." This was an article by researchers in the Canadian Medical Association Journal published, I think, in December. Yes, it was at the beginning of December. It says… Let me see — what else? The study said more intensive cost containment is needed, achieved by refining the pricing plan, adding more categories of drugs and simplifying it administratively. What's the status of the reference drug plan in this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member was referring to, there was a review done by the panel. That report was released by my colleague the Minister of Health Planning. In that report it recommended there be a review of Pharmacare that would look at some of these other options, and that review will be undertaken over these coming months. No final and ultimate decision has been made with regard to the reference drug program, but the interim decision was made, which was recommended by the panel, and that's that the reference drug program remain in place while that review is undertaken.

J. MacPhail: So we have the Harvard study saying that reference-based pricing shouldn't be scrapped. Is the minister referring to the report of April 2002 by George Morfitt, John Esdaile, Marshall Moleschi, Andrew Saxton and Arlene Gladstone? Is that the report?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I think as I just said, the Minister of Health Planning released that report in February of this year. We indicated that we were accepting the panel's recommendation that the reference drug program stay in place for now and that there be a more comprehensive review of Pharmacare. That has not been started yet, although the planning for that is underway, and we should have that initiated in the consultations we plan to embark upon. That should happen fairly soon.

Basically, within the ministry, with the rollout of Fair Pharmacare, it was a question of the capacity of the ministry to roll out the review at the same time that Fair Pharmacare was being launched. We are now fo-

J. MacPhail: Well, as you know, Mr. Chair, the opposition has been advocating through question period that the government, before it attacks British Columbians and forces them to pay more for their Pharmacare coverage, should maybe attack the pharmaceuticals and reduce the costs of drugs. But oh no, we've got a full-fledged Pharmacare change going where British Columbians are going to pay more, and yet we have a report that this government has had sitting, with no action, for over a year — 13 months now. The minister isn't planning on doing anything in the near future except plan for what he's going to do with the report from the reference drug program consultation panel.

Well, let me ask this. Here's the Picture of Health advertisement that I am reading from. It was December 13, 2002. It's interesting the way the minister was spinning an affordable, sustainable Pharmacare plan then and the reaction he got from the public. Here it says, "We are acting to control costs," and one of them…. I'll read it aloud. This is the government's own ad. It cost quite a bit of money, I'll tell you. It's a full page.

"Reducing inappropriate drug use and avoiding use of unnecessary drugs." Well, British Columbia's got the lowest ratio of prescription drug usage in Canada. "Improving patients' health by increasing emphasis on prevention and wellness." I have no idea what they're doing there, but I'll be asking questions later. "Ensuring we get the lowest prices from drug companies."

"Working with other provinces to develop a common drug review process." It says right there that they're working to develop a process. Apparently that process is already in place. I can hardly wait to hear who did it. There we are.

Here's what they say about why Pharmacare needed to be changed. It's because "Pharmacare costs are growing faster than any other health program — over 75 percent in the past five years." So it was certainly an economic issue back in December, and of course, there was quite a bit of reaction from the public. The minister had to delay his program, and here we are now. To the minister: why 13 months of inaction?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm a little bit…. I'm trying to figure out what the point is that the member is trying to make with this. What we have done with Pharmacare is bring in some changes that will make sure it's sustainable in the years to come. It was growing at a rate of 14 or 15 percent a year. Clearly, when she was Minister of Finance, she was not prepared to fund that, because she didn't. She brought in a 2 percent increase to the Pharmacare budget.

We want to make sure it is structured in a way that is sustainable. We brought in some changes that bring more fairness to low-income families. High-income families in British Columbia, we think, can pay a bigger percentage of their pharmacy costs. When the member talks about 53 percent of pharmacy costs being borne by the taxpayers, that's not to say that every single British Columbian should get 53 percent of their pharmacy costs paid for when they go to get a prescription filled. It's saying that low-income British Columbians deserve and should get a higher percentage of that support.

We wind up with low-income families under the new Fair Pharmacare system that will wind up getting 90 or 93 percent of their prescription costs paid for by the new Fair Pharmacare program. On the other hand, you're going to wind up with some higher-income families in British Columbia that are going to get nothing in terms of taxpayer assistance with their pharmaceutical costs, because our assessment is that with that household income, they can afford to bear those costs, whereas low-income families can't.

When the member talks about 13 months, there has been an enormous amount of activity, over the course of almost two years now since we formed government, to make sure that we bring pharmaceutical costs under control. The member seems so hung up on just the reference-based pricing debate. That is but one small issue that has been on our desk in terms of dealing with Pharmacare changes so that in fact they are sustainable. There has been a huge amount of work done over that period of time to make sure Pharmacare is there for families that need it.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me just paint the picture if the minister is missing my point. He's brought in changes to Pharmacare that are going to have hundreds of thousands of people pay more for their Pharmacare that they didn't pay for it before. They paid their taxes; they got sick; they got their drugs prescribed. Hundreds of thousands now are going to have their coverage reduced, and a lot of them will be poor. I'll get to those letters in a minute. There will be poor seniors, as a matter of fact. That's the change this government has made. Now, we'll get to how effectively that program is being introduced. I hope the minister has better results than he did at the end of last month on how the Fair Pharmacare program is actually working.

What point am I trying to make about drug costs? My point is this. Why didn't the minister try to control drug costs first rather than who pays for the drugs? Why didn't he tackle the pharmaceutical companies to keep drug costs under control and then decide what portion taxpayers in British Columbia should have to pay for that?

That's my point. No, what he first does is a big cash grab from British Columbians not only in increased medical services premiums but in changes to Pharmacare, so that we're no longer having the best coverage and the lowest per-capita costs for prescription drugs. We're going to lose that position. Why should B.C. be the best in that area?

There's absolutely no action on reducing drug…. Well, there's been one example from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, which I'm dying to find out how it actually came about. But there's been no action on this report that the government spent tens of thousands of dollars on — in fact more than that — on how

to reduce drug costs — not how to make British Columbians pay more for their drugs but on how to reduce drug costs.

In fact, if the minister is so curious as to why I would care about this report, let me just read the recommendations. This is now 13 months old — 13 months. All I'm trying to find out is what the government's doing about this report. They're planning on doing something.

(1) The reference drug program should be maintained at least on a short-term basis.

(2) Pharmacare's program structure should be redesigned in such a way as to maintain the ability to manage costs within a more integrated framework. Such a framework should provide improved transparency and greater clarity.

(3) Program redesign should include meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including health care professionals, academics, industry representatives and others.

(4) In particular, frank discussions should be held with the pharmaceutical industry to explore the possibilities of substantially improved investment in research and development in British Columbia.

(5) Various co-pay and incentive systems — e.g., sliding scale, stepped scale, percentage allocations, etc., — should be reviewed to identify those that provide the optimum balance of cost containment, incentives for physicians and patients to choose cost-effective alternatives, as well as protection for the poor and critically ill.

(6) Drug utilization reviews should be reactivated either through the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., the body currently responsible for them, or by transferring responsibility to another agency willing to undertake this role to support program development. (7) Physicians, pharmacists and the public should be provided with better information to encourage shared responsibility and support informed and cost-effective decision making with respect to drug use.

(8) British Columbia should continue to play a lead role in encouraging coordinated interprovincial drug approval, access and cost-containment measures.

(9) British Columbia should work with other provinces to urge the federal government to include prescription drugs within the provisions of the Canada Health Act and to work toward a national Pharmacare program.

(10) The reference drug program should be expanded in appropriate additional therapeutic categories in order to maximize its cost-saving potentials.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, that report was released in February of this year. We indicated at the time that while we were accepting the first recommendation of the panel, we were also going to embark on a review of the Pharmacare program that would take all of those recommendations into consideration. That will be undertaken by the ministry over these coming months. We hope to have it completed within this calendar year.

J. MacPhail: The minister seems to be making a point that they released it to the public in February 2003. Is the date on the report of April 2002 wrong?

Hon. C. Hansen: The report was completed in April 2002. It was released in February 2003.

J. MacPhail: That's like waiting to find out what the special prosecutor said about the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The public is only well informed when the minister decides to actually release the report. Sometimes we'll never be well informed. The government has had this report sitting on a desk for over 13 months now. They don't seem to hesitate to attack people in making them pay more for Pharmacare out of their own pockets, but the drug companies…. Let's not move too quickly on those drug companies, shall we? It is completely unacceptable that this government has done nothing on this report.

I'm wondering whether anybody has had a chance to say what jurisdiction reviewed the drug that the minister talked about earlier.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the new common drug review is an independent process. It's independent of governments. It's really to take out some of the politics we've seen in other jurisdictions.

One of the things I didn't realize until just now — in fact, senior officials didn't know until they searched it out — is that the review that was done of this particular product was actually done by the TI here in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's my understanding that it was done about the middle of last year.

J. MacPhail: Is there a report from the therapeutics initiative on that, which the minister can produce?

Hon. C. Hansen: The report that was prepared by the therapeutics initiative would come to the drug benefit review committee. It has not been a policy of government now or in the past to release those reports.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that was my understanding — that there is a report that came forward from the therapeutics initiative.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister actually give me a time line of when the drug company approached him

or the ministry, when it went to therapeutics initiative, when the report was done and when it was put back to government?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is my understanding that the review was done, as I said, in the middle of last year; that the company, I think, approached the ministry with their proposal regarding preferential listing in the fall of last year; and that it had been reviewed over these following months by the drug benefit committee.

J. MacPhail: So did the drug company approach the ministry before the therapeutics initiative looked at it? And by the way, the therapeutics initiative does issue reports; they issue public reports. I couldn't find that as part of their reports. That's why I'm just curious.

I need to know the time frame of this. I need to know the new way of doing things in this province. Did the drug company come to the ministry first and then go to the therapeutics initiative? Did the therapeutics initiative do this? Did they then refer the report, and the minister said: "Gee, a drug company was just by earlier today"? I want to know the exact timing of this, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can assure the member that the process for the review of new drugs has not changed under this government. It is still the same process that was put in place by the previous government, with the exception of the fact that we now have a common drug review where provinces, nationally, are sharing some of the costs and the other resources necessary to do reviews across Canada. So that is a process that is being phased in.

As I mentioned, once the company got notice of compliance on this new drug, they would have applied to government. That would have been sent to the therapeutics initiative so they could do their review around efficacy and the review of clinical trials that would have taken place and other evidence that would be available. The proposal with regard to preferential listing came from the company in the fall of last year. So that is the sequence of events that led up to the decision.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'd like specific dates, though. It's not good enough for the minister to stand up and say that nothing has changed. I want specific dates for all of this, please. I don't know whether anything's changed or not. The minister's various colleagues accuse us of fearmongering, etc., and doing poor research. I'm asking the minister for the dates himself. Has there been a change in the way the therapeutics initiative reports publicly?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, there has been no change. The therapeutics initiative produces regular reports that are circulated to physicians throughout the province. They continue to do that, and I think those are actually posted on a website if the member wanted to look at that. The actual evaluation of the efficacy of a new product that comes…. The report that comes to the drug benefit committee within the ministry is a different kind of report, and I think the member may be getting the two reports mixed up.

J. MacPhail: I'm not getting anything mixed up; I'm just asking for information. I'd be happy to provide it.

K. Manhas: I'd like to introduce to the House two individuals visiting this House, Kellie Callahan and her very intelligent son Jak. Jak aspires to be the world's foremost pastry chef one day. They're here touring the Legislature and visiting. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: What discussions has the minister or ministry had about drug utilization?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is actually ongoing work within the Pharmacare branch around drug utilization, and clearly it is an area where there are some opportunities. The member may be aware of work that has been done over the last number of years around over-prescription of antibiotics, and we have had some considerable success in this province in getting the prescribing rates down or at least moving towards more appropriate utilization of antibiotics in this province.

Another recent example is the listing of Remicade, which accompanied a utilization agreement that allowed us to target those who would benefit the most from this new and very expensive medication. That was worked out between the rheumatologists as well as the manufacturer and the ministry itself. There is considerable work that has been done around utilization, and there will continue to be. We will explore all opportunities to get utilization rates down.

J. MacPhail: I want to know what this government's done. Remicade — great, but I want to know what this government has done on its watch in the last year, since this report came out. Are the drug utilization reviews being conducted with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.? That's the body currently responsible for them.

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to add to some of the examples I indicated before, there is also the work being done around chronic disease management strategies. Appropriate drug utilization is very much a feature of the chronic disease management strategies. To date we

have rolled out the ones for diabetes, congestive heart failure and several others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Drug utilization is very much part of those, in addition to the Remicade example I mentioned earlier and in addition to the antibiotic utilization I mentioned. There are also federal-provincial initiatives that are really being looked at, at a national level to ensure that we can move towards appropriate drug utilization.

J. MacPhail: How does the chronic disease management with diabetes affect drug utilization?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the case of diabetes management, the chronic disease management program is moving toward ensuring that patients have the education, the instruction and the information necessary to properly evaluate their blood sugar levels so that they're actually using their medications when it is most appropriate and to ensure there's not overusage or underusage. Certainly, there is a utilization dimension to that one, as there is to the other chronic disease management strategies as well.

J. MacPhail: We'll get to the chronic disease management programs, but I'm curious as to why the minister's bringing up this overlap — that the chronic disease management is what this recommendation meant by drug utilization review. This is a very specific recommendation from a report 13 months ago that meant much more than what the minister has just described. Is the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons active at all with the ministry now on drug utilization review, generally?

Hon. C. Hansen: I apologize to the member. I didn't realize she was still focused on that one specific recommendation. I thought she was talking about drug utilization in a broader context.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons is still actively involved in reviews around the use of methadone and narcotics, but their program is now limited to those products at this stage.

J. MacPhail: Well, it seems there's quite a bit of room to move on that recommendation. The other recommendation says: "In particular, frank discussion should be held with the pharmaceutical industry to explore the possibilities for substantially improved investment in research and development in British Columbia." The latest statistics I've looked at about the percentage of investment that British Columbia gets in pharmaceutical R and D haven't changed in the last two years.

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly don't see it as falling within my scope of the Ministry of Health Services — the issue of R and D investment in British Columbia. I think the member should properly put those kinds of questions to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

J. MacPhail: Excuse me? I'm to ask this question about investment in R and D for pharmaceuticals to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise? Who's in charge of Pharmacare? Who's actually reducing the costs of drugs here? There are four ministers of Health, and I've got to ask a question about taking on the pharmaceuticals for making sure they invest in British Columbia to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, there is an interest on the part of many organizations to invest in research in this province. That file is managed by the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. It's certainly not something that we are going to alter health policy decisions in order to simply attract more R and D to British Columbia. We obviously welcome it. It's an important part of building our post-secondary institutions and building our economy in British Columbia, but the decisions around R and D do not affect decisions regarding Pharmacare policy.

J. MacPhail: I guess the minister, even though he has done nothing with this report, has rejected that recommendation from George Morfitt. Is that correct? Perhaps he could tell me: has the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise informed the Minister of Health Services about what his activities are in this area, or has the government made a decision to reject that recommendation?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of the recommendations that were outlined in the report George Morfitt came forward with, there are a variety of ministries that obviously have to be involved in that. The Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise is clearly one of the stakeholders that will be consulted as this review goes forward, specifically with regard to that recommendation.

J. MacPhail: Well, I checked the stats. I don't want to be accused of doing poor research here and fearmongering, but the stats for 2002 showed absolutely no increase in investment by the pharmaceuticals here in British Columbia. Is this kind of, like, a low priority by the government, or is the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise not interested in this area? Great progress was supposed to be made in this area.

Hon. C. Hansen: Under my responsibility as Minister of Health Services, I don't track the R and D that is coming into British Columbia from whatever organization. I apologize that I don't have that at my fingertips.

J. MacPhail: It's ridiculous that somehow this is the responsibility of the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise when it's this very minister who is making all the changes to Pharmacare, where one of the great advertisements they're making — let me just get that again, Mr. Chair — is "ensuring we get the lowest prices from drug companies."

Part of that message that the pharmaceutical companies gave all throughout the 1990s — unless maybe they give a different message to the Liberal government now that they're in power — was: "If you lighten up on the reference drug plan or your low-cost alternatives, we'll invest more money here in British Columbia; if you lighten up on your Pharmacare program, we'll invest more money." I was just seeing whether the pharmaceuticals were telling me the truth all throughout the 1990s. I have no idea. Certainly, there's been no evidence of it yet, and there certainly seems to be no interest whatsoever by this minister in actually seeing whether the pharmaceuticals are treating British Columbia fairly.

By the way, the minister keeps referring to my last budget as Minister of Finance. I'm very sensitive about my last budget as Minister of Finance, because the minister may remember I resigned shortly after tabling that budget. My last budget that I tabled in 1999 was a balanced budget. It turned out to be balanced, and Pharmacare was fully funded even in that context. Just the same way that their estimates are off completely and they have to change, my last budget in 1999 was a balanced budget.

J. MacPhail: The last budget was balanced, and Pharmacare was fully funded — absolutely fully funded. You'll note that Pharmacare didn't have any cuts during 1999, my last budget, and the budget was balanced at the end of the year — great news for British Columbians, one that this government tries to hide from. I guess this is a government that likes to make cuts to seniors under Pharmacare and still tables not one, not two, but three of the largest deficits ever in the history of British Columbia.

And where are we in economic growth? We're number ten. No, I'm sorry; we're almost number eleven now. In fact, personal disposable income is falling in this province. Not only are people going to have to pay more for their drugs, they're going to have less money in their pockets to do it. That's great news — absolutely great news.

J. MacPhail: I know, Mr. Chair, but I have to correct the record of the Minister of Health Services. He keeps saying that I, as Minister of Finance…. I have no idea what he's talking about — absolutely none.

What's happening with this recommendation? "Physicians, pharmacists and the public should be provided with better information to encourage shared responsibility and support informed and cost-effective decision-making with respect to drug usage."

Hon. C. Hansen: We have several initiatives to try to get more information for patients so that they can make informed decisions — and not just patients but doctors and other health providers. There are the reports we talked about earlier, which the therapeutics initiative sends out to doctors throughout the province. There's also, as we talked about before, the chronic disease management strategies that put more and effective information in the hands of individual patients as well as care providers.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister be a little more specific? What form does it take? Is there a publication? Where does that occur?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is information around the chronic disease management strategies that's available on the website of the Ministry of Health Planning. There is also, as we mentioned earlier, the reports that go out from the therapeutics initiative and that are also accessible through the website.

J. MacPhail: No, no. That's to belittle this recommendation, to somehow suggest the public should go to a therapeutics initiative website. I had trouble enough. Physicians, pharmacists and the public should be provided with better information.

How is that program working? What changes has this government made to a program like that? Now, I fully acknowledge that the latest study has shown that 5 percent of the population uses 30 percent of the health services because of chronic disease. I fully acknowledge that. But that leaves 70 percent of usage that hasn't been addressed.

Hon. C. Hansen: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly what kind of a response the member would like to that. I think what I indicated earlier, in terms of the George Morfitt report, is that we have accepted the first recommendation, and we are going through a process to look at the other recommendations that he's put forward.

I'm certainly not standing here before the member trying to pretend that we have fully implemented any of these other recommendations, but we do have programs in place already that meet some of these objectives that the particular recommendation speaks to. Hopefully, out of the review we might identify more opportunities.

I know one of the things that I've always enjoyed out of the estimates process in the seven years that I've been in this House is the idea for some new and constructive suggestions to come forward. Perhaps the member has some additional suggestions that she would like to make with regard to getting better information out to the public.

J. MacPhail: Well, here's one. The last recommendation from Mr. Morfitt is this: "In the event that the

recommended Pharmacare program redesign, as discussed in recommendation 2 above…." I'll just pause for a minute. Recommendation 2 above is that Pharmacare's program structure should be redesigned in such a way as to maintain the ability to manage costs within a more integrated framework. Such a framework should provide improved transparency and greater quality. Then the final part of that recommendation says, in effect, that this proposed design would eliminate the reference drug program as a separate program based on therapeutic substitution while retaining its cost-containment effect. In effect, that's the recommendation, to say: "Get a replacement for the reference drug plan and do it, but make sure that the effectiveness of it stays there."

Here's the last recommendation of Mr. Morfitt. "In the event that the recommended Pharmacare program design as discussed in recommendation 2 above is not feasible within a reasonable period of time — for example, one to two years — the panel recommends that the reference drug program be expanded into appropriate additional therapeutic categories in order to maximize its cost-saving potential."

Let's see. At the outside, Mr. Morfitt gave this government 24 months from April 2002. Let's see — 24 minus 13. Quick, quick, you — 11 months, and that's at the outside. That's 11 months left before the recommendation kicks in about expanding the reference drug program, and that's the outside deadline from Mr. Morfitt. Does the minister have a flow chart showing that if he misses…? What plans does he have to expand the reference drug program?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I have indicated, we will have a group that will work on this review. I wouldn't want to prejudge what the outcomes of that will be, but certainly they will be looking at all of the recommendations in Mr. Morfitt's report, and they will be advising us accordingly.

J. MacPhail: So we have a situation now where, I guess, it's going to be…. The government's really dragging its feet on taking on the pharmaceutical companies and reducing drug costs or expanding the effectiveness of programs that have worked to give British Columbians the lowest per-capita prescription drug costs in all of Canada and the best coverage…. But let's not go there.

We've changed the Pharmacare program. How's it going? How's the registration going on the Pharmacare program?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find it curious that the member keeps coming back to this. Well, she's trying to spin a message that just doesn't have any validity to it, and that's that somehow we're not taking necessary steps to keep drug costs down.

The one decision we made around rabeprazole will save the Pharmacare budget $42 million over three years. That member cannot point to a single initiative they undertook, in the ten years they were in office, that saved the Pharmacare budget that kind of money in terms of reducing drug costs not just for the Pharmacare budget but for all British Columbians, whether they were benefiting from Pharmacare financial assistance or not.

To answer the member's specific question regarding the registration, we were very pleased that those individuals who benefited from Pharmacare in the past, who counted on that financial assistance and really depended on continued coverage…. As a result of the direct mail we did to those individuals starting in February when we first announced that the changes would be happening and as a result of the advertising we did and the other communications, we wound up with about 96 percent of those individuals registered well before the May 1 launch. So far we have over a million British Columbia families registered for Fair Pharmacare, and we are quite confident that overwhelmingly those individuals that count on continued financial support under Pharmacare are, in fact, registered and are receiving it today.

J. MacPhail: How many people are still left to register on May — what is today — 12?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not a case of how many people still need to register. It depends on their particular family circumstances. If you have an individual or a family that has high income and very low prescription needs, there is nothing that says they have to register at all. It certainly doesn't hurt, and families…. It's a one-time registration. It then gets updated automatically every year as we get new and updated information from CCRA, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

If a family wants to be registered just in case there was some event that required them to have large prescription costs, then they're in the system. Certainly, today there's nothing that says a family needs to register if they don't think they're going to be eligible for benefits. We think that those individuals who will benefit from Fair Pharmacare are overwhelmingly already registered and in the system and benefiting from that financial assistance.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, through you: please ask the minister to answer the question. How many people does he suspect are left to register? The minister and his bureaucrats know how much money they'll save or what the reallocation of money is according to the family usage, etc. Just stop avoiding the question. How many families are left yet to register that would probably uptake the system?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated, of those families that benefited from financial assistance under Pharmacare in the past…. There were about 440,000 or 450,000 that were eligible in the past and that received benefits. Those individuals are overwhelmingly already registered.

You know, I'd love to be able to say we've got 100 percent of them. We've got about 96 percent. There are

4 percent that may have moved. They may not be eligible for Pharmacare for other reasons. We certainly have set up a system where if somebody finds they are eligible for assistance, they can get themselves registered very quickly.

If the member is looking for how many people are actually registered — and this is as of today — there are 1,011,813 families registered. If the member wants to figure out how many B.C. families have either not registered or chosen not to register, you can subtract that number from the total number of families in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: How does the minister calculate the effects of the Pharmacare changes if he doesn't know how many families would be eligible or affected by the changes? Why can't he give me a number? Why can't he give me the number of families who are affected by the changes — either positively, negatively or no change — and subtract the number who have registered? Why is he refusing to put that number on the table?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am advised that there is a total of 359,100 senior families in British Columbia. There are 1,196,900 non-senior families. If you add that together, you come up with about 1.56 million families altogether. As I indicated earlier, we already have in excess of one million families registered.

Clearly, there are families that will not be at a level of prescription expenditure that would qualify them for financial assistance. They may well choose not to register for Fair Pharmacare. That's totally up to those individual families.

J. MacPhail: So 550,000 families, fully one-third of the families in British Columbia, have not yet registered. That's what it is. Gee, it's lucky I'm here to ask those questions, isn't it?

Now, could the minister outline for us what happens to the families whose registration takes place after May 1? What happens to them for the calendar year 2003 and then the calendar year 2004?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, a family can register at any time, and it's a very quick process. Quite literally, an individual could get a prescription from their doctor, go over to the pharmacist, and the pharmacist tells them it's a very expensive prescription and asks if they are registered for Fair Pharmacare. If they're not, they could literally pick up a telephone, a pay phone or a cell phone, or whatever they want to do, and they can register then. By the time they walk back over to that pharmacy counter, they'll be in the system. There was a point, I think, in the first day where there were some little technical glitches that delayed that process by a little bit, but it is, in fact, fully functioning now. It is actually that quick for them to get registered if they had chosen in the past not to register.

The other thing is that for this calendar year only, if an individual does not register until after they would have received benefits — in other words, they would have been at a level of prescription expenditures that would have entitled them to financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare and they went and got a prescription filled and paid for it out of their own pocket when, in fact, a portion of that would have been paid for by Fair Pharmacare — then at the end of the year we will be determining those families that, in fact, overpaid as a result of late registration, and they will be reimbursed. That is for this calendar year only.

J. MacPhail: In effect, there is a deadline for registration of December 31, 2003.

The minister shows absolute disdain when I say that. Okay. If they don't register by December 31, 2003, can they claim their extra costs for which they would have been eligible for '03? Can they claim them in '04 and get reimbursed for them?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is no deadline for registering. A family can register this year, next year or the year after. If a family, next year, is not registered and they get a prescription that is going to put them into a category that would qualify them for financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare, they can actually register that day and be eligible for the financial assistance that day. If they choose not to do that and continue to buy their prescriptions, we will not be reimbursing them next year for any overpayment that they may have made because of their reluctance or their failure to register for the Fair Pharmacare program prior to being in a position to receive those benefits.

For this year we will reimburse any overpayment they make, but that is for this calendar year only. There is no deadline to register. Families can do that whenever they think it's most appropriate for their needs.

J. MacPhail: In a very derisory way, the Government House Leader this morning accused me of acting like Lara Flynn Boyle. For those of you who…. Actually, maybe I don't know. I think she's on The Practice. I think it's a TV show about lawyers.

He was being very personally derisive about my style of asking questions. The fact of the matter is unless you ask exactly the right question and whittle it down, you don't get the information. The minister stands up and says one can register at any time. Yes, that's absolutely true, but there are consequences of not registering by December 31, 2003. There are negative consequences. I'm happy to put that on the record.

Well, let me just ask this, then: how does it work? Tell me what arrangements the government has with the CCRA, which is the Canada Customs and Revenue

Agency. What arrangements does the government have about information that allows him to conduct this in a way that the program is retroactive, etc.? Things must have changed with the CCRA.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have a memorandum of understanding in place with the CCRA that allows us to get access to the very specific items from income tax information that allow us to manage this program. There is certainly nothing we're aware of that would be impacted by any retroactivity. I'm not sure if the member has more clarity around that, but there's certainly nothing we're aware of that would affect us being able to provide benefits and reimbursement to a family that has overpaid during this calendar year.

J. MacPhail: So the two-step process is that you get your form and you fill it out, and then the government sends an affidavit that has to be signed which gives the family net income. It's on that basis that benefits are calculated. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: From the time a person first registers — whether they do that by phone, on the website or they mail in the form…. Once it is processed, that family is eligible for financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare.

The second stage in the process, which the member alluded to, is the consent form. That, according to the rules of CCRA, must be signed by the individual. It's not something that can be simply faxed or done on a website; it needs to be a signature. That then allows us to verify the information that's been given to us at the first stage of the registration. It is a two-stage process, which was insisted upon by CCRA, but the benefits are applied to the family from the time they first register. We certainly don't wait until the consent form is verified.

J. MacPhail: All right. Let me ask this question. The government says it has received the registration forms from two-thirds of the families in this province. How many affidavits have they received?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that information at my disposal right now in terms of how many of the consent forms have, in fact, come back in and been processed. What we are doing is making sure families continue to have that coverage until such time as the consent form is received and processed.

J. MacPhail: No, that's not my question. Why doesn't the minister have that information at hand? He had at hand how many registration forms there were. Frankly, I'm going to pursue the minister on this. How many consent forms has the government received? Why does the minister not know that?

Mr. Chair, here's where I'm going. That's exactly what I was pursuing — that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency won't rely on a fax or a telephone call registration or an Internet registration for allowing access to income tax information. They have to have a signed document, and that's the second stage of registration. They have to be in receipt of that.

Yet the minister is paying out to people based on what they claim on the registration form. Well, there's much confusion about what year…. I've had seniors already about what income tax year…. I think the income tax year is 2001, but we've already had trouble in my office about inappropriate information around that — not maliciously, but wrong information being given.

I would assume that the minister would be worried, very much, about how many affidavits he has received, because that is really the only true estimate of what the program expenditures will be. It is also an indication of whether retroactive payments will be a lot or a little — or wrong — based on the affidavit.

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason I've got up-to-date data on the registrations is because those are the registrations in the computer. We can actually get a daily count of how many registrations are in the computer. The consent forms are coming back in by mail, as the member, I'm sure, appreciates. I don't have that at my fingertips right now. In fact, I'm not sure that somebody has physically gone through and counted each one that comes in, although somebody is probably doing that.

I can certainly undertake to get that information for the member as quickly as possible, but I don't have at my fingertips today how many consent forms have been received back through the mail.

J. MacPhail: Yes, of course I'd like that information. Is it a quarter of those who have registered? Is it 10 percent? Is it 50 percent? Ballpark it.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated, I will get that information for the member and provide it to her as quickly as it's available.

J. MacPhail: No. I want a ballpark, please. I want a ballpark now. I bet you the reason the minister doesn't want to give it is because it's a very, very low percentage of the families who have registered. I bet you that's why the minister doesn't give….

Frankly, I find it a little bit incredible that on a multi–hundred million dollar program that this minister says is running smoothly — that nobody should be worried about — he doesn't know how many affidavits he can say he's received. It's the only way he will actually be able to calculate the cost of the program, the retroactive payments and those who will benefit from it. I find it incredible anyway, using parliamentary language. I find it absolutely incredible that the minister doesn't know.

Here are the consequences of the two-step process. Let me just put it on the record. From having to deal

with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency as it related to when our government introduced the family bonus and the changes that occurred after that, it is my experience that there is a huge amount of change that arises from declarations, through registration and then confirmation of income tax information. That's why administrative costs of a program such as Fair Pharmacare are so high.

Here we have a situation where this government, for whatever reason, has declared — and it was relatively new information; it certainly wasn't part of their advertising: "Oh, don't worry. As long as you register, your payments will be retroactive." This government has no idea what that means for them — none. By virtue of the information the minister has just given me, he doesn't have a clue as to how many affidavits he has.

Therefore, the cost of Pharmacare is not calculable. This government cannot in any way suggest that seniors will benefit or be harmed by the program or that low-income families will be benefit or be harmed by it. The only way he can make that definitive statement is by virtue of receiving those affidavits and then getting that income tax information from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and plugging it into the program. I find it ridiculous that the minister doesn't have that information.

I want to just outline some of the effects of the changes on the basis of this income test. It's not a means test; it's not a test where a family gets to say: "Here are my housing costs. Here are my transportation costs. Here are my special needs costs and my I-live-in-the-north-and-my-gas-taxes-are-this-high costs." It's an income test. That's what it is, and there's a difference. A means test — although I don't approve of either, and it's unnecessary that British Columbians face an income test through the tax system — actually talks about how much disposable income a family has, but this government imposed an income test. They did on the basis that the income test is per family.

I just want to read this into the record. It's from a person from West Vancouver. The reason why I do this is because the person writing is extremely honest, and he's not one that you would think should…. By virtue of the example that this government uses, he's a high-income senior. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano, probably his MLA, said: "It's good that my constituents will have to pay more for their drugs." Let me read this into the record about the effects on even the constituents of West Vancouver–Capilano, about the effect this change has had on him and his family. It's not old information. It arrived today, dated May 5:

He's provided a chart here to show how his family is being unduly harmed. In fact, what it shows is that he would be only paying, the man…. Congratulations for getting remarried at the age of 74. That's good news. However, he's being harmed by that. Under the new rules, but not applying family income, his deductible would have been $442.65. It would have gone up from $275 to $442, so he would have qualified as one of those seniors who should pay more, but now his family is going up to $1,954.42. What does the minister say to that?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll give the member a bit of history around how this net income has been used in government. It was certainly something that was brought in by her government to use line 236 to determine who would be eligible for premium assistance or not. That is exactly the same system that we're using now for the Fair Pharmacare program.

Under the Pharmacare system of the past, individuals up to the age of 65 were provided benefits based on their family income — as to whether or not they were on premium assistance. It was a family income, but it was also a total family expenditure for medications for those under 65. In the past those over 65 were treated as individuals. What that meant for some families, where you had one particular member of the family or the couple who had very high prescription costs and the other low prescription costs, was that you had to duplicate the expenditures until you hit the thresholds to get financial assistance.

Under the new system, because we're looking at family expenses for pharmaceuticals, they can combine them in order to hit those thresholds and then qualify for financial assistance. In the case the member outlined, if one of them is over the age of 65 and the other is under the age of 65, they would be considered a senior family for the purposes of Fair Pharmacare.

J. MacPhail: Boy, that was bafflegab. I'm sure the citizen writing in will be just thrilled about that. Once again, the minister, trying to avoid the negative aspects of his own government action, says: "Oh, it was the bad NDP who brought in the family income test." Well, the bad NDP — you're right — brought in a family income test to save people money, to reduce the premiums they pay. This government uses family income to make people pay more out of their own pocket.

Gee, the bad NDP — the bad NDP that actually used an income test to say to people: "Oh, you don't

have to pay taxes or premiums." Then this minister stands up and uses that as justification for why this poor senior has to pay $1,000 more. I'm sure he'll be thrilled that that was the minister's answer. I'm sure he'll just be delighted about the great representation he's getting by this government. Unbelievable.

Gosh knows, if the government thought that rule was, gee, so bad, could they not have changed it like everything else they changed that that bad government did before? No, they're using it to justify a method by which they'll tax people more, and the previous government used family income to reduce the cost of their drugs and their medicare. That's what they did. It ain't fooling anybody.

Yes, this is estimates. These are the questions that I'm being forced to ask on behalf of the citizens that aren't members of my riding, and I will continue to do so. Here's one that came in on Friday — again not one of my constituents. This would again be on the North Shore.

She poses four points for the minister to consider. Would he like me to go through them one by one? Yes?

"Why were all residents not provided a form by mail with detailed instructions on how to complete the form and detailed implications of not returning it?"

Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to respond to some of the earlier comments that were made, and I'll come back to that specific question.

The member indicated that we were using this process when in her government she used it to actually help low-income families to pay less for their premiums. The implication was somehow that Fair Pharmacare doesn't do that.

There are 280,000 families in British Columbia that will pay less under Fair Pharmacare than they would have under the Pharmacare plan that was in place before, and 84 percent of British Columbia families will pay either the same or less. The reason for that is that most British Columbia families don't need to tap into the financial assistance under Pharmacare because their level of prescriptions isn't that high. They don't hit the point to tap into it either before or now.

What we did is send out direct mail pieces to 900,000 families in British Columbia. We sent direct mail information to every single senior family in the province where we could identify a mailing address — either they had tapped into Pharmacare in the past or through other mailing lists. But we also sent letters to every single non-senior family in the province that had benefited from financial assistance under Pharmacare either last year or the year before.

As I mentioned earlier, most of those individuals who would have benefited in the past and who count on continued financial support for their prescription drugs were registered well before the May 1 implementation of the Fair Pharmacare program.

To answer the first specific question from this lady, we did not feel it was necessary to go to the expense of mailing out a direct mail piece to every single household in the province, because the majority of those households would not be at a level that either they needed Fair Pharmacare financial assistance in the past or they would need it today.

I would also like to point out that if that single mom and her kids have a household income of under $50,000, she will see a lower annual maximum for her prescription costs under the new Fair Pharmacare program compared to the program that was in place before. I don't know if that mother has done her calculation, but she would probably find out, if she's under $50,000 as a household income, that she will actually get more financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare than she would have under the previous plan.

J. MacPhail: While the government likes to claim that 84 percent of families will either be affected the same or have their premiums reduced or their costs reduced — and take full credit for that — the group of

people that haven't used Pharmacare in the last year or two is the group that didn't get any notification of the change. Is that correct? Is that what the minister is saying? On the one hand, he wants to claim credit for how harmless these changes are, but on the other hand, that group was left out of the loop.

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I think it's important to point out that the way an individual benefits from financial assistance under the old Pharmacare plan or the new Fair Pharmacare is they, first of all, have to get a prescription. They have to get that from their doctor. Every doctor's office had information around how the new Fair Pharmacare system was structured, how a person could apply and the different options for applying.

In addition to that, once they get that prescription, they then have to go to a pharmacist to have that prescription filled. The pharmacists around British Columbia have been enormously supportive. In fact, it was the B.C. Pharmacy Association that actually proposed to government that we go to an income-based Pharmacare system in the first place. The pharmacists around this province have had the same information available to any of their customers that come in with a prescription.

Thirdly, on top of that, we have engaged in the most extensive advertising campaign that this government has engaged in since being elected to make sure that people who read a newspaper or listen to a radio station had the information they need about how they could get themselves registered.

It was a very thorough campaign, and I find it hard to imagine that any British Columbian who gets a prescription filled would be able to avoid getting access to the information that we've made available.

J. MacPhail: There's another backhand to a constituent, not one of mine, because she makes it quite clear about the discussion that was going on in her community about Fair Pharmacare — that it applied just to seniors. My gosh, isn't it awful how those citizens of British Columbia just don't understand or aren't listening carefully enough or misinterpret what this government has done? What about people who are faced with catastrophic health care changes in their family?

Hon. C. Hansen: If there is a catastrophic change in the health of a family member, and let's say they suddenly need very expensive prescriptions, the plan is there for them regardless of income. Certainly, one of the reasons why we have encouraged all families, regardless of income and regardless of whether they think they're ever going to benefit from the financial assistance, is that it doesn't hurt to get themselves registered now, because they're in the system. But if they don't get themselves registered and they're hit with that catastrophic change in their health, then the program is there for them, and the registration and the benefits can become effective and available to them on the very day they get that prescription from their doctor.

J. MacPhail: That last statement will be subject to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's success of affidavits. I know they're all shaking their heads over there — no, no. The government is going to pay out, but whether they were legitimately paying out or properly paying out is another story. It will be quite interesting to see how that two-step process is actually effective for the taxpayer.

The point this woman was making was: why didn't she receive a package, a form by mail, with detailed instructions on how to complete the form and detailed implications for not returning it? Now we know that it's because she probably was one of those families this government claims is benefiting from this program, and yet they're not really because they haven't had to use a prescription.

On the one hand, the minister wants to claim that as a success story, and on the other hand, he's ignoring those very families by not communicating with them. God forbid that those very families have a catastrophic change in their health that requires prescription drugs.

"I am requesting you to consider the following," she writes, "a cost-of-living index based on area of residence be used for our tax rate and on our Pharmacare benefits."

Hon. C. Hansen: I find the suggestion interesting, but it would be administratively extremely difficult for government to provide more financial assistance from various government programs to individuals that live in communities in the province that have high cost of living or high housing costs.

Clearly, if government was to start going down that road, it would be administratively very difficult, but I also am not sure it would really meet the fairness test that I think a lot of British Columbia families would want. That's that there be equity among programs and that people living in communities that perhaps have lower-cost housing should not be getting less financial assistance because they have chosen to live in those communities with lower cost of living and lower cost of housing.

J. MacPhail: "I am requesting that you consider the following," she writes, "an index or scale be set up based on healthy living style."

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I think one of the benefits for individuals who engage in healthy living is that they are not going to require as many prescriptions as someone who perhaps doesn't take care of their health. Clearly, the health care costs of people who don't eat properly or who don't exercise are higher. If people do engage in a healthy lifestyle, healthy eating, and they don't smoke, they're not going to require the number of prescriptions and therefore will get the benefit of sav-

ing money because they're not going to need the prescriptions in the first place, by and large.

J. MacPhail: I wonder whether the minister could tell me what the administrative costs in changing the Pharmacare program have been to date and what they are anticipated to be in '03-04 and '04-05.

Hon. C. Hansen: The total cost of implementing the Fair Pharmacare program is going to be $8.2 million. That really spreads over a total of three fiscal years, starting partially in the '01-02 fiscal year and going through to the '03-04 fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could break down those costs and how meeting the budget is going on those costs.

Hon. C. Hansen: I apologize for the delay to do some of the arithmetic in getting these numbers into the right spot.

In the '01-02 year there was about $3.6 million spent primarily on systems work for the software changes that needed to be done. In the '02-03 what really came into that budget was the start of the registration process in January. That totalled about $600,000 by the end of the fiscal year. Then the '03-04 — we anticipate about $4 million in registration costs.

J. MacPhail: So in '02-03, there's $600,000 for registration costs. And '03-04 — $4 million in registration costs? The minister is nodding yes. Thank you for that.

Well, how is that going? He had to beef up the registration in the month, so how much of the $4 million has he already spent in the first month of this fiscal year? Could he break that down for me in terms of what was budgeted for the month of April and what was actually spent on registration?

Hon. C. Hansen: We had budgeted about $350,000 for registration in the month of April because of the expansion that we did to the registration process. We added about $35,000, so it's a total of about $385,000 for registration in the month of April. Those are registrations that probably, we anticipate, would have come in later in the year.

A lot of the rush leading up to May 1 was as a result of the messaging that went out from some employers and some third-party insurers that in order to continue not with Pharmacare benefits but with the extended health benefits, people had to register by May 1. The moneys that were spent on the budget in April were moneys that will not have to be spent later in the contract.

J. MacPhail: There were no excessive costs that can't be recovered, like overtime costs or expanded access on the Internet or…? No extraneous costs that won't be made up?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, some of the extra costs in April were around overtime costs for the phone lines, but those are individuals that are now registered who perhaps may have waited until later in the year to register. We anticipate that those individuals, in fact, just brought their registration forward. But there were overtime costs involved in that.

J. MacPhail: And of course that can't be recovered — overtime costs — because you would have budgeted straight-time costs.

Now, the money budgeted this year, '03-04, is $4 million. How much of that goes to recalculation on the basis of receiving the affidavit and then having to redo payments to individuals for their drug costs?

Hon. C. Hansen: The experience of the ministry in the past regarding other programs of this nature is that the information people provide on the initial application is, by and large, accurate. Most people do have stable incomes that they can anticipate — particularly our seniors, who I think know to the penny how much they are able to apply to their household budgets…. The experience has been, for example, that the information provided initially on the premium assistance application forms in fact bears out when it is verified against CCRA data. We don't anticipate that there are going to be extra, onerous costs that cannot be borne within our existing operational budgets of the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's just examine that for a moment. Am I correct in saying that it's the 2001 income on which the program will be based in '03? The minister is nodding yes.

Hon. C. Hansen: I was nodding because it's partly right, in that we have to base the calculation on the most recent year of data that is available to us from CCRA. Right now everybody…. I shouldn't say everybody. The deadline for filing income tax forms was April 30, so CCRA does not have the 2002 data available until later in the calendar year. Once the new data is available from CCRA, then that more recent income automatically gets applied for the calculation of benefits. So right now we are looking at 2001 data because that's the most recent data that is available from CCRA.

J. MacPhail: What provision has the government made for applicants who have demonstrated substantial change in their fixed income between '01 and '02?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is information on the website that explains that if an individual, a family, has seen their income drop by 10 percent or more, they can write to us and apply to have their more recent year's income taken into consideration. If somebody has lost their job or somebody has retired, for example, and is now living on a retirement income, we can take the more recent year's income into consideration. All they have to do is write to us, and we can make sure that the process is initiated.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So is that a third step in the process? They register, they have to then provide an affidavit, and then they have to appeal to have their income level changed?

Hon. C. Hansen: No. In fact, if somebody has seen a change in their income reduced by 10 percent or greater, they don't have to apply initially and go through the consent form. They can simply write to us and explain those circumstances. We will be looking for verification, so they may have to provide us with some of the backup for that more recent income. We won't be able to use the CCRA data to verify that, obviously. If somebody has already applied to Fair Pharmacare and sent in their consent form, they can certainly then write to us to have the more recent year taken into consideration. So there are all of those options.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me read this letter into the record, and tell me how this citizen should have known. Again, it's not one of our constituents. I'm reading the letter in full:

Her suggestion at the end is an interesting one. But how is she supposed to know this? Work it through. I've looked at the advertising. I've got copies of it here. I don't see anything in the advertising that advises people of this. Is it that they have to go to the Internet and figure this out?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, to answer the specific question about what this particular family should do: they should write and ask that their more recent income is applied. Also, there is the material that is at every single pharmacy counter in the province and in all the doctors' offices, and that specific information is actually addressed in here.

It's a question-and-answer sheet that is part of this brochure, and it says: "What if my household income decreased significantly since I filed my 2001 tax return?" In here it tells exactly how they can get the information necessary to have their more recent year considered for their Pharmacare eligibility.

The answer to that question is: "The new Fair Pharmacare program is flexible and ensures all British Columbians have access to their maximum Pharmacare financial assistance. In the event their financial circumstances change unexpectedly, there is an appeal process built into B.C.'s new Pharmacare program. If you experience a significant decrease in your income, you may apply for a lower deductible. For more information, visit our website or call toll free at 1-800-387-4977."

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? That number — 387-4977. I can hardly remember my own home number, but I know that number because I've tried so frequently. That number ain't that available, I must tell you. It's the one that's clogged.

So it's an appeal process. Is the minister saying now it's not an appeal process, but it can be the original application? Boy, this is a lot of work. Thank God, my income stays steady from this illustrious place, and it's a good income too. But thank God I'm not a senior having to go through all this.

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, to take my example, government MLAs actually took a 5 percent pay cut, so they still wouldn't be at the 10 percent level that would allow them to apply under this. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

It is not a complicated process at all, and that number the member…. There was a period of time when there was indication from employers and some of the third-party insurers that individuals had to apply before May 1. That did cause some extreme stresses on those phone lines to the point that we actually had some of the switching equipment at Telus starting to break down because they had the largest volume of calls ever coming into a 1-800 number.

But those lines are now manageable, and people are not having difficulty getting through on that number. If they are in a position where they would like to have their 2002 income taken into consideration, they can either get that information on the website, or they can phone that 1-800 number, and the individuals there will provide them with the information they need.

J. MacPhail: Again, this is a lot of work. Is the minister suggesting that all of this has been considered in the calculation of what the registration costs are going to be in paying administrative costs on this program?

J. MacPhail: That's good, because of course — I'm not sure that the minister knows this — fixed income for seniors across the country took the biggest single change in the last 25 years in the year 2002. It didn't go up; it went down. Interest costs were lower and, therefore, seniors who put their money into GICs…. Their benefits went down, and any income gleaned from the stock market went down.

So, biggest single change in the year 2002. That's why we're getting so many calls from seniors about that very issue. I'd be happy to take — I don't know; what do we need? — 1,000 or 2,000 of those brochures to hand out in our offices, because we're getting questions on this all along.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have, in fact, done that. This brochure is widely available at every doctor's office. I shouldn't say every one, but we certainly sent the information out to all the doctors' offices, and as I mentioned, pharmacists have actually been very good at making these brochures available to the public. We certainly are advertising. It's front and centre, right in the question-and-answer information that's in the brochure.

J. MacPhail: When did that information go out? By public information, I mean the big ads that the government's putting up. Let me just see what that big ad is called. It's something really interesting. Oh well, I won't waste time in the Legislature. God knows we're holding up the Legislature now.

When did that information go out to doctors' offices? Some of us have visited as recently as a couple of weeks ago, and it wasn't there.

Hon. C. Hansen: The information was sent out to all pharmacists and all doctors' offices in the province right after the announcement that was made in February.

One of the interesting things is that we don't have all of the addresses for every doctor's office. The addresses that we use are often where MSP payments go. It may not be a direct route.

A lot of doctors would have got it immediately, because they would do that processing in their offices. Some doctors may choose not to put that information out. There's certainly no way we can compel doctors to put these brochures in their waiting rooms.

J. MacPhail: The public information is distributed through the doctors' offices. That's how they find out. But the government doesn't have all doctors' offices.

Or they have to go to the pharmacists. I guess the minister says all pharmacists have it, although there was an article in the Kelowna Daily Courier last week — I think it was last week or maybe the week before — with a pharmacist saying: "We don't know what's going on." I can get that article. I'm sure my staff have provided it for me in here.

People have to rely on doctors' offices. Would every doctor's office be sent it, and was it that form, that brochure, that was sent right after the program was announced in February? There's been substantial new information coming out since the February announcement. Would obstetricians get the information? Would heart surgeons get the information?

Hon. C. Hansen: Every physician in the province was sent the information. I also just want to remind the member how somebody gets access to a prescription. They first of all go to a doctor's office, and doctors have been, by and large, very helpful in making this kind of information available to their patients. There may be exceptions.

Also pharmacists — the next stage in getting a prescription filled is that you've got to go to the pharmacist. I have not been in a pharmacy — how many months is it now since the end of February? — where I have not seen this brochure on the counters. It has been readily available to anybody that has had to have a prescription filled.

J. MacPhail: There are examples sitting right beside me of being at a physician's office where it wasn't available. There is an article in the Kelowna Daily Courier — that bastion of socialism, the Daily Courier — where a pharmacist was saying: "We don't know what's going on. News to us." That was about the May 1 deadline. "News to us," the article said. I'll get it after supper and read it into the record.

Isn't it curious that the government will spend over a million bucks putting full-page ads in the newspaper not once mentioning the appeal process — not once? Maybe I should just check it here. Does it say anything about the appeal process? No, as a matter of fact, it doesn't. It absolutely doesn't. That's interesting. That was the last print ad that the government put in the newspaper. I guess you've got to go to a doctor, go to a pharmacist, sit down, read a — what is it? — five- or six-page brochure, and then you've got to go appeal. I don't know. An appeal process would mean that it's not an original application to me. You've got to get on the phone to a number that's been heckishly busy right up until last week — couldn't get through, as a matter of fact — and you've got to then make another application to get it changed.

J. MacPhail: Let me just…. Of course, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour probably would do well to listen to this, because I've actually been representing some of his constituents while standing here, as is true of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Let me just read another…. Here it is, the Daily Courier. Let me just read it. April 30 — that was such a long time ago, wasn't it? Here's what it says from the Daily Courier, April 30: "Confusion Over New Pharmacare." It's page A3, article by Don Plant.

What was wrong with Dyck's Pharmacists that they weren't informed like the minister says? This is April 30.

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things we did…. There were officials from the ministry that went out to various centres around the province to offer briefings to pharmacists. The B.C. Pharmacy Association was very helpful in communicating to their membership throughout the province that these information sessions were available. There was information sent to pharmacists, and there was actually a briefing session in Kelowna available to all pharmacists. I haven't got a calendar in front of me, but I understand it was the last Friday in April.

J. MacPhail: Well, this article is dated April 30, so I guess it's the pharmacists' fault. Hmm, isn't it interesting? Every time a problem arises, it's somebody else's fault except this government's — just a terrible problem. It's either the seniors who are at fault, or it was people getting married who are at fault, or it's the pharmacist, or it's the physician that isn't going to distribute, or they don't have the addresses for it.

Could one count on Dyck's Pharmacists knowing what's going on now? Is everything up to speed? Maybe the minister could report on that pharmacists briefing and how well it's going.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, what was just being pointed out to me is that we also have five extra lines that are dedicated just for pharmacists if they have questions about the program. We did send out extensive information.

I'm not blaming anybody. The member is trying to cast aspersions on the communications efforts that were done by the ministry. I think the communications effort was actually very good and that we did reach the people who needed to get registered. As I mentioned earlier, well before the May 1 implementation date we had 96 percent of those that had benefited from Pharmacare in the past, who count on continuous coverage, in the system and registered, and they would have started receiving the benefits of Fair Pharmacare on May 1.

J. MacPhail: I note that the Minister of Labour is calling across that these questions are ridiculous. Well, isn't it interesting to note that these questions are being faxed in as we're having these debates, and this…? It is shameful how the cabinet hates to have the public's questions answered. It is outrageous that that Minister of Labour just absolutely has disdain for any public input from the citizens of British Columbia into their program changes — absolute disdain.

Mr. Chair, not only have I been asking relevant questions on behalf of British Columbians who have silent, sheep-like MLAs sitting here — including the Minister of Labour — but I've got lots more. So noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress…. I was stumbling over that, actually.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a tradition in this House that the opposition members do get to ask questions

first in the estimates debate. I know many of my colleagues will be asking questions later in these estimates debates when that opportunity presents itself.

I would like to rise and report resolution of vote 29(S) and progress on vote 29.

The Chair: The question is that the committee rise, report resolution under the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Health Services and progress on the main estimates of the Ministry of Health Services and ask leave to sit again.

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

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table the Ministry of Health Services 2003-04 through 2005-06 service plan, as required by section 52 of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003. The Budget Measures Implementation Act was introduced on February 18, 2003. Section 52 of this act allowed the two Health ministries to introduce their interim service plans until such time as federal health funding was confirmed and required tabling of final service plans once the federal funding was confirmed.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I, also, would like to table the service plan for the Ministry of Health Planning. Again, the Ministry of Health Planning service plan from 2003-04 through to '05-06 is being tabled, as required by section 52 of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003. The Budget Measures Implementation Act was introduced on February 18, and section 52 of that act did allow the two Health ministries to introduce interim service plans, which were done at that time, until federal funding was confirmed and required tabling of final service plans once the federal funding was confirmed. Since that funding is confirmed, here is the final plan.

As announced during the first reading, Bill 39 fulfils the new-era promise to the people of British Columbia that they will continue to own and benefit from B.C. Hydro's core assets. B.C. Transmission Corporation is a Crown-owned corporation with all shares held by the government. The legislation specifies that the shares cannot be sold. B.C. Hydro will continue to own the transmission system. The new corporation will have a separate chair and board of directors.

B.C. Transmission Corporation's mandate is to efficiently manage our transmission grid. It will plan, manage and operate the publicly owned transmission system to improve access for independent power producers and ensure adequate capacity for domestic and export needs. The B.C. Utilities Commission will regulate B.C. Transmission Corporation, keeping it free from political interference. This is a new-era promise, and the new energy plan delivers on this commitment.

This bill encourages the development of domestic energy sources, which will help maintain a secure and reliable supply of energy. The publicly owned corporation will provide independent power producers with greater access to the transmission system, allowing them to sell directly to large consumers and stimulating new investment in power generation. It will also coordinate with transmission owners in western North America to maintain and improve access to regional wholesale markets for independent power producers, marketers, brokers and utilities.

B.C. Hydro's trade in regional wholesale markets earns significant income that contributes to keeping rates low for ratepayers. Passage of the bill helps secure that advantage. B.C. Transmission Corporation will plan improvements to serve B.C. Hydro and private sector producers wishing to serve domestic and export markets. The B.C. Utilities Commission will continue to determine the terms and rates for transmission service.

Our goal is to facilitate private sector investment and development of the energy sector. Transparent, open access to transmission is vital to the health and growth of independent power generation in British Columbia. The development of this sector is necessary for B.C. to meet its future energy requirements and continue to generate electricity trade revenues that support our growing education and health care needs.

The establishment of B.C. Transmission Corporation demonstrates that this government is acting on its new-era commitments and moving forward on implementing the new energy plan. B.C. Transmission Corporation is an important part of the energy-plan goal to keep electricity rates low by ensuring ratepayers continue to benefit from electricity trade.

Ensuring fair and open access to the electricity transmission system is vital to revitalizing the econ-

omy. I look forward to passing this legislation to fully demonstrate our government's firm commitment to secure B.C.'s energy future.

P. Nettleton: I welcome this opportunity to speak at this point to the final bills intended to break up B.C. Hydro — in particular, Bill 39.

What is occurring here tonight is, in my opinion, an entirely unnecessary and expensive experiment by this government. It is my belief that W.A.C. Bennett could have run B.C. Hydro in today's international energy market as an intact entity with the B.C. government retaining ownership of every component, contrary to the external pressures that exist today to break it up.

In my opinion, he would never have run it just as a generating station, only selling power to the highest bidder. Now we won't even have control over that, because of private management control and the increased secrecy that accompanies that. The devil is in the details, and details about this scheme are in very short supply.

B.C. Hydro is or was very unique in that (a) it was making a profit, (b) it is ideally situated for the North American market, and (c) it had control over all aspects of its operation. We should not be playing into the hands of private producers and especially not pandering to the U.S. energy market — at this time in particular.

Contrary to popular opinion in Canada, the U.S. model is no longer the one to follow when it comes to energy distribution. Don't people realize that in actuality, the U.S. is pulling back from deregulation state by state because of the energy debacle in California which resulted in a corporate and utility feeding frenzy that was connected to but even surpassed the excesses of the Enron scandal? To me, it's as plain as the nose on my face what's going on in all this rush to sell off power transmission rights, etc., and outsource or privatize everything except generation. On the one hand, it's external pressure from these mega-corporations such as Andersen — a.k.a. Accenture — and in B.C. internal pressures to balance the budget before the self-imposed deadline.

The whole situation in British Columbia is caused by this government's mismanagement and misunderstanding of B.C. Hydro's position in the energy market. They are not only trying to fix something that wasn't broken — B.C. Hydro; they are breaking what was operational and working. I am of the opinion that an in-house, made-and-owned-in-B.C. energy policy involving regulatory changes and hard-nosed business adjustments would have kept B.C. competitive in the energy market without this massive dismantling.

The government's determination to break up B.C. Hydro is only one example of the rush to privatization in this past year. It is becoming privatization madness, and I was called a fearmonger for using the word "privatization." I believe that secretive, incremental privatization is wrong. This method of legislation first, information later is a slap in the face to the people of British Columbia.

Now the inevitable is about to happen — barring a miracle — and the final bills will be signed into law, facilitating the further and continued breakup of B.C. Hydro. Disastrously and sadly, we are about to witness a bleak historical event — the signing and passage and one of uncertain outcome in British Columbia…. Will it spell "lights out" to the B.C. Hydro we have all taken for granted? Despite my dire warnings to that effect, will the changes prove to be detrimental, or will the lights of B.C. continue to shine just as brightly and at the low rates we have been accustomed to?

I have continued to press this debate, resulting in open and informed discussion all across the province by British Columbians from all walks of life — no thanks to the government. Most people know my position and the stand I have taken on this issue. I am still vehemently opposed to these changes to what has arguably been the best public utility in North America.

This historically significant document — the bill — is essentially accredited to the Premier and the Minister of Energy and Mines, but I want to remind the silenced majority in this government that in the minds of the public their names are also inscribed on these documents for posterity. I am referring to the other 70-plus government members of caucus who failed to speak up before these bills were passed into law.

Members of the government caucus, after passage this legislation becomes your legacy — the hydro inheritance in the form that you have decided by your complacency to pass on to your constituents. This is how you have represented your ridings. The likelihood is that you will have instead misrepresented them. Yes, in this House the majority wins, but be reminded in this government that in the minds of the public, their names are also inscribed on these documents for posterity.

You say we have spoken up, and we are all in favour. We speak with one voice all in accord. You and I know the cost of speaking against the majority, the price of going off message from the leader. What we have witnessed here is a pack mentality, a scripted mind-set and adherence to the master plan. Belonging and pure acceptance are more important than reason and understanding.

It is obvious to me that few of you understand the implications of your inaction. Those who do understand have chosen the path of least resistance — personal gain with minimal personal pain. That's why I say this caucus is the silenced majority on these issues. I have been labelled a fearmonger, but I think the ones in fear are in front of me right now.

P. Nettleton: Yes, you can heckle me, but you won't raise your voices where it counts. But now the rubber meets the road. Your names are on the bill, whether you like it or not, alongside the private operators with all their baggage and history of cost overruns, market manipulation and corporate name-changing. This be-

comes your legacy now. Will you at least now take ownership of it? Come what may, good or bad, you signed on to it. It's not too late, however, to take a stand and vote your conscience.

I can only trust that you have studied in-depth what occurred in other regions where deregulation or privatization of public utilities has been attempted. We're talking about catastrophic failure in some instances, and at the hands of some of these same companies you're entrusting British Columbians' future energy requirements to. I have referred to it as, at the least, a potential for future power and systems hiccups at Hydro caused in great part by risk-taking management interference. Once the hiccups start, you can't stop them.

Can each of you guarantee that this won't happen? The old B.C. Hydro could and did guarantee it, and they lived up to that promise of reliable, safe power at very reasonable cost — no hiccups, no disruptions, no brownouts and no shortages.

Is it too late? Perhaps. It's really up to you individually. You can make this a truly historical day, one in which you took a stand and did the right thing — voting your conscience. At this point, that's all I ask.

B. Penner: I rise to speak in support of Bill 39. Remember what Premier Campbell said when he was Leader of the Opposition prior to the last election, during the election and then after the election when he was already Premier? He said that B.C. Hydro is not for sale, and no amount of NDP-affiliated rhetoric is going to change that fact.

In fact, you don't have to look any further than the bill right in front of us. Bill 39, section 6(c), states that this new transmission entity — which is entirely owned by the people of British Columbia because it is a Crown corporation — "must not be sold or otherwise disposed of." It's right there in black and white. It's in print, and it's about to become law if members of this Legislature support this bill.

Despite all of the well-concerted efforts of certain interest groups to cause public fear and suspicion, the fact remains that B.C. Hydro's dams, reservoirs, transmission lines and distribution lines are not for sale. By the way, the only party to muse about selling B.C. Hydro was the NDP prior to the last election, according to leaked caucus planning documents which talked about selling off a large symbolic asset prior to the election in an attempt to refute public perceptions of their socialist tendencies.

Once again, I believe most British Columbians won't be so easily taken in by the overblown rhetoric of former NDP appointee Marjorie Griffin Cohen and other NDP-affiliated groups like the so-called Citizens for Public Power. While they have been effective in frightening and confusing British Columbians, their motives appear to me to be purely political.

Here's some information on the background of the people who are on the board of directors of B.C. Citizens for Public Power, the group most often quoted by the media around this discussion of B.C. Hydro. Marjorie Griffin Cohen, the nominated spokesperson for the group and director of B.C. Hydro from 1992 to '96. She certainly plays on that credential. However, she fails to mention that she was appointed by the NDP and that she was on the Hydro board that approved the Pakistan power deal, which wasted millions of B.C. tax dollars, with money flowing through the Cayman Islands to hide it from public scrutiny.

The money was lost for British Columbia taxpayers. There was no gain back to British Columbians for that investment in a power plant in Pakistan. What possible benefit could British Columbia have in risking taxpayers' money investing in a plant in Pakistan? In fact, the only plant that B.C. Hydro built during the NDP's reign and during the time that Marjorie Griffin Cohen was on the board of directors of B.C. Hydro was in Pakistan. That's a pretty shameful legacy.

Oh, she's also a director of the NDP-funded Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. You find that group popping up from time to time. I believe it was the previous NDP government here, right before their election defeat, that funded them to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars — B.C. taxpayer dollars — to that group called the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Other people on the board of directors of the B.C. Citizens for Public Power — people like Jim Abram, an unsuccessful candidate for the NDP nomination in 1996 in North Island…. He's currently president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, B.C. Lightkeepers local.

There's another person on the board of directors — Jerry New, president of the Office and Professional Employees Union, local 378. That union is affiliated with the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Canadian Labour Congress and the provincial labour councils.

Other directors of this organization include Ken Georgetti; Jim Sinclair, the B.C. Federation of Labour president; and John Shields, former president of the BCGEU — that's of the Columbia Foundation that I was referring to — and Jim Fulton, executive director Suzuki Foundation, former NDP Member of Parliament for Skeena. And as I mentioned, Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. John McGraw — business manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW, local 258. Murray Dobbin — chair, Vancouver chapter of the Council of Canadians; director and research associate, NDP-funded Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. That's the background of some of the people that are involved in this organization.

The latest media hook that this organization has presented in order to capture some attention from the public is to talk about a proposal called RTO West, which stands for Regional Transmission Organization West. In their attempts to conjure up public fear and

suspicion about the purpose of an RTO, they conveniently fail to mention that B.C. Hydro started participating in these RTO West discussions…. In fact, these discussions were ongoing when people like Marjorie Griffin Cohen were NDP-appointed directors of B.C. Hydro's board.

In fact, these talks have been going on for many years, and B.C. Hydro feels that it's in their interest to participate and be at the table to hear what's being discussed and to help shape the outcome of any possible arrangement rather than just sit in a corner with their collective hands over their ears. RTO West is nowhere near to being a reality, as just about any analyst could tell you, due to protracted discussions about the shape and size of this organization. Clearly, there won't be any agreement, we're advised, in the next several years.

The basic idea is sound enough, though: to try and create some certainty around rules for accessing and locating major power grids so utilities have enough confidence to invest billions of dollars in building new transmission lines. The startling fact is that virtually no new transmission lines have been built in most of North America for the past 20 years. Just think how much more electricity our society is using today than it did 20 years ago — everything from fax machines, computers, printers, microwaves, big-screen TVs, cell phones and high-powered radio stations. The Legislature is televised; that takes up more electricity. All of these technological improvements are increasing society's demand for electricity, yet in that period of time virtually no new transmission grids have been built throughout North America. So the idea behind RTO West is to try and create some certainty around rules so utilities can have some confidence that if they invest the billions of dollars required to get these structures built and permitted across multiple jurisdictions, they'll actually get a return on that investment.

Now, of course, this is a fact that the B.C. Citizens for Public Power are in no hurry to tell people about, but other Canadian provinces have allowed their provincially owned utilities to sign on the dotted line with RTO structures.

Manitoba Hydro has joined the Midwest Independent System Operator organization, known as MISO. This decision was agreed to by the current NDP government in that province. What has been the result? A continued and potentially enhanced opportunity for Manitoba Hydro to export surplus electricity into the United States. Domestic electricity rates have not increased in Manitoba and are, in fact, slightly lower than those charged today by B.C. Hydro in our province. So the sky has not fallen. By the way, Hydro Quebec is also a member of a regional transmission organization in the northeast U.S.

I'd like to turn to some of the other myths being propagated by this B.C. Citizens for Public Power. I would like to remind all members that B.C. Hydro is not being deregulated. That was done by the previous NDP government here in British Columbia when electricity rates were set by cabinet. Instead, in accordance with the energy policy released by our Energy minister in November 2002, the current B.C. government is actually re-regulating B.C. Hydro. As a result, B.C. Hydro will now have to explain and justify its electricity rates to the B.C. Utilities Commission. We have a bill before us, Bill 40, which will help give that Utilities Commission even more teeth. This is a process that the previous NDP government short-circuited to allow them to play political games with electricity prices. With B.C. Hydro being re-regulated, citizens will be able to get involved in the public process before the B.C. Utilities Commission makes a decision. Our explicit goal as a government is to maintain B.C.'s advantage of having low-cost electricity.

Another myth out there is that B.C. Hydro is somehow banned from developing any additional generation capacity. That's simply not true. B.C. Hydro is permitted, under our energy plan, to upgrade existing dams and facilities to generate more electricity. This is being done. For example, B.C. Hydro is adding a fourth turbine at the Seven Mile Dam in the Kootenays, adding 210 megawatts of capacity to the system — enough, I'm told, for about 30,000 homes annually. This project is budgeted to cost $96.8 million and is consistent with the new energy policy released last November.

Another major expansion plan is being pursued at the Brilliant Dam, also in the Kootenays, which would produce an additional 120 megawatts of electricity. That project was announced just a few weeks ago.

B.C. Hydro continues to have the option of considering and recommending large-scale new projects. Such projects would require approval of cabinet, which is a continuation of existing policy. It's true that the new energy plan encourages the private sector to bring forward creative proposals for new electrical generation. In response to their latest call for clean energy projects, B.C. Hydro received 70 proposals representing seven times more new generation potential than they were even seeking. Most of the proposals would use renewable energy like run-of-the-river hydro. B.C. Hydro is now reviewing these proposals, and successful bidders will likely be selected by the end of the year.

Taxpayers will be protected as the private sector assumes the risk of funding, building and operating the new projects. Yet despite this assignment of risk, response from the private sector has been tremendous. With B.C. Hydro shouldering a debt of approximately $7 billion, to me it makes sense to look to the private sector for new investment.

It bears noting that the new energy plan sets a standard for 50 percent of new supplies of electricity to come from clean sources, which is the highest such standard in North America. Under the previous NDP government the voluntary goal was just 10 percent. Under the current government B.C. Hydro has actually exceeded the 50 percent goal for clean energy from new sources of electricity and has incorporated the objective into its three-year business plan. B.C. Hydro's business plan, by the way, is available at B.C. Hydro's website.

As for the partnership agreement between B.C. Hydro and Accenture — this is a matter that's been of

debate previously — B.C. Hydro remains regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Again, because of previous mismanagement by the previous government, B.C. Hydro has to look for economies. That's why the Accenture deal will in the long run, I believe, be good for ratepayers seeking savings in excess of $250 million over a ten-year period. I think that's a good thing, especially when you consider that the new partnership that's been created is located in British Columbia. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano constantly reminds us that during the last decade, British Columbia lost far too many head offices. I'm pleased that we have a new business locating a new head office here in British Columbia.

To summarize, B.C. Hydro will remain publicly owned. The dams, reservoirs, transmission and distribution lines are not for sale. This was the promise made before, during and after the 2001 election. It is a promise being kept, even if the B.C. Citizens for Public Power and their followers would wish otherwise.

J. MacPhail: I listened with great interest, first of all, to the Minister of Energy and then to the member for Chilliwack-Kent, because, of course the first time that British Columbians had a chance to look at this legislation was last week, and I thought maybe one of them would cast some light on this legislation. I know that this government is very anxious to ram through lots of legislation, but I thought maybe the Minister of Energy would actually explain what it is we're debating here today.

I was in my office preparing my second reading remarks. I heard the minister rise, and within a few short minutes he was seated. He had finished his comments about the principles behind Bill 39, the creation of the Transmission Corporation Act. I thought: "Oh my gosh. Maybe there's something wrong with him. He has to take a break, and he'll come back." No. In a few short minutes he was completely finished his second reading remarks, explaining to British Columbians what this legislation is all about.

I thought: this can't be. This cannot be — that a minister with such important legislation is saying nothing. He referred to the New Era document, and I know that government caucus members sleep with the New Era document next to them. Actually, some of them may push it under their pillows for good luck, hoping that something will rub off on them and help them get beyond the disasters in their ridings.

I thought that maybe there would be more substance to the minister's remarks. But no, he stands up and declares: "This is what we said in the New Era document, and here's what we're doing." British Columbians, who are busy people — having to manage the ill effects of being tenth out of ten provinces in an economy, jobs being lost, health and education stresses — probably don't have time to read the New Era document.

I could be wrong. Maybe British Columbians do carry around the New Era document. But I expect that they thought the minister might actually give them an explanation of what was going on in this legislation, because frankly, I've read the legislation, and I want to ask a whole bunch of questions that I thought maybe could have been answered and maybe comfort given by the Minister of Energy.

The Minister of Energy often, in quite a weird way — is the only way that I can say it — yells across the floor, "Go home," when I ask questions during question period. Just out of the blue, he yells across, "Go home," as if there's something wrong with asking questions or having an alternate opinion. It's embarrassing, not for me but for the minister, when his only response to questions is: "Go home."

I guess, based on his five-minute explanation to all of British Columbia about what this legislation is about, he would prefer that everybody with an alternate point of view does go home. He would prefer that there be no debate on his legislation.

I also, then, noted with interest the remarks of the member for Chilliwack-Kent. It's a rare treat to hear from the member for Chilliwack-Kent. I'm always interested to see how he is representing his constituency. Here's what I heard. I heard him follow the lead of the Government House Leader. I heard him follow the lead of making personal attacks on people who have an alternate point of view to his government. I heard him entirely dismiss people who have an alternate point of view through inaccurate personal attacks.

Of course the Government House Leader is the model for that. When there is an opportunity for real and legitimate debate around very controversial matters that this government is introducing, they either fall silent like the minister himself did, call for people to go home when they have an alternate point of view, or like the member for Chilliwack-Kent did, they make personal attacks — personal attacks — as if those people who hold an alternate point of view have no legitimacy, have no standing to present an alternate point of view.

Well, I was actually going to take a reasoned approach to the second reading debate. I waited to hear from the Minister of Energy and Mines for his explanation of why this legislation was in place, but by the time I actually turned on the TV and settled in to take notes from his remarks, he was finished. Within moments of standing up and opening the debate for the principled reasons by this legislation, he was gone, and the member for Prince George–Omineca stood up and gave, I think, some pretty salient reasons about why this government is introducing this legislation. It's interesting about what we are actually debating here — certainly nothing of information that we've received from the government.

So let me put my thoughts on record. It isn't anything that I've gleaned from government information — nothing. It's embarrassing how little this government actually defends the substance of this bill. It's embarrassing how the minister doesn't stand up and tell British Columbians what's going on here.

Just as the Government House Leader makes personal attacks on the opposition, the opposition of two, and claims that we don't do our research and we don't have briefings…. As he was making that allegation against us in a very personally vicious way this morning, my staff were in a briefing from the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

We take our job very seriously — all of us. We're a small but hardy group, and we debate with reason. We want to debate in an informed way. We don't have time, given this government's incompetence in managing this House, to be anything other than informed.

So the Government House Leader was slagging the NDP opposition, both the members and the staff, saying that perhaps we should benefit from some briefings. Just to inform the House, as that allegation was being tossed in a very heavy-handed way, we had several staff meeting on this legislation, Bill 39. Again, it is from that information we gleaned in the briefing that I put my point of view on the record.

This legislation, the Transmission Corporation Act, Bill 39, outlines the operation of the new corporation, details the transfer of employees from B.C. Hydro to the corporation and describes the pension rights of employees of the corporation. Now, here we are in May of 2003, and we're debating this legislation. From whence did it come? Why are we here?

Well, it's been a long road, but certainly not a public road — certainly not an open and transparent road. The interim report of the energy task force was released December 15, 2001. That was 18 months ago. That report was roundly criticized by pretty much everybody. The public hated it, the people who work in the industry hated it, and industry leaders hated it. They hated it. No one came forward to defend the interim report of the energy task force.

The energy task force was appointed by the Premier, right out of the Premier's office. The final report of the energy task force was finished on March 15, 2002 — 13 months ago — but was it released to the public so we could engage in an informed debate? No. It sat on the minister's desk for eight months before the minister released that final energy task force report on November 25, 2002.

That report was very interesting — the final report. None of it is referred to by the minister. None of it is embraced by the Liberal caucus. But it was very interesting.

Here we are 14 months after the completion of the final energy task force report that gives rise to this legislation. The government actually introduced the changes last week — six short days ago, two full days of the sitting of this Legislature ago. Now it expects to pass this legislation before the House adjourns. It's going to pass all…. They've got a whole whack of legislation that they want to pass by the end of this month, seven debating days away, and this is one of them.

Why is that? I listened for the Minister of Energy to explain why he introduced it a couple of sitting days ago and now wants to pass it, and I heard nothing. I heard a reference to the New Era document. Forgive me, but the New Era document is absolutely zero help in explaining this legislation.

He didn't say anything at second reading a few moments ago. What has he been saying in public? What has the minister been saying in public about the need for this legislation? Despite the minister's protestations, he's been saying all along that he intends to change the structure of B.C. Hydro, dismantle B.C. Hydro, so as to appease the market. How he defines that market is to say that the independent power producers want more, that America wants more. That's his reason.

Let him describe it any which way he may — he changes his story depending on how hard he's pushed — but that's exactly what he's saying: the market requires this. The private sector requires these changes — either the private sector in the United States or the independent power producers, the private sector, in our own province. That's all I can glean for the purpose of this legislation.

British Columbians are confused. They're anxious about the change, not because of what the member for Chilliwack-Kent would say is partisan politics. No, they're anxious because B.C. Hydro, created by the Social Credit government, made sense to the well-being of British Columbians. It works. It delivers for everybody. It's the B.C. advantage for industry, and it's definitely the greatest proper use of a publicly owned resource for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Any change in the way B.C. Hydro is structured creates anxiety, confusion and a series of questions. What does this government do? Do they answer those questions? No. They treat the public with absolute disdain, like the minister just did a few moments ago, offering no explanation. The member for Chilliwack-Kent gets up and attacks those who would question the government as if they're enemies of the state.

No matter what the government tries to avoid, this legislation represents a profound mutation of a provincially owned asset. Yet given that, the minister introduced the legislation near the end of the session, and he's going to ram it through.

Today at 2 o'clock — it was quite an interesting exercise — all the Liberal MLAs sat like good little children in their seats, and the opposition watched as the government introduced eight new bills — 2 o'clock today, May 12, the eighth-to-last day of the sitting of this Legislature. Eight new bills, and after today there are only seven days of debate left. This is one of the pieces of legislation…. We're going to do two pieces that weren't introduced today. They were introduced last week. How many more monumental pieces of legislation does this government intend to ram through this Legislature in the next seven days left?

Even government recognizes the implications of enacting this bill so abruptly. Let's look at the legislation to prove that point. Section 16(2)(c) grants cabinet the authority to make regulations "respecting any other matter necessary or advisable to carry out this Act." I guess they have to have that in place because they're

not going to listen to any debate on this matter. From what I glean from that section, that piece of wording in the legislation says the government can do anything it wants whenever it wants and apply those very decisions retroactively. Did the minister refer to that in his second reading remarks? Hmm. No, he didn't.

Government is so keen to introduce that legislation that it must install safeguards within the legislation to make up for the fact that the legislation lacks appropriate governmental and public consultation. From the day that the interim energy task force report was tabled and roundly criticized, this government has done not one iota of public consultation — not one. In fact, they have criticized each and every British Columbian who has dared question their actions — not one iota of public consultation. Government is so keen to introduce this legislation that it must admit that it cannot tolerate any public scrutiny.

So I ask the question: why is it we need this legislation rammed through? Why is it that a piece of legislation that is the Coquihalla of electricity transmission…? Why is that we have to ram this legislation through — the Coquihalla of electricity transmission? This government is privatizing Coquihalla. Oh, they claim they're not, though. They're not. They're just contracting out the use of it for — hmmm, let me see — 55 years. They're also raising the cost of using Coquihalla by — hmm, let's see — 30 percent. That's exactly what they're doing with this legislation. They're privatizing the use of the transmission lines for years and years and years. Oh, they're also going to raise the rates which people have to pay to use the transmission lines. The Coquihalla of electricity transmission — that's exactly what we have here, and it's being rammed through.

Now, there were those who came to me…. I don't claim ownership of that phrase. I may be the first to use it, but I don't claim ownership. But I'll tell you, the ministry officials themselves, at the same time we were labelling this the Coquihalla of electricity transmission, described this legislation — wait for it, Mr. Speaker — as the "tollbooth on the highway of electricity transmission." That's how the government's own officials were describing this legislation. Isn't it interesting how the two points of view are exactly the same?

Unlike other acts that created Crown corporations, such as the Hydro and Power Authority Act or the Lottery Corporation Act, this act outlines only part of the traditional functions of a Crown corporation. The government stands up and says: "Oh, all of this is publicly owned." So we go to the legislation and say: "What's publicly owned?" It's a mutant like we've never seen before. There is no model in existence now that would describe anything close to this as being similar and publicly owned. Fair enough. Maybe the government is making a mutant — Mutants "R" Us. I don't know. Maybe the mutant will prove to be effective, but it ain't like anything of public ownership that this province has ever seen before.

I wonder whether the member for Chilliwack-Kent, when he stood up and did his sort of Jonestown mantra — "the Premier said that it was going to be publicly owned, and so it's publicly owned, and this legislation proves it…." I thought maybe he was going to explain how, because the public ownership model, if true, is like nothing British Columbia has ever seen before.

What is absent from the legislation is any representation of the public interest, any statement or mechanism that would give us British Columbians some comfort that the British Columbia Transmission Corporation created by Bill 39 is actually a corporation that displays, as a central principle, furtherance of the public interest. When people think about something being publicly owned, British Columbians through history have said: "Oh well, that means that the organization exists for the betterment of the public interest, and that principle is actually incorporated into the legislation that makes it a publicly owned asset." There is nothing in this legislation — absolutely nothing — that indicates there's any furtherance of public interest now required by the Transmission Corporation — nothing, just the simple recognition that what this corporation will be doing is transmitting power generated for the most part by publicly owned and operated generation facilities.

That's all the act defines. It doesn't say that it has to operate for the greater good or even in the public interest — nothing. It's a verbal and written wordsmithed recognition that transmission lines will exist to transmit power from publicly owned and operated generating facilities and says nothing about why it exists or for what it exists.

The minister has said in the past that the new corporation would be a Crown corporation. Well, there's no indication of that in this legislation — absolutely nothing. The minister says I'm wrong on that. Well, we actually have the quotes where the minister said that, so he'd be pretty careful in saying he didn't say that. There is nothing, not one iota of indication, in this legislation about whether or not the British Columbia Transmission Corporation is a Crown corporation, a government authority or a company unto itself.

Let me just say this. Perhaps the minister could explain what the Transmission Corporation is. Perhaps he could explain what it is, by his assertion that it's publicly owned, and what benefit derives from that, because unlike every other Crown corporation, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the legislation that describes this as being a company that must hold the public interest as its priority.

I listened with interest for the minister to explain what this mutant is — and nothing. He gave nothing. The legislation says government holds the shares and there's insurance in the legislation that government must retain these shares, yet the legislation also says a simple order-in-council or a legislative amendment can allow the transfer or sale of these shares to anybody — not to another government entity but to anybody. What would that kind of mutant be called?

Now, I know that when he's not telling me to go home, the minister likes to stand up and yell that I'm fearmongering and that "B.C. Hydro, in its whole iden-

tity, will remain in public hands." That's what the minister has said. I won't stand here and claim that B.C. Hydro is on the verge of privatization, but what does it mean — that it will remain in public hands?

We have never, ever seen anything like this Transmission Corporation in the history of British Columbia, whether it be a Social Credit government or a New Democratic government — back and forth, back and forth — never before.

What is the mutant? It's not a Crown corporation; it's not part of B.C. Hydro. So what is it? What does it mean when the minister says, "B.C. Hydro, in its whole identity, will remain in public hands," and why does he describe it that way? What is he trying to tell the citizens of British Columbia when he says that? Is he trying to allay their fears — that he's not on the verge of privatizing it by a simple order-in-council the way the member for Prince George–Omineca predicts?

Perhaps the minister could actually stand up and say what benefit there is to the public for him to describe it with those carefully chosen words. Well, because I didn't hear anything from the minister to discount this as I was listening earlier this evening, I would say that the opportunity for both privatization and reduced accountability to British Columbians has never been so strong.

A simple amendment — that's all it takes as a result of this legislation. A simple amendment is all that is required. Then, as far as accountability structures — something this government claimed as a basic truth — a covenant with the people in its new-era mandate is eroded and gone by this bill. That's all it takes — a simple amendment.

While some say provisions exist within the bill that subject the corporation to freedom of information — some have told us that — there's nothing in the legislation that demonstrates that. Absolutely nothing. Unless this government brings in a consequential amendment to add the corporation to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, schedule 2, this corporation is not covered by the freedom of information and protection of privacy provisions.

Those that would say, "Oh, don't worry. It is covered by the FOIPPA" are wrong. They're wrong until this government amends that act and adds the Transmission Corporation Act to schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It's not there. There is no consequential amendment — none. Those that would say it is subject to FOI are wrong, as far as I can see, unless the minister can explain otherwise — unless now that we've pointed out that omission, they will introduce an amendment.

Until they do, this corporation is not subject to scrutiny. I eagerly waited for the minister to show me in his second reading remarks where he had missed that in the legislation and was going to introduce an amendment to his bill — and nothing, absolutely nothing.

What does Bill 39, the Transmission Corporation Act, do? Quite simply, it takes a Crown asset — something owned by the people of this province — and splits it in two: one being the old B.C. Hydro and this, the Transmission Corporation, being a mutant like we've never seen before.

Under this transformation, the legislation reassigns control of part of B.C. Hydro to a board headed by the former vice-chair of Duke Energy Gas Transmission, Bob Reid. Interesting — something the minister has failed to note in the debate in this legislation as well. I don't know. I was waiting to hear why that occurred.

It's a separate board from B.C. Hydro, and in fact, the Transmission Corporation has no ties to B.C. Hydro — none, absolutely none — except through a business arrangement that can change like that. It's not a subsidiary of B.C. Hydro like the Manitoba companies. It's not the same as Quebec hydro.

For those on the Liberal government side to somehow suggest in any way that what this B.C. Liberal government is doing is similar to what Manitoba and Quebec has done is to simply be wrong — for whatever reasons. I don't know that they would choose to be deliberately wrong, but they are deliberately giving wrong information out. Manitoba Hydro has one board of directors — one board of directors, not two — as does Hydro Quebec. This is the first provincial government, this B.C. Liberal government, to actually split up hydro operations into two separate entities — the first one. The separate board that is created under this act is headed by the former vice-chair of Duke Energy Gas Transmission.

Now, the minister argues continuously, although he's fallen a bit silent on this argument in the last couple of days…. Up until about last Thursday in question period, the minister argued continuously that in order to trade with the United States, we have to break up B.C. Hydro. In fact, in this Legislature on November 20, 2002, the minister said: "If we want to continue to trade in the Pacific Northwest, there are some steps we have to take. That's one of them: to have transmission separate from generation."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I didn't make those words up. That's what the minister said in this Legislature. Thank you for Hansard.

On June 29, 2002, the minister is quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying: "What our major U.S. buyers are saying in the trading area — that hub — is that you have to have separate generation from transmission. The generator can't be the same company that runs transmission."

As recently as the day the minister introduced this legislation last week, he was saying exactly the same thing word for word on radio. Thank you, again, for the services provided so that we have that radio clip that says: "The reason we're introducing this legislation is because the Americans require us to have a separate transmission company from our generating company."

That was last week. So why is that interesting? Why was I listening with interest to the minister's opening remarks for him to segue from that point of view into the reality of what exists on that matter? Why was I

It's interesting, because the minister's position is not the position of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the United States — the regulatory agent in the United States that sets the rules about access to the American energy market. No, that's not the position of FERC; nor is it the position of many of the public power entities in the Pacific Northwest. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission came out the week before last and said: "We have looked at our proposal on requiring entities to have independent transmission companies from generating companies, and we have changed our minds. We are no longer requiring that."

Now, that point is completely separate from the other ongoing debate about access to the RTO West — regional transmission organizations set up by the United States. It's a completely separate debate. I was actually taken aback when I raised the point in question period with the Minister of Energy, pointing out to him that FERC had changed their policy on requiring an independent transmission company, and he came back and started talking about regional transmission organizations.

Did he know so little about his file that he would actually confuse those two issues? Did he know so little that they were two separate and equally important points of discussion and that both had to be addressed? Or was he deliberately confusing the public in the hope that they would just set aside the complex debate?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the United States has put to bed the question of whether a hydro-producing organization needs a separate transmission company. They said: "No, that is not now required."

The minister's own bureaucrats — rightfully so — who have to look after every aspect both present and future, have said: "Well, that could change in the future." But it hasn't; it hasn't changed. We can speculate on future changes, future reversals, but it hasn't changed now. Why would this government err on the side of breaking up, busting up Hydro on the basis of a reason that doesn't exist right now? Why would they err on the side of breaking up Hydro when it may not ever be necessary?

The point of whether we need to join a regional transmission organization is a separate point — one that still faces this government. Not only did the minister not understand that, but the member for Chilliwack-Kent didn't understand that in his comments just a few moments ago. However, it is a separate point. It's a separate point that does not require a bust-up, a breakup of B.C. Hydro regardless of whether or not British Columbia joins that RTO.

In fact, the point is proven in Manitoba and in Quebec. Both those wholly owned Crown corporations — Crown corporations — with subsidiaries within the wholly owned Crown corporation for transmission have complete and unfettered access to the American market even in the context of regional transmission organizations existing. That's a complex piece of business to absorb, but it's one that the minister should surely understand, and clearly he didn't — at least he didn't up until last week.

That discussion is taking place in the Pacific Northwest all around — access to regional transmission organizations being a requirement for hydro distribution throughout the United States. By Pacific Northwest I don't mean here in British Columbia — not in British Columbia. The Pacific Northwest Canadian corner, British Columbia, is going: "Oh yes, sir. Yes, sir. Three bags full, sir." But the northwest states in the United States are protesting required membership in the RTO every day. I have no idea what our government's position on that is. Perhaps the minister has overcome his confusion and could explain that, but he certainly didn't when he had the opportunity earlier tonight.

I guess it's time that this government actually reveal its true reasons for the dismantling of B.C. Hydro. Is it to appease independent power producers? Is it symbolic? Is it ideological? Is it because they're going through a checklist of the New Era document and realize what a bollocks they've made of delivering on some of their promises and thought: "God, we've got to check this one off regardless of the consequences"?

I don't know. I actually stand here today as the Leader of the Opposition and say: "I don't know what the reason is." I was hoping I would find out today. I was hoping the government would explain it to me and then to the rest of British Columbia.

Let's look at what this legislation does mean, though, in some of its details — because the minister didn't put any of this on the record, so I will. B.C. Hydro does retain ownership of the current generation facilities. They actually retain ownership of the transmission lines with this legislation. The physical structure — not what goes through the transmission lines, but the physical structure of what exists now — is retained by B.C. Hydro. But under this legislation it is now the responsibility of the new B.C. Transmission Corporation to identify where new transmission lines are needed.

Who's going to build those transmission lines? It's this new mutant's responsibility to figure that out. Then, after that, the B.C. Transmission Corporation applies to the B.C. Utilities Commission. If the B.C. Utilities Commission finds the need adequate, they then grant the authority to create new lines. By the way, the new lines don't have to be publicly owned. Anybody, if the need is recommended, can produce transmission lines, and they can be privately owned.

Who creates the lines? That falls to B.C. Hydro. If B.C. Hydro creates the lines, they are then put in a position of being a publicly owned entity providing a subsidy to business through creation and maintenance of transmission lines. That's the net effect of this legislation. Who wins under those circumstances? I would say it's independent power producers. Independent power producers can, through an order by BCUC to

B.C. Hydro to create new transmission lines, be in effect the receiver of a subsidy. As we know, a subsidy is a government using government resources to enhance a particular industry without that industry having to pay anything for those resources. It seems to me that that's the effect of this legislation. I waited for the minister to describe what the relationship was between independent power producers and the creation of new transmission lines, and I heard nothing.

These are the same independent power producers that now face absolutely no environmental assessment and are the absolute basis, the crux, of the minister's new energy plan. Any future hydro increase is going to come from independent power producers — we knew that from last November — and if they get new transmission lines created by B.C. Hydro, they've got a subsidy unless….. Let's see. Maybe there's another avenue in which there won't be a subsidy, because British Columbians will be paying higher prices for their power as a result of that arrangement. But I'll talk about that in a moment.

What exactly is this new transmission arrangement? If it's not a subsidy, what is it? It certainly walks like a subsidy. It certainly talks like a subsidy. It's certainly legislated like a subsidy. For a government that promised to rid us of government subsidies to business, it sure loves to provide them as long as they're costumed, hidden in a different name. Even if the minister stands up and says, "No, no, no, it's not a subsidy," perhaps he could explain through me to the rest of British Columbia how this relationship between the Transmission Corporation and B.C. Hydro won't in and of itself end up in increased hydro prices for the ratepayers. I've been listening intently and heard nothing to dissuade those who would make that argument.

This Legislature saw tenures being given to coalbed methane producers and them being given subsidies. Now, the government tried to couch it in other names — tax advantages for a whole industry to stimulate economic growth — but it's a subsidy. It's called a tax expenditure. A tax expenditure is another name for a subsidy, and that's what this government did with coalbed methane producers. Now we see it again by another name with the independent power producers.

With so many questions around the profundity of the legislation, I think it's important that the government really consider why it's ramming this legislation through. What's the hurry? Why can't it sit on the order paper until the fall session? Given the changes in the energy market requirements in the United States and the maybe unintended consequence of providing a subsidy to the independent power producers and thereby breaking a promise in the New Era document, why can't it reconsider its options and all of those available to it? That's what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the United States did. By FERC reconsidering the options available to it and redoing the requirements of access to the United States energy market, it has by explicit action taken away the requirement for this legislation to be passed at all by this government.

In the past it was required by speculation that FERC would require the idea of transmission independence, but by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's own admission, they have acknowledged that that may not be the solution and therefore is not required.

There are many options available to us once we look past this neo-Liberal privatization agenda — many options. Now, those options may not impress the minister, or they may be completely dismissed as they were by the member for Chilliwack-Kent because the people pursuing those options didn't show up at his campaign headquarters and give him a big fat donation and work on his campaign. But maybe they still should be considered. Maybe some of the options being put forward as alternatives to this legislation may not be appropriate for British Columbia, but we should at least explore them. That's the business of this Legislature; that's the responsibility of every member of this chamber. There is no basis for hurrying this legislation through without consideration of those options.

Now let me just put forward my own questions and then give an explanation of why I am posing these questions. What is the urgency to pass this bill before the end of May of this year? Well, the government, depending on who they're talking to, said they urgently need to introduce private investment into British Columbia to replace aging assets and respond to world market liberalization. We've already seen that that's not necessary to have access to our great export market. I'm wondering what greater private investment the government is already counting on, more so than the private investment that makes up 20 percent of B.C.'s electricity.

In fact, the claim that they need this legislation to replace aging assets isn't necessary at all. Aging assets can be refurbished or replaced using the existing energy policy. There isn't any requirement to change that. I guess the fact that if there was a replacement of the assets and the assets remained in an efficient public ownership model and operation that remains accountable to British Columbians, this would fly in the face of perhaps some promises that the government has made to private operators — private producers of power.

Also, claiming that we have to move toward liberalization in order to respond to the world market really only opens up many arguments about experiences in jurisdictions that did exactly that — such as California, Ontario, Alberta — and what the dire consequences of liberalization in order to respond to a world market have meant for the citizens of those jurisdictions. Of course, closer to home we have the proud state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, which refused to deregulate its energy market because it is unwilling to put its citizens at risk.

Now, let's just examine the concept of regional transmission organizations — in fact, Regional Transmission Organization West, which the government may or may not be joining — and what relationship that has for B.C. as it relates to market-based pricing.

J. MacPhail: I hear members, in a cowardly way from their seats, calling out about what the previous government did around this matter. Well, I didn't see anything in the New Era document — nothing in the New Era document — that said every time we get caught out, we're going to blame the previous government because they considered doing certain things. Now, considered and rejected — yes. I didn't see anything in a New Era document that said: "When push comes to shove and we're caught out in a ridiculous scheme, that is what we're going to rely on as a defence."

But perhaps, if we have a Crown corporation…. At one point they were considering joining Regional Transmission Organization West under the previous government. If that did happen, perhaps the minister will stand up and admit that while the consideration was going on, the government of the day acknowledged that there was absolutely no need, after examination, to break up B.C. Hydro.

Let's look at what RTO West is requiring. The government, I assume…. I heard the minister say this — that the new B.C. Hydro Transmission Corporation — that's the new name for the corporation proposed under Bill 39 — will integrate with the Regional Transmission Organization West of the United States by the autumn of 2004 and that they've committed to be fully assimilated into that organization by 2006.

Well, the Regional Transmission Organization West in the U.S. has a mandate to ensure that private companies have access to the transmission grid and that export markets expand. A main feature is the introduction of market-based pricing.

Market-based pricing. Now, we don't have market-based pricing, domestically, here in British Columbia. There's a wonderful reason for that. It's because it's a publicly owned asset, our water resources. Everybody from W.A.C. Bennett on, until this Premier, thought that British Columbians should benefit from the publicly owned asset, and therefore there's a domestically set price for hydro. It's a domestically set price that says: "British Columbians, you're going to pay less because you live in such a rich natural heritage here in British Columbia."

That's gone. That's gone now, with this government. The B.C. Hydro Transmission Corporation will own access to the transmission lines and will receive income of the system. Regional Transmission Organization West, though, will decide who has access to the transmission system. Included in that right to access will also be the right, unfettered, to set prices. Seattle, in Washington, opposes that plan on the grounds that the system is formulated for the benefit of fossil fuel– and nuclear-dependent states and doesn't take into account the public ownership of hydro — water-created, water-produced energy. However, because RTO West may control transmission, British Columbia may be forced — and I didn't hear the minister answer this question — to carry out practices of transmission and production contrary to the best management of hydroelectric dams.

Now, am I fearmongering? No, I'm not, because a transmission line doesn't sit on the face of the earth for its own enjoyment. It doesn't sit as a single entity that can operate independently of anything else. It is the string that connects the user of the energy to the producer of the energy — the dam, the string, the transmission line, the household, the manufacturer or the pulp plant.

So if RTO West controls access through transmission, what is to prevent it from also saying: "And oh, by the way, you better tune up that transmission a little bit. Get those dams going more. What do you mean — environmental concerns? What do you mean — flooding concerns? What do you mean — fish habitat concerns? Just get going and produce"? That's one of the consequences.

Seattle — thank God for Washington State…. They've raised those kinds of concerns as not having been considered by RTO West.

Those are all of the questions I had, and I had very much been looking forward to some legitimate, thoughtful debate by the government. Maybe it will happen. I don't know. Maybe it won't.

Let me just conclude by pointing out some comments that arose from the Premier's energy task force and the recommendations that they made. They said this: competition for energy production will not come from within. I guess they meant within B.C. Hydro. They also said it won't come from outside, due to the government's commitment to keep prices low.

So competition and investment hinge on deregulation of both pricing and environmental controls, because it is impossible to promise both. It is impossible to promise competition, investment and low prices unless something gives. The only things that can give in that dynamic, under the promises made by this government, are environmental controls and deregulation of pricing.

The government demand for more investment for hydro production, energy production, coincides with the promise to keep prices low and creates a market — I would claim — hostile to innovation. Instead, that increased investment will come at a price to the environment, because in order to profit, companies must use low-cost energy, dirty energy such as coal and other hydrocarbons — coalbed methane, for instance.

The government takes great pride in this. This government takes great pride in using dirty energy to increase investment in this province. In essence, by eliminating B.C. Hydro's ability to expand existing facilities or create new ones — and that's what this legislation does — all new expansion of transmission will come from the private sector, according to this legisla-

tion. Private firms must, by virtue of the market, rely on already known technologies.

That's why I was surprised when the member for Chilliwack-Kent somehow claimed credit that alternate energies were going to be at the vanguard in this province. That's simply not true. This government is relying on dirty, well-known, low-cost-production energy sources. Any voluntary commitment to new, innovative sources of energy simply isn't going to happen — absolutely not going to happen.

The Power Smart program of B.C. Hydro, created by the previous administration during that horrible, horrible decade of decline, actually was innovative about conservation. There's no commitment by this government to that. Now, they'll certainly gain the benefits of the Power Smart program, but there's certainly no commitment to using the Power Smart program as a source of expansion — none.

I think it's fair to say that profit comes on the back of the environment. The environment erodes as profits increase. A potential increase in coal- and gas-fired power plants provides a revenue surge for government, but it contradicts any commitment the government may have towards decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

I think it would have been a perfectly appropriate time to have a thoughtful debate on why this government is bringing in these changes to B.C. Hydro, probably — I would say; I may get into a little bit of trouble here — the most effectively owned Crown corporation for the greater good of all British Columbians. B.C. Hydro rises above as the star amongst all Crown corporations.

Here we are having a debate on a major change to B.C. Hydro. I certainly can't glean from any government statements, from any government member, why — for what purpose, who it targeted for, who will benefit from this legislation, why it's necessary and why the rush.

R. Hawes: I'm proud, actually, to rise and support this bill. I've been listening for the last hour or so to the Leader of the Opposition, and frankly, I'm stunned. Hypocrisy has reached an all-time high here in this Legislature, and it starts with the sort of innuendo and almost name-calling that really, I think, is uncalled for. When I hear her saying things like, "The minister only yells across the aisle, 'Go home….'" I've never heard him say that, but I have heard….

R. Hawes: I hear so often in this House…. In fact, I'm thinking back to two weeks ago when we were discussing the forestry bills. That member stood up, and after shouting at all of us as members of government here, calling us names, calling us sheep, going on and on ad nauseam with really insulting diatribe…. I have to admit that I suggested she should get on with what she was speaking about, and she turned on me like I was some kind of a dog. I couldn't believe it — like I was the worst thing going because I had the audacity to say: "Get on with it." Yet over and over in this House she, in the most rude, obnoxious way, interrupts speaker after speaker after speaker.

R. Hawes: Including myself a moment ago — that's correct. Sitting and saying things to all of us here, referring to the minister as repeating the Jonestown mantra, is really uncalled for. The entire content of what she spoke about for the last hour, frankly, I would be able to sum up in one word: rubbish. I've never heard such claptrap.

First and foremost, we have said repeatedly that the assets of B.C. Hydro — all of the assets: transmission, generation, distribution — will remain in public hands. Any innuendo, any hint, any discussion that they won't is, frankly, fearmongering, and yet over and over and over, that's what she wants to try to make people believe. She's scaring people throughout this province, and she's doing it without a shred of evidence. This has just simply got to stop.

She speaks about things like the British Columbia advantage. The only thing I heard her say in an hour that had a shred of credibility to it was that B.C. Hydro is the B.C. advantage. It's an advantage that was left to us, a legacy left to us from the W.A.C. Bennett regime. It's a legacy that for the past ten years the previous government, of which she was a senior member, worked very hard to destroy.

One of the problems we face in B.C. Hydro is the aging transmission lines and the fact that for a decade every dime that could be squeezed out of B.C. Hydro was taken by the government and pitched into a bottomless black pit here, and none of it was reinvested in B.C. Hydro. There was no reinvestment of any consequence in generation, there was no new generation looked at, and certainly there was no investment in the infrastructure that delivers electricity to our homes. The transmission lines were neglected. They are in a state of repair at this point that they require quite major investment in a fairly rapid period of time.

The money is not in Hydro to do that. Hydro is now carrying a very, very significant debt, and that's a result of the mismanagement of the previous government over a decade. Then for her to stand up in this House and make any kind of inference about what we're trying to do as we try to repair the incalculable damage that that regime did for a decade is, frankly, the height of hypocrisy.

She spoke at the very end of her diatribe about dirty energy. In our energy policy it does mention that we could take a look at coal-fired generation. However, (1) there's nobody ever suggesting that that would even be considered in any airshed that's in any way challenged, and (2) it would only be done with the highest and best technology and with full environmental impact study.

Nobody is pursuing dirty energy — in fact, quite the contrary. We have now got a call for proposals out to independent power producers to produce green energy, run-of-the-river-type production of electricity, and in fact, there's a huge interest. There's a much bigger interest than there is a need for the supply of electricity. That's because we are restoring this province to the kind of place that is safe to invest your money in.

You know, the fear, the memory, of that last group really weighs heavily on the minds of potential investors in this province, but I know that if you go and ask the people of Gold River, where there's a new IPP just being announced — whether we're talking about dirty energy, whether there's going to be any investment in this province…. I can tell you they're extremely pleased with the new project that's about to go ahead there, which is going to provide jobs and employment for people in that economically challenged area of the province.

There is going to be sizeable investment in independent power production in this province. It's going to be green energy, and one of the things that assists that is the creation of a separate entity for transmission. That's going to be of huge assistance in getting the investment we're looking for from IPPs.

It is essential that we increase the production capacity of this province, because it's been neglected for so long. Anyone who thinks we haven't grown in this province over the last decade or longer…. Our use of power has grown, and yet we haven't been producing any new sources of power, so it's essential that there be investment in this area.

Because they've left the cupboards bare for us, because that government — that NDP regime from, as that member herself put it, the dark decade — did not understand…. During that period of time they showed clearly that they had absolutely no understanding of the bottom line. They don't understand business. In fact, they think the government has an endless supply of money, and they simply have to dig a bit deeper into people's pockets. They never realized there were fewer and fewer pockets and that the deepest pockets, the pockets of those who would have money to invest, were leaving and investing in other areas of this country.

After driving the major investors out of this province, after driving our economy down to tenth place in this country from first, after taking almost every economic indicator that there is from first to last place over the decade, she has the audacity to stand up and make comments that we somehow, as part of this government, are doing something harmful to this province. The height of hypocrisy has hit new levels.

I think what we need to be talking about here is what people sitting in their homes tonight and every day really want to know. Hydro is going to be there in public ownership. Pricing of Hydro is going to be protected. It's not going to be set any longer out of an office like Glen Clark's office, like what happened in the mid-1990s, when the pricing of electricity was actually deregulated. It was put into the Premier's office so we could politically set electrical prices. It's going back to where it should have been all along — to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The pricing of electricity is going to be set from an independent body. There aren't going to be huge increases just piled on because the government has created a transmission entity that's separate from B.C. Hydro. There can't be, because electrical prices are going to be controlled through the B.C. Utilities Commission.

All this fearmongering is really just uncalled for. There isn't a shred of evidence to back up anything that member has said here today. Frankly, it is insulting. It is fearmongering at its worst. I'm actually very proud of the way we're progressing here to overcome the legacy — the ill legacy — that that government left us. We're in a deep, deep hole here. We're finding ways out of the hole, and it's actually working. The statistics are all favourable. They're showing that the investment community has some confidence and faith in what we're doing. They understand the problem we are facing.

Every organization that represents the investment community in this province is endorsing the policies this government now is following. They are telling us that we are on the right path, the path to recovery. That's where the jobs are going to come from. That's where the money for health care and education is going to come from. That's where the money for social services is going to come from. It's from investment. It isn't going to come from the pockets of those who are already working and overtaxed in this province. That's not where we should be looking to get money the way that previous government did for all those years — to try to take money from the average taxpayer. They couldn't take it from the wealthy, which is what they always tried to say they were doing, because the wealthy had already left.

The idea for that government was to redefine the meaning of what wealthy was so that they could still pick the pockets of the wealthy, but they were, in fact, the middle class. Those that had even lower incomes were paying the highest tax rates in this country. That member should be ashamed to stand up in this House today and make the kinds of comments that she made today about the members of this government, who are only trying to repair the horrible damage that she has inflicted on this province.

In conclusion, I know this bill is not going to remove transmission lines from the control of government. In fact, this bill is going to help us attract the kind of investment we need from independent power producers: green energy. It's a great bill, it's a great

move, and I think we should all be very proud of the minister for bringing it forward.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 39, the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's very interesting to listen to the very well-put remarks from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission in regard to what took place over the last ten years under the leadership of the discredited NDP party and what they did to B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, you name it — any Crown corporation that the province of British Columbia had. They ran it into the ground and took all the money they could to spend on their pet projects, knowing they wouldn't be there for long, and left the problems up to someone else.

I'm going to resist spending quite a bit of time refuting all the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition, but there are a few. I listened to her opening remarks, where she stated that she curled up on her couch and watched TV and thought she would get a few remarks from my opening statement. My goodness, she stood up and read — not read it but actually talked about — one hour of speech. She actually wrote that fairly quickly. If I only took four minutes to deliver my debate, she's a pretty fast writer.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what we say from this side of the House. It's predetermined by the Leader of the Opposition that she wants to continue to fearmonger, continue to tell people that we are privatizing, that we are selling, that we are deregulating, that we're in privatization madness, that we're breaking up B.C. Hydro — all those key little words that that member is so able to put out and does it quite well. It is unfair to the people of the province, because she knows full well from this bill…. There are 20 sections. Six of them deal with operations, nine of them with employees and pension rights, and five are general or consequential. It's pretty straightforward, actually.

We made a commitment during the election. We consulted, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said, for a year and a half with British Columbians, with users of electricity, to come up with an energy plan that would meet their needs and that would keep B.C. Hydro in public hands, keep our rates as low as we possibly can moving into the future and knowing that we had to make some changes to B.C. Hydro to accomplish that.

The people of the province quite understand that. They also quite understand that after setting rates in a cabinet room — ten years of socialists setting rates in a cabinet room behind closed doors without ever talking to the public about what the rate should be, without ever going public with what decisions they tried to make or without even going public and talking about actually taking Fred and Martha's money, taxpayers' money, B.C. Hydro ratepayers' money and investing it in Pakistan in a plant that was doomed to fail, through the Grand Cayman Islands, in a numbered company…. This is a member who was in the cabinet that agreed to that, which instructed B.C. Hydro to do those kind of things, and then stands up and tries to act as though everything was fine under their administration.

It's absolutely unbelievable — to stand in this room and claim that her administration created Power Smart. My goodness — short memories. Power Smart was created long before that administration came along. In fact, we are enhancing…

Hon. R. Neufeld: …Power Smart under our new energy plan. We are moving forward with Power Smart under our new energy plan so that British Columbians can actually have access to cheap hydroelectricity. We reduced consumption so we don't have to increase generation.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member heckles me about the price going up. Can you imagine sitting as socialists in a room saying, "We're going to freeze hydro rates for ten years; we're going to make those dams work as hard as they can; we're not going to put any money into transmission or distribution; we're going to actually sell our electricity south of the border and make a huge amount of money" and brag about it?

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition even talked about us using dirty energy. Can you imagine? Dirty energy — coalbed methane, actually the cleanest fuel that mankind knows today to do the things we have to do; natural gas, the same thing.

Hon. R. Neufeld: She says to get my head out of the neanderthal era. Let's go back to the year 2000, when the price of electricity went through the roof in the United States of America. Who was telling the dams to generate as much as they could? That member, that member from that government, was telling those dams to generate all they possibly could. In fact, what they were doing was recommissioning diesel-fired generators on Vancouver Island. They recommissioned diesel-fired generators so they could sell into that market down there.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Burrard Thermal. Natural gas — my goodness, that dirty fuel. What a change there's

been. Did you just wake up? Did you just change your attitude just a little while ago? I know you've changed the numbers in this House quite a bit.

It's interesting how that Leader of the Opposition can talk about things like that, when she was part of a government that recommissioned diesel-fired generation on Vancouver Island so that their own government could take a whole bunch of money and spend it before they even had it. That's the tough part.

This administration, B.C. Hydro, is still trying to collect $390 million (U.S.) from California for electricity that they supposedly sold — diesel-generated. Can you imagine — partly diesel-generated? Now there they are. All of a sudden today we're doing dirty things.

Well, listen: our energy plan says that 50 percent of incremental supply will come from clean sources.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's voluntary, and it's the highest one in the world. We are moving. We in fact generate almost all our electricity from hydro. We have good, clean energy. This energy plan will move us into the future so we maintain low rates, so we can maintain the lowest rates possible. We will not set those rates in a cabinet room. We will have a B.C. Utilities Commission, which the NDP more or less decommissioned and decided on their own what they should charge. We're going to let the B.C. Utilities Commission actually set the rates.

Hon. R. Neufeld: They will set the rates. They're cost-based. The member talked about how we were going to market rates. We're so far from market rates it isn't funny. We have the pleasure of selling into the market but keeping our rates low in the province of British Columbia.

That makes good sense. I think that makes really good sense for British Columbians — for Fred and Martha, the people who actually buy the electricity. We're moving forward in a positive way into this new century, looking towards British Columbia maintaining its asset in public hands.

Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition continually says, we're not selling B.C. Hydro. It remains in public hands. We're not selling transmission; it remains in public hands. We're not selling distribution; it remains in public hands. We are not deregulating the electricity industry; we are re-regulating it. The B.C Utilities Commission — a panel of experts — again will actually set cost-based rates for the province of British Columbia. This is all good, good, good news for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, earlier today during private members' time, a division was deferred until this time. By agreement, that division has been waived.

R. Sultan: I would like to introduce to the House four gentlemen who happen to be present in the Legislature today attending the mining discussion group. In many ways these people represent the most senior, most experienced and most successful mining exploration executives that our community has to offer. They are Bruce McLeod, John Brock, Donald McInnes and Brian Abraham. Would the House please make them welcome.

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

Bill 39, Transmission Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Utilities Commission Act is being amended as part of the implementation of the energy plan. Our goal is to modernize a regulatory framework, streamline regulations as well as introduce a framework for the commission to provide protection and choice for gas customers.

Amendments introduced in this bill recognize a need to modernize the B.C. Utilities Commission. As British Columbia's energy industries grow and change, there is a need for the regulator to be able to exercise greater flexibility and responsiveness to act in the public interest.

Bill 40 takes a number of steps to give the B.C. Utilities Commission the tools it needs to efficiently regulate monopolized provincial activity. The bill modernizes the regulator by allowing the B.C. Utilities Commission chair the flexibility to assign one of the commissioners to act as a panel chair for any specified purpose and to organize the commission into divisions. The ability to assign a commissioner the responsibility to chair a panel allows the commission flexibility and efficiency. The provision allows the Utilities Commission to conduct simultaneous hearings and to assign a commissioner that has specific knowledge of a subject to chair a hearing.

To enhance the effectiveness of the Utilities Commission, all public utilities will be required to file resource plans. Resource plans give the commission the ability to review a utilities resource acquisition in advance of capital expenditures. The intent of the resource-planning requirement is to protect ratepayers from poor utility expenditure decisions, to ensure that utilities have adequate supply to meet demand, and to protect utilities and its shareholders from costs that may have otherwise been disallowed.

A new section of the bill clarifies that the commission may use alternative dispute resolution methods to resolve regulatory issues. The bill also allows the commission to use written hearings in place of oral hearings in certain circumstances.

Bill 40 eliminates a bias against utility energy conservation investments and encourages performance-based regulation.

Many streamlined administrative measures are incorporated into this bill. We are eliminating a redundant requirement for energy removal certificates. This requirement is out of date. The National Energy Board requires export permits.

As well, fully functioning markets are in place today, and market discovery information is readily available. The requirement for an electricity transmission contract is being removed since these are already required as a scheduled service.

Bill 40 clarifies that one annual report, based on a fiscal year, will be required rather than two reports that are now required.

We are also shifting the responsibility for declaring and dealing with common carriers, common purchasers and common processors from the Oil and Gas Commission to the Utilities Commission. This allows the Utilities Commission to declare a common carrier and to set the conditions of access to the common carrier facility.

Finally, I would like to highlight amendments to the act regarding the action we've taken to provide customer choice for gas customers. A new section establishes commission jurisdiction over gas marketing activities, including consumer protection measures to serve low-volume customers. Natural gas marketers will be licensed and bonded.

Bill 40 is a positive step forward in implementing the province's new energy plan which will deliver low electricity prices, a secure and reliable supply of energy, more private sector opportunities and environmental responsibility. We should be and we are looking to the private sector for much-needed energy development to provide secure, reliable sources of supply at competitive prices.

These amendments will attract investment in B.C. energy development while protecting the public interest. I believe the amendments will go a long way in ensuring efficient and effective regulation of B.C. utilities. Passage of this bill meets the needs of British Columbians. It is designed to help secure a low-cost, environmentally friendly and sustainable energy advantage that British Columbia can build upon to help revitalize the economy and to create jobs.

J. MacPhail: Wow. What was that? It certainly wasn't about the thrust of Bill 40 at all. I can understand why the minister wanted to deal with the minutiae and not the real intent of Bill 40, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003. But let me tell the public what's really going on here.

It was interesting that the minister in reply and wrapping up debate of Bill 39 — the bill that creates the Transmission Corporation — said: "Unlike the previous government who created hydro rates behind the closed doors of a cabinet, we're going to re-regulate and restore credibility to the B.C. Utilities Commission."

Well, wow. Was that a big one that we're all supposed to swallow or what, Mr. Speaker? Bill 40 does exactly the opposite. In four words, this bill dramatically restructures the role of the British Columbia Utilities Commission — dramatically. Did I hear the minister say that? No, I didn't.

But here's how it does that. Here it is. Here are the four words. The bill states, in section 5: "Part 2 of the Utilities Commission Act…." It doesn't say actually "the Utilities Commission Act." Part 2 of that act is repealed. I didn't hear the minister refer to that in his opening remarks. Now, why would that be?

And the explanatory note — my gosh, there's a wonderful person writing the B.C. Liberal explanatory notes. It's like their news releases. It's got nothing to do

with what the bill says, it's got nothing to do with what the act says, but we're all supposed to feel good.

So here's what the explanatory note of section 5 of this act says: This " removes from the Act the provision dealing with energy removal certificates and regulated projects." Well, that sounds technical. And what does that mean?

Well, the bill's accurate. It does remove any application by the BCUC to look at energy removal certificates and regulated projects. But what does that mean? And how does this repeal stack up with the government's promise to restore the effectiveness of the B.C. Utilities Commission? Well, it flies exactly in the face of that new era — what is now another broken promise.

What that one little section that the minister forgot to mention — forgot to mention….

J. MacPhail: The removal of that one little section says that none of these regulated projects need the approval of the B.C. Utilities Commission to be built in British Columbia. Those projects can now, because of this government, be constructed and power can be exported with absolutely no review.

How does that jibe with the new-era promise to restore the credibility of the B.C. Utilities Commission? Let's just look at which projects will now no longer be subject to any review. An electric transmission line of 500 kilovolts or higher voltage, or a substation with which a transmission line is connected, or both — subject to no review by the BCUC. An energy trans-shipment terminal or energy storage facility — no longer subject to B.C. Utilities Commission review. An energy use project — gone, no review. A transmission pipeline capable of transporting in one year natural gas, oil or solids, or a liquid or gas derived from them — gone. Transmission lines — no longer subject to any review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. A hydroelectric power plant that has a capacity of 20 megawatts or more of electricity — no longer subject to B.C. Utilities Commission review. A thermal electric power plant that has the capacity of 20 megawatts or more of electricity — poof, gone — no longer subject to review. An addition by which one of the following will be added to a hydroelectric or thermal electric power plant: (1) 20 or more megawatts of electric capacity; (2) 20 average annual megawatts or more of firm energy capability — gone.

By the stroke of a pen, BCUC has no jurisdiction — is prohibited by this Liberal law from reviewing those projects. So I guess when the Liberals wrote in their New Era document that they would restore an independent B.C. Utilities Commission, they meant independent but neutered, independent but in control of nothing, independent but only to the extent that the independent power producers could get a free rein. That's what this legislation means. I missed that in the minister's opening remarks, in the open and transparent debate that takes place in this Legislature.

It gets worse. This legislation will allow for the development of small power projects completely outside the oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission. Who's going to monitor the effect of construction of these power projects — the Environmental Assessment Agency?

Last year this Liberal government passed amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Water Act to limit the oversight of those acts for power projects such as this, so the B.C. Utilities Commission won't review the power projects that I just mentioned. The Environmental Assessment Act has been weakened, and the Water Act has been weakened, so there will be no regulatory oversight for construction from the B.C. Utilities Commission, and there will be limited discretionary and greatly weakened oversight from the Environmental Assessment Act. That's Liberal independence for you.

It's like new Liberalspeak. It's like when the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was booted from cabinet because he was under criminal investigation. The Liberal government calls it a hiatus. Now the independence that this government says it's giving to the B.C. Utilities Commission means independence by neutering — making sure they don't have control over anything. Pretty easy to be independent when you've got no work to do — pretty darn easy. That's the trouble with most of these right-wing ideologues; they don't know the difference between independence and licence. It's tough. I know it's tough to distinguish. I'm the mother of a teenage boy, and I have that debate every day — the difference between independence and licence.

I know that it takes courage, it takes resolve, and it takes compassion and understanding to do the right thing for our families. When it comes to what we do in this chamber, what is right for the province of British Columbia and all of us who live here, at every turn this government has made the wrong choice. Instead of demonstrating courage and resolve, we are treated to self-righteous sanctimony, a deliberate hiding from the public of the intent of this legislation, a puffed-up dramatic presentation of what's not going to happen in this province under the guise of debate. What's not going to happen in this province is any independence for the BCUC in the construction of energy projects.

We'll get to what's going to happen to energy rates in this province under this government later. The Coquihalla of energy rates — that's this government. Break the promise and, through the guise of changes to the BCUC, claim: "Oh, we didn't have any choice but to raise rates." Boy, isn't life getting grand under the Liberal "new era" in this province. No courage, no resolve to do the right thing — just self-righteous sanctimony.

Instead of an informative debate on the pros and cons of what this legislation does, we get vitriol and minutiae — vitriol from the minister and his backbenchers and minutiae of things that aren't the main points of the legislation. Instead of reassurances that the public interest will be protected and instead of guarantees that we will see the environment protected, we get arrogance.

Nobody in this government speaks to the environment — nobody. I am surprised at the silence around

the protection of the environment by every single Liberal MLA in this government, including the minister who's supposed to be responsible for the protection of the environment. The people of B.C. have a right to know what this government is doing with our public resources, whether it is our trees, our natural gas or our streams and rivers that have provided us with the huge competitive advantage of low-cost electricity.

But that's not what we hear. We hear that higher power rates will be good for us. Gosh, that's good news, isn't it? Only this government would say: "It's terrible that B.C. had lower power rates than the market. We're going to change that. It's terrible." The minister stands up and says: "Isn't that good for B.C., people?"

When the member for Chilliwack-Kent was up this morning with his litany of economic problems being faced by our neighbours to the south, did he ever once say that their problems were influenced by the huge price they pay for electricity on the open market? No. Every U.S. economist says that, but did the member for Chilliwack-Kent once reveal that that was part of the discussion? No.

I have much more to say on this. Noting the hour, I would move that I adjourn debate.

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


	YEAS — 48

Falcon	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
J. Reid	Santori	van Dongen
Wilson	Lee	Thorpe
Murray	Plant	Bond
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Belsey	Bell
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Hawes	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

Nettleton		MacPhail

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY