H0226pm 16

H0226pm 16

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 11, Number 16 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon.

Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon.

George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon. Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ..................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon.

Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

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

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

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

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

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

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, John (L).........................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

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

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

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

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

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

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

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5059 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 5059 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) Hon. S.

Santori Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 5060 2010 Olympic Games benefits to Burnaby and Coquitlam H. Bloy Contributions of teachers and support staff S. Brice Safe schools L. Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5061 Fair Pharmacare program and Pacific Blue Cross contract J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen J.

Kwan Facilities and services for seniors in Creston B. Suffredine Hon. K. Whittred Funding formula for policing services in small communities B. Bennett Hon. R. Coleman Apprenticeship and skills training model B. Lekstrom Hon. S. Bond Huntington border crossing B. Penner Hon. J. Reid Programs and services for aboriginal youth K. Krueger Hon. G. Abbott Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5064 Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 10) J. MacPhail Hon. R. Neufeld D.

Jarvis P. Nettleton B. Penner B. Kerr R. Hawes J. Kwan

5059 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. J. MacPhail: I rise today to send a message through all of us to Fred Jackson. Fred was the MLA from 1991 to 1996 for Kamloops–North Thompson. Fred is now in the hospice in the Royal Jubilee Hospital and has just a few days left with us.

He does have moments when he is lucid and with us, and I thought it would be appro- priate now for all of us to wish him well, to wish him the best in his next journey. [1405] H e w a s a n M L A t h a t m a n y o f u s k n e w t o b e v e r y strong — not only strong in voice but strong in idealism and strong in his closely held views on so many matters. He was compassionate, a strong advocate of workers' rights, and he didn't always toe the party line either, as some of you may well recall. Anyway, I saw Fred today, and I just thought it's better for us to send a message to Fred sooner rather than later.

We wish you well, Fred. K. Krueger: I want to thank the Leader of the Op- position for her remarks and also to convey my best wishes and respect to Fred. We spent considerable time on the election trail together. Many of my constituents have many kind things to say about Fred, who repre- sented them for five years in this House. My sincere best wishes and sympathy to his family. Fred, I wish you peace, and it was good knowing you. Hon. G. Campbell: I join with the other two mem- bers to speak of Fred and the contribution he's made to the province and to the people that he clearly loved and served.

We'll all miss his deep voice — his Scottish accent will particularly be missed — but what really will be missed is a life that was lived well, that was lived in the service of others. I am glad to join with all members of this assembly in sending my best and our prayers to Fred and his family. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, if it is the wish of the assembly, we will send best wishes on behalf of all MLAs. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hagen: In the precincts today, we have a large group of students from G.P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay together with Mr. Dave Neill, Mr. John Carswell and Ms. Joan Longtin.

Would the House please make them welcome. B. Belsey: I h a v e t w o m o r e v i s i t o r s f r o m P r i n c e Rupert, other than the cooks that were here last night. Joining us in the gallery today are two good friends of mine from Prince Rupert, Ed and Rosemary McCarter, originally from Scotland and now living in Prince Rupert. I wish the House would join me in making them welcome. H. Bloy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce in the House today industry leaders of the grocery trade here in British Columbia and across Canada.

We have Bryan Walton, vice-president of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors; Mark Synott, chief financial officer, vice-president and director of Canada Safeway. We have David Ryzebol, public affairs and director of Westfair Foods and the Real Great Canadian Super- store; David Gibson, executive director of Thrifty Foods; and Lorne Campbell, vice-president, grocery growth and development for Thrifty Foods. Will the House please join me in making our guests welcome. D. Chutter: We have with us today a constituent of mine, Bernard Schulmann from Lillooet. Will the House please make him welcome. J.

Kwan: I see in the visitors' gallery today a group of legislative interns, some of whom I met with yes- terday and had a nice chat. They'll be starting in the Legislature to assist the members of the House on Monday. I would like the House to please welcome them — and especially from my colleague the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposi- tion, a special welcome to those who are going to be working with our caucus, because we need all the help that we can get. [1410] A. Hamilton: T o d a y w e h a v e v i s i t i n g w i t h u s m y constituency assistant, Val Terry, and her son Greg.

Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: I, too, would like to welcome the members from the grocery trade here. There couldn't be a greater, finer group of people than what we have here in the gallery. It's a pleasure that I have people who really know what the price of a pound of butter is and the price of eggs is — and a loaf of bread. I have another reason to rise. I would like to intro- duce Miss Jill Smukowich. She is the daughter of my executive assistant, but more importantly, she's also one of the very few friends that I have.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Free- dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 13 be read a first time now.

5060 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 Motion approved. Hon. S. Santori: Bill 13 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In re- sponse to a comprehensive review of the legislation requested by the Premier, the intent of the review was to increase openness and reduce compliance costs.

The amendments in Bill 13 increase the ability of the information and privacy commissioner to meet operational responsibilities, improve privacy protection by extending the privacy provisions of the legislation to include records that may not be in a public body's custody but are under its control, and provide a generic reference to the archives of the government.

It will clarify the requirements for the use of re- search agreements under the act, clarify the re- quirements regarding notification for the indirect collection of personal information, add a public body to the definition of a local government body and refine the definition of an educational body, and ensure the protection of solicitor-client privilege for records provided to the information and privacy commissioner.

The changes in Bill 13 are supported by stake- holders, will clarify the original intent of the legisla- tion and will improve the privacy protection af- forded to personal information held by public bod- ies. It will also position B.C. to lead Canadian juris- dictions in e-government initiatives, reduce compli- ance costs and increase openness. I move that Bill 13 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 13 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.

Statements (Standing Order 25 B) 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES BENEFITS TO BURNABY AND COQUITLAM H. Bloy: Yesterday I heard the member for East Kootenay speak about how people in his corner of the province will meet to discuss how their region can benefit from the 2010 Olympic Games. I also heard the member for Prince George–Mount Robson tell the House that her constituents just launched their own Olympic initiative to explore the potential opportunities in her area as a result of the Olympics.

Unlike those places which lie hundreds of miles away from the site of the Olympic venues, Simon Fraser University in my home riding of Burquitlam will host many of the events at the 2010 Olympics if the bid is successful. Both communities in my riding, Burnaby and Coquitlam, will see lasting benefits. People in Coquitlam know this. Indeed, just last week I attended the launch of their very own Olym- pic spirit team, which strongly endorses the Olympic bid. [1415] Right now Burnaby is making a strong bid to host the 2009 World Police and Fire Games.

Along with the 2010 Olympic Games, our communities will see lasting benefits. There are even more opportunities for Bur- naby businesses and residents to benefit from the games. I hope to explore with Burnaby council how we can maximize the benefits for our city. Cities across B.C. are endorsing and preparing to reap the rewards the Olympics will bring, and I want to make sure Bur- naby is no different. CONTRIBUTIONS OF TEACHERS AND SUPPORT STAFF S.

Brice: The parent advisory committee at Glan- ford Elementary School in my riding has advised me that the Canadian Home and School Federation has proclaimed a teacher and staff appreciation week in recognition of the valuable role played by the teachers and support staff in our schools. The parents at Glan- ford Elementary School, and I daresay the parents at all schools, recognize the essential role that competent and professional educators play in ensuring the full educa- tional development of our children.

In the education field, much time is spent in dis- cussing curriculum development, grade configuration, class size and grad requirements — all very important topics, to be sure — but nothing comes close to the importance of the role played by the relationship be- tween a child and a teacher in ensuring a successful learning experience. The magic that happens between the teacher and the student is really what education is all about. We appreciate teachers for their dedication and the endless patience they show towards our chil- dren, from kindergarten through to grade 12.

The Canadian Home and School proclamation also acknowledges the contribution made by support staff. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's going on in a school, you ask the secretary or the cus- todian. I applaud the parents at Glanford Elementary School in formally recognizing the teachers and all support staff for their dedication and commitment to our children's well-being and academic achievement. SAFE SCHOOLS L. Mayencourt: I spent the morning with some stu- dents in Saanich that were all talking about creating safe schools.

We've spent a lot of time, energy and money in creating an excellent educational opportunity for students in this province, but some students don't get the full benefit of these opportunities because they feel unsafe in their schools due to harassment and bul- lying. There's no question that students subjected to harassing and bullying behaviours can be hurt. Behav- iours that are often based on perceived differences of race, disability, gender, sexual orientation and others

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5061 can have a profound negative effect on the student's psychological and emotional health. One young person who was submitted to contin- ued harassment through all of his high school years was Azmi Jubran. Azmi was singled out for abuse and name-calling by fellow students claiming he was a ho- mosexual, even though he was not. Bullying is unacceptable in any form, whether it is based on real or perceived differences. Students, par- ents, educators, police and community have a shared responsibility in maintaining safe schools.

We must continue to ensure that our schools are safe places to learn for all students. We must continue to strive to find effective ways to educate our young people about the devastating effect bullying has on individuals in our society. Together, we can provide our students with a safe environment to learn the skills they need so that they can be in the world and succeed and bring prosperity back to our province. Oral Questions FAIR PHARMACARE PROGRAM AND PACIFIC BLUE CROSS CONTRACT J. MacPhail: It was announced in the paper today that the Minister of Health Services is contracting out to Pacific Blue Cross.

Can the Minister of Health Ser- vices explain on what basis he contracted Pacific Blue Cross to register British Columbians for his Phar- macare income-testing scheme? Hon. C. Hansen: The ministry went out with an expression of interest in November. Based on the in- formation that was submitted by various corporations to that expression of interest, a further request for pro- posals was issued in January. As a result of that review, the contract was awarded to Pacific Blue Cross. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. [1420] J. MacPhail: Well, the minister has his dates wrong.

We have a leaked document here. The opposition has learned through a confidential briefing note that cost was not considered in the contracting out. The con- tracting-out option was recommended not because of any cost savings, not because of any value to the tax- payer, but because — quoting from the document: "With current B.C. government downsizing activities underway, contracting out provides the best optics." Why did the government choose to contract out the handling of private and personal information to a pri- vate supplier based on optics? Hon. C.

Hansen: The whole registration process is one that we have to get largely completed by May 1. We want to make sure that not one British Columbian who is eligible for benefits under the Fair Pharmacare program goes without those benefits as a result of the registration process. To ensure that we had the appro- priate capacity, we went to an organization that has a p r o v e n t r a c k r e c o r d o f d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s k i n d o f c a l l management. Also, this whole procedure has been vet- ted through the privacy commissioner and has met with his satisfaction. Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: Well, there are about three things that the minister has wrong in all of that. He's got his dates wrong, he's got his information wrong about when the fix was in for Pacific Blue Cross, and he's got his infor- mation wrong on the information and privacy commis- sioner. Not only was cost consideration not taken into account in this confidential briefing note, but it specifi- cally says contracting out "will not significantly exceed keeping those functions in-house." In fact, the docu- ment shows it could easily be done in-house.

The briefing note goes on to explain that the advan- tage of contracting out private information to a private company is that it is "politically correct to do." I know this government never misses an opportunity to trump com- mon sense with ideology, but can the minister explain why, in his own document's words, political correctness is considered a sound basis upon which to contract out ser- vices that could just as easily be done in-house? Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I should say I'm not familiar with the document the member has.

It was not a document that was prepared for me, and it was obvi- ously internal within the ministry. The contract that we have set up with Blue Cross ensures that patient infor- mation is accurate and is protected and that all of the privacy concerns are addressed. J. Kwan: In the news report today, the information and privacy office said that it was not consulted about the new income-testing scheme. They said they're not concerned, though, with just a matter of providing one line of a tax return. The request for qualifications the Liberals had put out in December shows that it's a lot more than that.

It says that the Pacific Blue Cross will have access to ministry computer systems which con- tain detailed and private information. Can the minister please explain why he didn't ask the privacy commissioner's opinion about a contract that grants a private company access to personal informa- tion? Did he just forget, or was he worried that it might scuttle his plans to do what was politically correct? Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, Pacific Blue Cross is an excellent British Columbia–based corporation. In fact, just an interesting note for members, it's actually a not- for-profit corporation based in British Columbia.

They handle confidential information on a regular basis. That is exactly what they do. They handle claims that come in as a… Interjections.

5062 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …third-party insurer from em- ployees and employers… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …across this province. As the member well knows, they have handled those mem- bers' third-party insurance claims for the entire time that they have been members of this Legislative As- sembly. I have full confidence in that organization to, first of all, provide a first-class service for British Co- lumbians who need to register for the Fair Pharmacare program.

Secondly, I have full confidence that they will fulfil their privacy obligations that are set out in their contract. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. [1425] J. Kwan: What's clear is that the Liberals' decision to contract out the handling of personal and private information had little to do with good public policy. It had little to do with protecting the privacy of British Columbians, and it had everything to do with optics and ideology.

In fact, in the leaked briefing note from the minis- try, it allows the qualified suppliers access to the minis- try system to complete transactions, capture data from forms using ministry systems, validation of data from ministry databases and, as well, the ability to connect to ministry systems, including mainframe and Inter- net/intranet-based systems. The ministry will provide authentication certificates for any workstations requir- ing access to systems.

Based on this information, will the minister imme- diately ask B.C.'s information and privacy commis- sioner to investigate the contract to ensure that British Columbians' rights to privacy are not compromised by his new income-testing scheme? Hon. C. Hansen: I actually gave the member that very reassurance a moment ago. The contractual ar- rangement with Pacific Blue Cross is set up in a way that protects that private information.

I would also like to point out to the members that they would have re- ceived, for their own personal third-party insurance, a little card from Pacific Blue Cross setting out their benefits under third-party insurance, and I have full confidence that… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …the members' information has been protected by Pacific Blue Cross for these many years they have been members of this Legislative As- sembly. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Let's have some order in the House so we can hear the question, please.

FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR SENIORS IN CRESTON B. Suffredine: I'll try to get over this noise. One of the great heartland communities in my rid- ing is Creston. Seniors facilities, such as Pioneer Villa in Creston, have announced that they're going to be clos- ing, and many seniors in my riding are very uncertain about their future. That uncertainty is causing many of those seniors a great deal of stress. Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care tell these seniors if there is going to be a place for them? Hon. K.

Whittred: The interior health authority is working very closely with families in Creston to ensure that, in fact, this heartland community does have the same range of services that are available to people in the larger urban centres. We're working to be sure that there is a continuum that includes home care, inde- pendent living, assisted living and bathing programs, as well as nursing home care. To this end the interior health authority has created a made-in-Creston solution.

They're planning a com- munity development process that will bring commu- nity groups together to discuss the redevelopment of Pioneer Villa and how it can best meet the needs of the community. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. FUNDING FORMULA FOR POLICING SERVICES IN SMALL COMMUNITIES B. Bennett: My question is to the Solicitor General. Successive Union of B.C. Municipalities AGMs have asked provincial governments over the years to ad- dress the inequities in the funding formula used to fund policing services, particularly as that relates to communities of less than 5,000 and unincorporated rural areas.

For the benefit of those smaller B.C. communities that have concerns about their ability to pay, can the minister please provide some assurance to these small heartland communities that the government will be fair to them in any new plan to deal with policing services? [1430] Hon. R. Coleman: We did have a consultation process last year at UBCM, which is now continuing. I have re- cently written all of the small communities and unorgan-

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5063 ized areas that would be affected by a new policing for- mula, advising them we will not be implementing a new formula in this fiscal year. We're going out for further consultation, because we think we want to find a for- mula that is fair, that is progressive and that is sustain- able and can also fall within whatever grant programs other ministries may have relative to transition. In addition to that, we want to consult with them on how we can make this work for their regions.

Hav- ing said that, however, we will not be slowing down any of our regionalization or integration of policing or our long-term strategy for policing in British Columbia as we work through that formula, because that is the number one priority of the ministry. APPRENTICESHIP AND SKILLS TRAINING MODEL B. Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Ad- vanced Education. I've heard from a number of my constituents that they're worried about the forthcoming changes to the apprenticeship model and feel that they will result in fewer highly skilled tradespeople in our province.

People are afraid that apprentices will no longer be able to obtain their Red Seal certificate. Can the Minister of Advanced Education at this time tell us whether apprentices will still be able to become inter- provincially certified? Hon. S. Bond: First of all, our goal in looking at the current apprenticeship and skills training in the prov- ince is to actually increase the number of skilled work- ers that we have in the province. That's absolutely im- perative as we look at the needs that are developing both here and across the country.

As the new model evolves, obviously of prime importance to us is that both provincial and national certification will be main- tained, so — absolutely — the opportunity to achieve a Red Seal in this province will be maintained. HUNTINGTON BORDER CROSSING B. Penner: My question is to the Minister of Trans- portation. Border crossings are an essential part of our transportation and economic infrastructure. It's vital that we have safe, secure yet efficient borders to main- tain our economy and to open up B.C.

Truck volumes at the Huntington border crossing in the eastern Fraser Valley have doubled since 1993 and are expected to keep growing by 5 percent per year. I personally have been stuck in the huge lineup of trucks and vehicles trying to get across the border along Highway 11, and sometimes that traffic is backed up as far as Vye road. This causes traffic and safety problems and is bad for our economy. Can the Minister of Transportation tell the truckers and other residents of the Fraser Valley that the Huntington border crossing will be improved in the near future? Hon. J.

Reid: Border crossings are absolutely essen- tial to our economy. We have already announced $30.4 million worth of border crossing improvements, work- ing in partnership with the federal government. We anticipate, working with them, that there will be more to come on this particular crossing, the Huntington crossing, starting this summer. The ministry plans to complete the work on a 34-stall parking lot to relieve that congestion. Truckers who are coming there have to complete their paperwork. They've been clogging the border.

This is a practical solution, a cost-effective solution, that's going to relieve some of that conges- tion. PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR ABORIGINAL YOUTH K. Krueger: The recent Speech from the Throne outlined the government's resolve to establish a new relationship with B.C.'s first nations. There is a real desire in the many aboriginal communities in my con- stituency to play an active role in working with all lev- els of government to provide their young people with the skills they need to reach their full potentials.

To the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Ser- vices: what is the ministry doing to help aboriginal youth in British Columbia? Hon. G. Abbott: We are working in a number of ways as a government to try to build stronger relation- ships with aboriginal leaders, with aboriginal commu- nities and indeed with aboriginal youth. As the mem- ber knows, last October we held the inaugural first citizens forum which looked at a number of issues that were of particular concern to youth — educational is- sues, economic development issues, health issues and so on.

Among the specific initiatives that we've under- taken — and there are actually many — a couple, I think, might be of particular interest to the member. Doubling the First Citizens Fund will allow us to pro- vide more student bursaries and larger student bur- saries to aboriginal students in this province. [1435] As well, we have undertaken a new program, which we call Aboriginal Youth FIRST. It's being pi- loted in the northwest of British Columbia. It looks at things like aquatics, back-country guiding, tourism development, recreational and sports programming in aboriginal communities.

We believe this will be a way of building a love of sport and, indeed, building some new economic development opportunities for young people in aboriginal communities. In those and a number of other ways, we are build- ing that strong relationship with young aboriginals in this province. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 10.

5064 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 Committee of the Whole House ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in committee on Bill 10; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:38 p.m. On

section 1. J. MacPhail: This is the

section that gives the au- thority to the government to designate an agreement. It then goes on to talk about that designating an agree- ment as it considers it relates to the provision of sup- port services…. The Chair: Member, excuse me. That should be

section 2, I believe. J. MacPhail: Sorry. My apologies.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. J. MacPhail: My apologies for that. Just to con- tinue my remarks about the Hydro and Power Au- thority Act,

section 2. This is the

section that allows the government to designate — an interesting term — any agreement to be entered into by the authority that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers relates to the provision of support services to or on behalf of the authority. What does "designate" mean? Let's ask the minister that. [1440] Hon. R. Neufeld: "Designate" means that cabinet will, by OIC, designate the services that could be out- sourced. J. MacPhail: Outsourced. What does "outsourced" mean? Hon. R. Neufeld: It means the same today as it did in 2000, when you were going to do it. It actually means that the Crown, B.C.

Hydro, is able to get its services from places other than in-house. So if they need to buy power poles, they can actually go out and b u y p o we r p o l e s , o r t he y c a n b u y s e rv i c e s f ro m s o m e other company that they require to carry out their duty as B.C. Hydro. J. MacPhail: It was very good that the minister ta- bled those documents yesterday so the public will ac- tually be able to see that in no way what the previous government contemplated doing, and then didn't do, was outsourcing. It was the creation of a subsidiary inside B.C. Hydro, publicly owned, wholly owned.

The minister — just the same way that he was incorrectly briefed on what letter Mark Veerkamp wrote — mis- represented exactly what the previous government thought about doing and didn't do. It is in no way — in no way — s i m i l a r t o w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s d o i n g , which is outsourcing. Let me ask the minister this — and maybe he'd bet- ter actually read the memorandum of understanding he has with Accenture: what's the difference between outsourcing and privatizing? Hon. R.

Neufeld: The issue, as I recall, that I tabled yesterday demonstrated that the previous government was moving towards creating two companies in con- junction with B.C. Gas, which is a private company, which would be 50 percent owned by the province, or B.C. Hydro, and 50 percent owned by a private com- pany called B.C. Gas. She should maybe read…. Out- sourcing is giving the ability to B.C.

Hydro — in this case, what we're talking about — to go out and get services in the market at the best possible price they can and still provide the same level or better services for the corporation and for the people that own B.C. Hydro, which is the province of B.C. J. MacPhail: The reason why this is important is because the minister has repeatedly said he's not pri- vatizing B.C. Hydro. He didn't distinguish on any ba- sis, and in fact, he upped his own ante yesterday when he said he would resign if B.C. Hydro were ever privat- ized.

Could the minister provide a definition of priva- tization that makes it different from outsourcing? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, selective hearing. What I s ai d wa s t hat I w o u l d n't b e h e re i f t he g o v e rnm e nt o f the day relinquished its promise that we would not sell or privatize the core assets of B.C. Hydro: transmission, distribution, generation — all of those. That was very clear, and I guess…. J. MacPhail: Actually, that's not what you said. Hon. R. Neufeld: It's not what I said? I know what I said, but thank you for telling me what I said. I really appreciate that. J.

MacPhail: Yes, the minister has every right to laugh nervously, because he said that he would resign if B.C. Hydro is privatized — full stop. He'd better be nervous, laughing. Could the minister provide a defini- tion of "privatization," please? Could he provide a definition that distinguishes privatization, in any way, from outsourcing? And I might ask the minister to keep in mind what the memorandum of understanding is with Accenture. He'd better take a moment to read that memorandum of understanding, because his ca- reer's on the line. [1445] Hon. R. Neufeld: What this act does is allow B.C.

Hydro — in fact, it puts it in the legislation — with the

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5065 approval of cabinet, to outsource some of its services. It lists them in

section 2, which — and I read verbatim: "…does not include the production, generation, stor- age, transmission, sale, delivery or provision of electricity." J. MacPhail: I can understand why the minister is o b f u s c a t i n g , b e c a u s e h e m i g h t h a v e t o d e l i v e r o n h i s promise. Let me read this, then, out of the memorandum of understanding between Accenture and the govern- ment. "B.C. Hydro and the B.C. subsidiary of Accen- ture will initially be involved in the new joint venture. After a transition period, B.C. Hydro will relinquish its minority position in the joint business.

The new busi- ness will be privately owned and operate in the private sector. It will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Accen- ture." Is that privatization? Hon. R. Neufeld: It describes the company that B.C. Hydro is going to outsource those services from. The member just described it. It is a private company, yes. J. MacPhail: How does this sound? I actually did go to the dictionary, like all the Liberal backbenchers were yelling out there. It's the Merriam-Webster dic- tionary, and it's the dictionary of law, so it's actually the legal definition. Here's what "privatized" says.

It's a verb: "Change industry or business from governmental to private control or ownership." Is this privatization? Hon. R. Neufeld: This is a move that allows B.C. Hydro to purchase its services from an outside source, services that it deems it can receive cheaper by doing that than the way it is done today. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, he's not answering the ques- tion. I'll keep asking it until the minister answers it. I have just read a definition of privatize. I have read what the minister's memorandum of understanding describes in terms of this transaction of B.C. Hydro giving away the operations to Accenture.

Is it privatization according to this legal definition, or can the minister table another definition that says it's not privatization? Hon. R. Neufeld: Bill 10,

section 2, which we're on, deals with B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and its ability, under approval by cabinet, to actually purchase services from an outside source. That's all this act al- lows. That's what we're discussing today. The reason to do this is to actually save money and provide the same level of service or better service in the future. It will actually benefit the ratepayers of British Columbia Hy- dro well into the future. It's a ten-year contract with Accenture to provide those services to B.C. Hydro, and I think it's a good deal. J. MacPhail: Let me try a different definition.

How about this definition of privatization? "Privatization occurs where a department discontin- ues both responsibility for, and delivery of, an operation such that simultaneously and by prior agreement with the department a private sector organization assumes delivery of that operation. Where an operation is trans- ferred under these circumstances, the operation is deemed, for the purpose of this directive, to be discon- tinued, resulting in a workforce adjustment situation." Does that sound like anything the minister is do- ing? [1450] Hon. R. Neufeld:

Section 2 of the act demonstrates and lists the services that can be outsourced by author- ity from the cabinet for B.C. Hydro to obtain those ser- vices from other sources rather than in-house. That's exactly what this piece of legislation deals with. J. MacPhail: I think it's going to be pretty clear that as this minister stands up and talks more and more and more, he's deliberately refusing to answer the question, because he upped his own ante. He got smart. He got cute and said he'd resign if B.C. Hydro were privat- ized. That's exactly what he said. Let me read what the minister said: "If B.C.

Hydro were privatized by some other government, I can't do anything about that. But by our government, I'm gone." That's what he said. He didn't qualify it at all. Now the minister is trying to stand up and say it's outsourcing. He can't tell me how I'm wrong on the privatization. Two

definitions so far describe exactly what this government is doing, to a T, and the defini- t i o n o f w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s d o i n g — mind you, these are only legal

definitions — is "privatize." I'll go back to my question that the minister didn't answer. What's the difference between outsourcing and privatizing? Hon. R. Neufeld: I will answer the question one more time. This bill lists out what support services are and how B.C. Hydro can move towards purchasing those support services by the authority of cabinet. They can purchase those services from other sources rather than providing those services internally if, in fact, it is deemed by B.C.

Hydro and the cabinet that there is a substantial saving to the ratepayers of the province and that the services will be the same level or better. J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my ques- tion? I heard what the minister said. Could the minister now say what he's been repeating over and over and over again — how that's different than privatization? Hon. R. Neufeld: I've explained this, I think — what? — six times now. J. MacPhail: No, you haven't, actually. Hon. R. Neufeld: I have. J. MacPhail: No, you haven't. Worried, nervous?

5066 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 Hon. R. Neufeld: No, I'm not worried and I'm not nervous. We're doing exactly as we said we would during the election. We're moving forward this bill that we're dealing with today. This

section of it is to deal with how B.C. Hydro can procure services and what services they can outsource or buy from other people in the marketplace. It's all about saving money for the ratepayers. It's all about doing business in a better way. There's nothing wrong with that, and I think we should look at it in a positive light. The Chair: The Leader of the Opposition. J. MacPhail: One second. I just need to confer with my…. The Chair: Yes. J. MacPhail: Thanks. D. Jarvis:

Section 2 of this bill here. Questions keep coming, asking him about privatization and if it is pri- vatization or not. The minister gets up and gives a very good explanation of what the intent of this bill is, and all we're having is a repetition, on and on and on. Mr. Chair, I was wondering if you could either direct the questions to this section, as the minister is discussing, or get on to another section. [1455] J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to confer with my colleague. These are actually the kind of questions that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour should be ask- ing himself.

He was certainly a very harsh and direct critic of B.C. Hydro in the past, and somehow, if the minister has private communication…. Can talk through some sort of other method to the minister…? Maybe he's getting the answer. But I have yet to hear from the Minister of Energy what his definition of privatization is. Let's take it away from any of the discussion we're having right now. The minister yesterday made a commitment that he would resign if B.C. Hydro were privatized. What did he mean by that? What is his definition of privatization? Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: It is.

It's actually quite a great document. You should read it. Again, what I've said this bill deals with — and I'm trying to deal with this in a very good fashion…. This bill demonstrates and lays out very clearly to British Columbians what can be outsourced and what can't be. That's what the bill is all about. J. MacPhail: The only reason why the minister's staff sent in the New Era document is because that document says the government won't privatize the core assets of B.C. Hydro. But what we're discussing here is whether this particular portion, where they've given a contract to Accenture, is privatization.

That's all. The minister won't answer that question. What is the minister's definition of privatization? Not what the New Era document does, because that document doesn't define privatization. It says what you won't privatize. When the minister made that grand promise yesterday that he would resign if B.C. Hydro were pri- vatized, what definition of privatization did he have in his mind? Hon. R. Neufeld: Let's see. When I look through this bill, I read nothing about resigning in here. I read nothing on any one of the sections that has anything to do with that.

I read nothing on any one of the sections that has anything to do with the newspaper. But I do read sections of this bill that demonstrate and are very clear and transparent with British Columbians on how B.C. Hydro will, in the future, receive its non-core ser- vices and its support services. I think it's open, it's transparent, and it lays it out very clearly. J. MacPhail: Is there some reason why the minister doesn't want to call this privatization? Is there some reason for that? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm going to go back to the bill that's in front of us. That's the bill we should be discussing. Whatever

section we're discussing right now, we should be talking about that. This bill lays out very clearly and demonstrates very clearly to the peo- ple of the province about support services as related to B.C. Hydro and core services as related to B.C. Hydro. J. MacPhail: I'm asserting that this is privatization. Am I wrong? The Chair: Shall

section 2 pass? Leader of the Op- position. J. MacPhail: Sorry. This is privatization. Am I wrong? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'll try to explain it. It says it very clearly. I wish some would read it. It describes very clearly in the bill what are support services that B.C. Hydro can outsource only after receiving the au- thority from cabinet and demonstrating that those support services can be obtained for the Crown — ser- vices that they need — at a cost saving, and also to be able to provide the same level of service or better ser- vice. [1500] J.

MacPhail: He's not only skating on thin ice; he's fallen through the ice hole on this one. This is privatization, and the minister's silly commitment yesterday to resign if B.C. Hydro is privatized is exactly why he refuses to announce today that this is privatization — exactly. The minister…. Interjections.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5067 The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. J. MacPhail: Methinks the Attorney General's ego is g e t t i n g o u t o f c o n t r o l . I c o u l d n ' t d a r e g a z e u p o n h i m . His wit is so scintillating, it's unbelievable. An Hon. Member: It's not hard, compared to yours. The Chair: Members, let's keep the debate between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition at this point. J. MacPhail: I w o u l d b e h a p p y t o d o t h a t , M r . Chair. The Chair: On the bill, on

section 2, please. J. MacPhail: Although the colleagues in that brain trust of the front bench think that it's not important at all whether this be called privatization or not…. Again, they try to say that this is not the slippery slope of pri- vatization. They use fancy words that they think the public won't understand, like outsourcing. The minis- ter refuses to provide his own definition that distin- guishes outsourcing from privatization, but every sin- gle legal application of this designation is that they're privatizing one-third of B.C. Hydro.

In fact, the memo- randum of understanding that this minister has signed with Accenture says exactly that — that this is privati- zation. The reason why this is so important is because you t h e n g o o n t o d e f i n e w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t t h i n k s i s part of support services. Perhaps the minister could tell us how the definition of support services came about. Hon. R.

Neufeld: Actually, it's described in (10): "For the purposes of subsection (9), 'support services' means the services that support or are ancillary to the activities of the authority from time to time, and includes services related to metering for, billing and collecting fees, charges, tariffs, rates, and other compensation for electricity sold, delivered or provided by the authority, but does not include the production, generation, storage, transmission, sale, delivery or provision of electricity." J.

MacPhail: D o e s t h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f s u p p o r t s e r - vices capture everything that this government is turn- ing over to Accenture? Hon. R. Neufeld: The Accenture deal is separate from what this bill is, but this describes the services that could be outsourced. If there are some services that B.C. Hydro could actually procure under those descriptions, they would have to come to cabinet and say, as they have with the other ones: "Can this hap- pen?" I'm not sure, but I'm sure if you had asked Hydro, they may have some other services that they may wish to outsource. J.

MacPhail: I've not had an opportunity to ask Hydro. It's up to the minister to answer these ques- tions. I take it that this bill goes beyond support services and captures services beyond the Accenture deal. Am I correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: She's wrong. It describes the type of services — I read them into the record — that Hydro can look at procuring outside the corporation only with the approval of cabinet. [1505] J. MacPhail: I fully accept the answer. I'm not sure how that makes me wrong. So we have the Accenture deal which privatizes a range of services.

The minister is saying that there can be more that can be "out- sourced" than the Accenture deal. Is the minister then suggesting — call me wrong; say I'm wrong — that everything can be privatized except for production, generation, storage, transmission, sale and delivery? Everything else can be privatized? Hon. R. Neufeld: The legislation allows other ser- vices that Hydro receives to be purchased from other sources. I'll give the member one example. Fleet ser- vices could be. I'm not sure. B.C. Hydro…. Interjections. Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, no. All right.

That could happen if, in fact, they make a case that they could provide those services cheaper by purchasing them in the market. That's just one example that I can think of off the top of my head. J. MacPhail: Last April, Hydro announced that they were privatizing Westech Information Systems and the vehicle services. That's already been announced. That's not a breakthrough by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm trying to get at here is that the minister re- fuses to acknowledge that this is privatization, and there's a very good reason for that.

It's because his ca- reer's on the line, and of course, the whole reputation of the Liberal government is on the line here. Just the same way they said that they're not going to privatize B.C. Rail and campaigned on that. Then it turns out that but for the rail ties, they're privatizing absolutely everything. So I'm trying to figure out what the limits are of this minister and his privatization exercise, be- cause right here, in the support services listed, it says that support services means services that support or are ancillary to the activities of the authority from time to time.

The Accenture deal deals with the privatization of human resources. That doesn't meet this definition. It doesn't meet the definition at all. Those services are not

5068 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 needed from time to time. Financial services — that's being privatized. That doesn't meet the definition un- der here. Those are continuous services. This definitely says services that are ancillary to the authority from time to time. Now, the…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: M r . C h a i r , I ' d b e h a p p y f o r t h e G o v - ernment House Leader to stand up and answer the questions in place of the minister. I'd be happy to have him do that. I'd be absolutely happy to have him do that. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please.

Let's have the questions directed to the Chair, please. J. MacPhail: Oh God, the Government House Leader must be a popular guy inside caucus. He must be just an absolutely popular guy. Interjections. J. MacPhail: Yeah. I hear all the rumours, believe you me. Well, what are those services, then? What do those words mean to the minister responsible or the Gov- ernment House Leader? Have him feel free to get up and answer it — or the AG. He's got a lot to say too. [1510] Hon. R. Neufeld: Just for the record, fleet services was withdrawn. I used that as an example that they may be able to.

Obviously, when they started dealing with fleet services, maybe they found that it was done better in-house than actually outsourcing that service. That's just a point the member might want to write down. But it does say in subsection (10) that it means the services that support or are ancillary. So that's the definition: either supports or are ancillary. J. MacPhail: I hate to actually correct the Govern- ment House Leader, but here's how you read the lan- guage.

Support services could mean services that sup- port the activities of the authority from time to time, or it could mean services that are ancillary to the activities of the authority from time to time. That is exactly the legal definition ― e x a c t l y . T h e y e i t h e r s u p p o r t f r o m time to time or are ancillary from time to time. That is exactly what the language means. If there's a legislative drafter over there, that is exactly what the language means. The minister just received bad advice from the Government House Leader in his usually arrogant way.

The Government House Leader thinks he knows everything, and he completely misled the minister. So it means one of two things. It means services that sup- port the activities of the authority from time to time or are ancillary to the activities of the authority from time to time. That's exactly what it means. In either case — either "support" or "are ancillary" — it's qualified by the words "from time to time." What does that mean? D. Jarvis: Your

interpretation is wrong. J. MacPhail: I've drafted legislation for ten years; I know what it means. Hon. R. Neufeld: This bill is, I think, very clear. I guess, from the member's words, she knows the legal ramifications of it. That's her opinion. She's quite wel- come to have that opinion. J. MacPhail: Opinion? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, she's quite welcome to have that opinion. It reads very clearly what support services are and what they are not. For B.C.

Hydro to actually have the ability to do anything more than what they're doing now, they would have to come to cabinet and demonstrate to Treasury Board, or cabinet through Treasury Board, that there would actually be some savings and that the level of service could be maintained or improved. J. MacPhail: What are support services that are needed for the activities of the authority from time to time? It's not an opinion. This minister, just because he doesn't know what he's talking about, cannot accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. I know exactly what I'm talking about here ― exactly.

These words have to have meaning. Legislative drafters do not put words in the legislation unless they have meaning. What is the meaning of the term "from time to time"? Hon. R. Neufeld: "From time to time" could mean services that are required from time to time if projects are happening or being built around the province. Maybe the corporation needs to purchase those ser- vices. That could be from time to time. J. MacPhail: What services that are part of the Accen- ture deal are not needed from time to time but are needed continuously?

This is legal language that gives support to the Accenture memorandum of understanding. It is the basis upon which this government has the right to privat- ize one-third of B.C. Hydro. The legal definition is ex- tremely important, and it doesn't make sense. [1515] Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry I didn't hear the whole question, but there have only been about two questions since we started just shortly after question period. Maybe to help the discussions, I could read into the record the services that are going to be provided to B.C.

Hydro by Accenture: customer services, Westech, net- work computing services, disbursement services, fi- nancial systems, HR services, building office services, purchasing department, financial and business support services.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5069 J. MacPhail: Thank you for that information. It's irrelevant to the question I just asked. This will be my last question for a moment, and I'll turn it over to the member for Prince George–Omineca after this question. Again, I preface this….

Section 12(10) is the legal raison d'être for this government privatizing a third of B.C. Hydro. It is the legal basis upon which Accenture gets to do the job as a private company. It is the only basis on which this government can privatize those services, so every word has a meaning. I asked the min- ister. He can't tell me what "from time to time" means. He can't. The list of services he just read into the record has nothing to do with being offered from time to time. They are integral — completely integrated — services that are offered every minute, every hour, every day to every customer of B.C. Hydro.

What are those words "from time to time" in this legislation for? Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll relate again. "Time to time" could refer to projects that are done in different places around the province that aren't continuing operations, but from time to time B.C. Hydro requires services to perform those duties. That, I think, is a pretty good description of what "time to time" is. P. Nettleton: This is an interesting exercise. I have no interest in embarrassing the minister, nor do I personally have any interest in seeing him being forced to resign. Nevertheless, I can tell you this.

Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned with respect to consumers, be they corporate, industrial or residential. Nothing I've heard here today gives me any comfort that, in fact, this government and particularly this minister have any sense as to where this government is going in and around B.C. Hydro. The Leader of the Opposition had simply asked, and I was going to do the same thing, for a definition of privatization — pretty basic, pretty fundamental to this whole discussion. We didn't get a simple definition of privatization.

It's my sense that the minister really doesn't understand the whole notion of privatization. Again, in response to a simple question from the Leader of the Opposition, he couldn't define "designa- tion" prior to a discussion in and around privatization. I expect that he may have some difficulty, as well, with a discussion in and around deregulation, another term that's been tossed around by this minister and by this government. I haven't heard anything here today that gives me any sense of assurance that this minister has a handle on this ministry, specifically…. The Chair: Member, could I just caution you here.

This is committee stage of the bill. We're to deal with

section 2 of Bill 10. This is not second reading debate. Rather, there should be a question in all of this, please. P. Nettleton: Absolutely. You're right. There is a question. There are a number of questions. One of my concerns is we haven't had answers to the questions that have been raised to date in and around the whole question of privatization, regulation and so forth. [1520] I think one of the problems is that we had an En- ergy Policy Task Force report that was kept under wraps for seven months. It was released in January, short on detail. We've had an Accenture deal.

There's been some discussion within the context of Bill 10 here today and in second reading debate on that contract, the Accenture deal, worked out in secrecy. Now we have Bill 10 before us, which doesn't go into the kind of detail that we need in order to understand what B.C. Hydro will look like as three components. I called in second reading debate for dialogue and consultation with respect to the whole question of B.C. Hydro and its future.

Again, I think the minister has talked about privatization, and I would like the minis- ter to provide this House, to provide consumers that depend on this minister and look to B.C. Hydro, with a definition of privatization. Can the minister provide us with a simple definition that people who are listening out there can understand? Define for them, if you will, privatization. Hon. R. Neufeld: The energy policy that we deliv- ered, although this isn't dealing with the energy pol- icy…. I'll try to be as close to the bill as I can. The en- ergy policy that we delivered November 25, 2002, had a

section in it that stated clearly that we would look towards B.C. Hydro being able to outsource support services where costs can be reduced for electricity con- sumers while maintaining quality of services. That's been out there since November 25, 2002. What Bill 10 does, again through the Chair, is actu- ally put it in fairly good writing so that people can un- derstand the difference between support services and what does not constitute support services. I suggest the member read it. P.

Nettleton: I guess I'll reluctantly accept that, in fact, either the minister is unable to answer that ques- tion — a pretty basic or pretty fundamental question — or he's unwilling. In either case, it's totally unaccept- able that he cannot define privatization. There have been people who have suggested to me that the minister is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I stood up for him. "The way he's carved up B.C. Hydro…." I've said: "Absolutely, this guy is sharp." The Chair: M e m b e r , I f i n d t h a t s o r t o f c o m m e n t inappropriate for this House. It's entirely unparliamen- tary. P.

Nettleton: That's fine. I withdraw. The Chair: I would ask for an apology, please. P. Nettleton: I withdraw. I do have a question, though, for the minister. Why Accenture? Why is the minister, why is the government, turning to Accenture for a contract?

5070 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 Hon. R. Neufeld: This bill actually is not…. We're not discussing the Accenture deal. In fact, probably fairly soon you will be able to see the Accenture deal in its entirety, and you can make your own decision. This bill deals with what is defined as support services, what are core services to B.C. Hydro, and the ability for B.C. Hydro to outsource. J. MacPhail: Sorry. We're not talking about the Ac- centure deal? Is the minister suggesting that there's some reason for this legislation other than the Accen- ture deal? Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member knows full well that this bill is to allow those kinds of agreements to take place in an open and transparent way. That's what the bill's about. J. MacPhail: Well, so far the only kind of situation w e h a v e b e f o r e u s i s t h e A c c e n t u r e d e a l . I t h i n k i t ' s absolutely appropriate that this Legislature discuss the Accenture deal because after the government rams this legislation through with its majority, no one will be able to examine the Accenture deal — no one. Let me put that to the minister: will the B.C.

Utili- ties Commission be able to examine the Accenture deal in any way after this legislation is passed? [1525] Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, that question has been asked many times. If you go down to subsection (12), I'll read it into the record: "Nothing in subsection (11) (

e) precludes the commission from considering the costs incurred, or to be incurred, in relation to an agreement designated under subsection (9) when establishing the revenue requirements and setting the rates of the authority." J. MacPhail: I've been in the House discussing this matter from the time we started discussing this bill, and I've never asked that question. So I'm not sure. Was it his own caucus that was grilling him on that point? Maybe it was, but guess what. There are several members of the Legislature that aren't privy to the pri- vate meetings of the Liberal caucus.

The public isn't privy to the private meetings of the Liberal caucus. Maybe the minister answered the questions to — I don't know — the member from Chilliwack, but he hasn't answered them in the House. His answer that he just gave doesn't deal with the question. The

section the minister just quoted said that the Utilities Commission will be able to take into ac- count the costs incurred by the Accenture deal, not whether those costs are legitimate or not. That's what the

section does. Is there any way the inputs of the Ac- centure deal can be considered by the B.C. Utilities Commission? Hon. R. Neufeld: The member's wrong, actually. The B.C. Utilities Commission will review all costs when B.C. Hydro makes its rate application this No- vember. Let me see. B.C. Hydro has not had to appear before the B.C. Utilities Commission, I think, for about ten years. A previous government decided that B.C. Hy- dro shouldn't have to do that. They will now appear before the B.C. Utilities Commission to justify why they think they need any kind of a rate increase. In that process the B.C.

Utilities Commission will be able to review all costs. If they think the costs are too high, if they think any costs that the utility has incurred are out of line with other utilities that are too high, they can tell B.C. Hydro they refuse to accept those and put them in the rate base. B.C. Hydro will have to go away and figure out how they can do the job a little bit better. The B.C. Utilities Commission will have that authority to review all those costs when B.C. Hydro goes forward this fall. J. MacPhail: That's great news, actually. That's ab- solutely wonderful news.

I'm just going to reiterate what the minister has just committed to. The Accenture deal, in its entirety, will go before the B.C. Utilities Commission. The Accenture deal will be able to be examined point by point by the B.C. Utilities Commis- sion. All of the factors of the Accenture deal will be examined to determine whether the costs of the Accen- ture deal are legitimate costs when determining rate increases. Am I correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, selective hearing. That's not exactly what I said, so I'll say it again. When B.C. Hydro appears before the B.C.

Utilities Commission for a rate hearing this fall, as they are going to make appli- cation to, the B.C. Utilities Commission will review all of B.C. Hydro's costs — whether it's with Accenture or with others — because for ten years the B.C. Utilities Commission has not had an opportunity to review those costs. [1530] For the first time in a decade, actual experts within the B.C. Utilities Commission will review all the costs associated with B.C. Hydro as they review their rate requirement or the rate increase that they're requesting. Through that, I assume — and I believe it will happen — all costs that B.C.

Hydro have will be reviewed. The costs with Accenture will be reviewed by B.C. Hydro to make sure that they are fair, equal and that they actu- ally provide the services to B.C. Hydro that they're destined to do. J. MacPhail: One more question in this area be- cause, clearly, the minister — as I repeated exactly what he said — backed off. He backed off completely. The minister is relying on the Hydro Power and Au- thority Act with its new subsection (12) of

section 12, which allows the costs of the Accenture deal to be con- sidered. But (11)(

e) says that the authority — meaning the Utilities Commission — is not required to obtain any approval, authorization, permit or order under the Utili- ties Commission Act in connection with the agreement, and that's the agreement we're talking about. T h e n i t g o e s o n t o s a y u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 2 ) t h a t nothing in that

section that I just read "precludes the

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5071 commission from considering the costs incurred, or to be incurred, in relation to an agreement desig- nated…when establishing the revenue requirements and setting the rates of the authority." The great unwashed public and people like my col- league and I thought that meant that the agreement was shrouded in secrecy. The details of the agreement with Accenture couldn't be considered in terms of its inputs, but the overall cost of that agreement has to be taken into account when rates are established.

In other words, the public doesn't get any chance to discuss the way the Accenture deal came about, but the overall cost can be added to hydro rates. But the minister says: "I think I'm wrong on that." The minister is now saying…. Let me try it a different way, then. Is the minister saying that the Accenture deal will be examined in detail by the Utilities Commission and that if the costs are inappropriate for justifying a hydro rate increase, the B.C. Utilities Commission has a right to authorize that? Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said earlier, as B.C. Hydro goes before the B.C.

Utilities Commission with their rate request…. J. MacPhail: It's a straightforward question — yes or no? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, it is, and I'm going to give you a straightforward answer — again. They will have to provide to the B.C. Utilities Commission all the costs that go with providing the electricity that they do to their customers domestically in British Columbia. The commission will review all those costs, regardless of where those costs are. It could be for some company that provides transformers or power poles or anything. The B.C. Utilities Commis- sion — that's their oversight.

That's something the last administration forgot about when they removed B.C. Hydro from under the Utilities Commission auspices. Only if the B.C. Utilities Commission decides that those costs are fair and are fair to be passed on, can they be passed on. In fact, the B.C. Utilities Commission can say no to some of those costs if they, in their wisdom, feel that they are not warranted. [1535] P. Nettleton: I remain unconvinced, but in any case, I think the minister will live to eat those words another day. But, yeah — informative. I believe B.C.

Hydro itself called the Accenture deal the biggest deal of its kind in B.C.'s history, as I recall. In light of this and Bill 10, which we're examining here today, and the fact that outsourcing functions are re- moved from public scrutiny, as I believe is the case, would the government — as has been suggested by a political columnist — commit to a review of this deal by the auditor general? Hon. R. Neufeld: I think I've explained quite a few times in the House now what the bill does — what it allows and what it doesn't allow. We should move on and start talking about the rest of this good bill. B.

Penner: I'd also like to take

part in this debate. I have a couple of questions for the minister. The minis- ter and other members of this House will know that I hav e a g r e at i nt e re s t i n B . C . H y d ro , an d hav e h ad f o r many years, and have frequently spoken on the issue of B.C. Hydro not only in caucus but here in the Legis- lature ever since I first became an MLA. I do have a number of questions, though, for the minister. Has B.C. Hydro or the B.C. government pre- viously done business with Accenture or its predeces- sor?

If so, can the minister give us some details about that and under which administration that work may have taken place? Hon. R. Neufeld: Thank you very much for that question. The member for Chilliwack-Kent has actually been very active in anything that relates to B.C. Hydro. He's been very active in independent power producers across the province of British Columbia, and in my ministry I respect his input and his knowledge on those items. Yes, Accenture is not a stranger to B.C. Hydro. For the decade of the nineties there was approximately, I would say, $50 million spent by B.C. Hydro on Accen- ture. B.

Penner: It's fair to say, then, that that money — $50 million — from B.C. Hydro was spent during the previous NDP administration. Is that correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. B. Penner: I've noticed the minister's comments over the last day, where he said that if the government were to break its promise not to protect in public own- ership the core assets of B.C. Hydro — including the dams, transmission and distribution — he would have to reconsider his position in government. I certainly salute that because, to me, our campaign commitment around B.C. Hydro is very important.

Just as important to me was a commitment I made locally during my election campaign that we'd also improve B.C. Hydro so that we could make sure that B.C. residents contin- ued to receive enough electricity — in other words, that we maintained adequate supplies. I have become concerned in the past that the last government did not invest in any significant new gen- eration in British Columbia. In fact, the only power plant of significance built under the NDP was in Paki- stan at a cost of about $10 million to British Columbi- ans — hardly helping our system reliability.

I am aware that we have to make changes, and I support…. Interjections. The Chair: I want to remind all members that we should restrict our questions and our comments to this bill, please — to committee stage.

5072 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 Member, would you proceed, and I hope there's a question in this. B. Penner: Given that we need to make changes in B.C. Hydro, I wonder if we can make sure that we pro- tect our interests and, if certain changes don't work out, that we can correct any problems that might arise. What I'm getting at here is that I've heard critics or opponents of the proposed partnership with Accenture state that if the benefits to B.C. Hydro do not accrue — if the project or the partnership doesn't turn out the way it is intended — there is no way for B.C.

Hydro to get out of the partnership agreement and there is no way to correct the problem. In part, I'm told this is be- cause of various trade agreements. I wonder if the min- ister can tell me if he or his staff have looked at this issue and whether there is any protection for British Columbians, if the partnership doesn't work out as planned for B.C. Hydro to get out of the arrangement. [1540] Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. People from my ministry have been involved. B.C. Hydro folks, obviously, have been involved. The deputy minister responsible for energy development has been involved.

Other account- ing agencies and legal firms have been involved to make sure that the shareholder is kept whole and that there are all the normal things that would be in a con- tract of this kind — meaning benchmarks and per- formance targets. Actually, if they don't perform, there are penalties. All of those kinds of things, I can assure the member, have been reviewed consistently and will be in the contract. P. Nettleton: I had asked the question: why Accen- ture? It wasn't intended to be a rhetorical question, but I do have some thoughts with respect to Accenture and why Accenture.

It may in fact be, at least partially, because it's lo- cated in Bermuda, outside the scope of court judg- ments. It's been reported as having numerous cost o v e rru ns i n d i f f e re nt s t at e s and s o o n. N o w, wi t h B i l l 10, it's being put outside of government oversight. That may explain why the government is doing business with Accenture. I'm concerned, as others are, about what safeguards will be in place for British Columbi- ans. Where will there be some accountability with re- spect to the operation and administration of this Accenture corporation? One other question.

I'd like to take a final run at this, if I may, with respect to the whole question of privatization. The minister had indicated very publicly in the press — unless, in fact, he's taken the position t hat he d i d n't s ay t hi s … . A s I u nd e rs t and i t , he 's s ai d he will resign if the government privatizes B.C. Hydro. J. MacPhail: That's what he said. P. Nettleton: That's what he said. J. MacPhail: No qualification. P. Nettleton: I'm just wondering…. The Chair: Member, would you kindly be seated for a second.

This line of questioning that's being pur- sued about the minister's responsibility for his com- ments — I'd like to know how that relates to this bill and to committee stage, please. You asked a question initially. I would assume that you want that answered. P. Nettleton: My question is privatization, which I think is fundamental to a discussion of Bill 10 — in particular, this section. Again to the minister: what is it that will cause him to resign that he says is not in the plan for B.C. Hydro? Hon. R.

Neufeld: The comment I made was that I would not be here if we did not live up to our com- mitment in the New Era document, which each and every member who belongs to the B.C. Liberal caucus made. That was to protect the core assets of B.C. Hy- dro, that being the dams, transmission and distribution — the core assets. That was the commitment I made. That was the commitment the Premier took forward to the people in the province of British Columbia during the election. That's the commitment we've lived with. That's the commitment written in the energy policy that was released November 25.

It's very clearly laid out in the New Era document. B. Kerr: I'm concerned about the governance here. Will this agreement be signed with Accenture, or will it be signed with a British Columbia company, operating under the laws of British Columbia, that may be owned by Accenture? Hon. R. Neufeld: The contract between B.C. Hydro and Accenture will be signed with the British Colum- bia company with a head office in Vancouver, B.C. It will look toward growing that business well into the future and has access to over $50 billion worth of ser- vices North America–wide.

It can only mean good things and lots of good jobs for the province. Further to that, this company will pay taxes in Brit- ish Columbia: corporate taxes, personal income taxes, all those taxes — and obviously, if they're in the city of Vancouver, Vancouver taxes. Just to clarify that. [1545] J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I appreciate you keeping us on track. That's very important.

The reason why the issue is important — about privatization and the commitment that the Liberal gov- ernment made — is that this minister and his govern- ment are trying to separate generation, distribution and transmission functions from support services. Some- how, even though the minister has danced around it and spent a half-hour not saying that what they're cur- rently doing with the Accenture deal is privatization, it is privatization. It has occurred, I think, to several people — if not hundreds of thousands of British Columbians — that

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5073 the separation of support services from the generation, distribution and transmission functions is an artificial separation. I could be wrong, so let me ask the minister this: are any of the employees that are to be transferred to Accenture currently working in generation stations? Hon. R. Neufeld: First, they're not being trans- ferred. They have had a vote, and they have elected to move over to Accenture Business Services. I can get some further information for the member on that ques- tion.

I'm not sure whether I can say yes or no to that question right now, because there may be some places around the province where some of those people may be working, and I'm not sure about that. If the member will give me time — in fact, the gentleman that's with me from B.C. Hydro is not sure either — we'll get that response for the member. J. MacPhail: They're not sure? How is it that I know there are employees in generation stations being trans- ferred, and the minister and his staff don't know that? Frankly, I am completely taken aback.

Are there employees in the distribution facilities who are being transferred? You're just lying. Point of Order Hon. R. Neufeld: On a point of order. I just heard the Leader of the Opposition say I'm lying. I have tried to answer the questions as carefully and honestly as I can. That member knows that I don't lie in this House. I was quick to withdraw my remark the other day. I don't think we need that kind of behaviour in the House. I don't need her calling me a liar or anyone else calling me a liar. I would ask that she stand and with- draw that statement right now.

The Chair: Member, I clearly heard you say the word. I would ask you to stand and withdraw that, please. J. MacPhail: I withdraw. I'd be happy for them to answer my questions. The most senior people are here. Just answer the questions. Debate Continued Hon. R. Neufeld: There are about 1,600 people that have elected to move to this new business called Ac- centure Business Services. I can't tell you in this House exactly where each one of those comes from. There could be some from generation; there could be some from distribution, depending on the kind of work they're doing. J.

MacPhail: Maybe the Chair could introduce the staff who are with him, please. Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, I am remiss in that. I appre- ciate the member reminding me. I have with me Gary Sherlock, the director of finance at B.C. Hydro; and Chris Trumpy, the special adviser to the minister — to me — behind me; and also Les MacLaren, chief execu- tive officer, Crown agencies secretariat, on my right. [1550] J. MacPhail: H o w i s i t t hat B . C . H y d ro c an no t an- swer these questions in this House? How is it that B.C. Hydro does not have this information? Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, I will offer to provide that to the member at a later date. As we speak, there will be people watching, and someone will get that infor- mation to us. J. MacPhail: Well, you know, there are only three of us in this Legislature who are holding this govern- m e n t t o a c c o u n t o n t h i s p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n . I t i s o u r only opportunity to discuss this legislation. We are talking about the heart of the legislation right now. The minister is surrounded by and perhaps has expertise himself, and he can't answer these basic questions.

Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians be- lieve the minister when he says that they're not privatiz- ing the core assets of B.C. Hydro, and there are hun- dreds of thousands of others who question the minister on that. So there would be hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who would think that the generation stations operate all on their own and that because the government says it's not privatizing the generation sta- tions, even if they remove all the employees to Accen- ture, the generation stations would operate on their own.

I'm just trying to find out from the minister exactly what this support service is. He couldn't answer what "from time to time" means, what a support service from time to time is. He can't answer the question now about whether the employees of the generation station are being privatized. The reason why he doesn't want to answer those questions is because people would have to come to the conclusion that the delineation of sup- port services as distinct from the core assets is artificial and means nothing to the reality of delivery of hydro to British Columbians.

The employees who work in those generation sta- tions are being privatized, are being moved to Accen- ture. The employees of the distribution systems are being privatized, moved to Accenture. The employees of the transmission lines are being privatized and moved to Accenture. This minister has to come to the conclusion that the support services he is privatizing are key to the operation of the core assets which he claims are not being privatized. Just because the minis- ter stands up every day and says core assets are not being privatized, every British Columbian is supposed to believe him, when it is not so.

Let me ask this question. The people who adminis- ter the systems for distribution, transmission and gen- eration — are they being moved to Accenture? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I offered that I would get the number of people that may be providing some of

5074 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 the ancillary services and that may be working in a generation station, but people that work in generation, distribution or transmission directly are not being transferred. But I will get the number for you so that you can understand what services they're providing and why they would be moving. The member tried to state that we were privatizing generation, transmission and distribution. That is in- correct. We committed to not doing that, and we are not doing that. [1555] J.

MacPhail: The minister knows who isn't being transferred, but he doesn't know who is being trans- ferred. Hmm. Isn't that suspicious? Do any of the em- ployees who administer the systems for distribution, transmission and generation…? Are any of those em- ployees being transferred — those who administer the systems that run transmission, generation and distribu- tion? Hon. R. Neufeld: The operation groups in genera- tion, distribution and transmission stay with B.C. Hydro. J. MacPhail: The operations group? Is that what I just heard? I'm sorry. And could he define what the operations group is?

Clearly, the government now, with the staff, knows who's not being transferred. Funny how it is that they don't know who is being transferred. Strange. Perhaps the minister could define what an operations group is. Hon. R. Neufeld: The operation groups, which I said are the operating groups that work in generation, distribution and transmission, are not being trans- ferred.

What I said to the member earlier — and she doesn't want to listen — i s t h at i n s o m e o f t ho s e g e n- eration facilities or maybe in distribution or transmis- sion, there could be some people that work now on other projects but happen to work there. The core peo- ple that work on those core services are not being transferred, but there could be some out of those opera- tions that provide IT services or something like that. I will get that information for the member. J. MacPhail: I'm listening to every single word the minister says — every single word.

In what way will the employees that are being transferred from genera- tion, distribution and transmission interact with the operating group that's staying behind? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, as I said, there are people that are watching — people that work in the generation line of business, the distribution line of business, the transmission line of business — who stay with those groups. I called those operating groups. There may be individuals that perform other services, who may be working in those facilities but are not directly involved with those lines of business, that may actually have elected to move. J.

MacPhail: Let me paint this scenario. The em- ployees that are moving from generation, transmis- sion…. Well, let me do it individually — the employees that are moving from the generation facilities. Can the generation facilities operate on their own without those employees? Does the core asset…? Does the generation keep going without those services that are moving to Accenture? Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: Someone said it is simple, and it is simple, so I'll try it again. Under

section 10 it says: "…does not include the production, generation, storage, transmission, sale, delivery or provision of electricity." Again, I will say no one that is in direct responsibility with generation, dis- tribution or transmission will have actually elected to move to Accenture Business Services. J. MacPhail: I'll repeat my question. The people that are being transferred, unless the minister wants to lump all together…. That's fine — generation, trans- mission and distribution. If those people go, what hap- pens? Does generation just carry on? Does transmission just carry on?

Does distribution just carry on? In other words, does the transfer of those employees have no effect at all on generation, transmission and distribu- tion? Is that what the minister is saying? Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the mem- ber: I wasn't listening to her, and I'm wondering if she'd ask that question again, please. [1600] J. MacPhail: It's the same question I asked before. Let me just assert this because we know it to be true. There are employees that are being transferred from the generation, transmission and distribution stations of B.C. Hydro. They're being transferred to Accenture.

They're being privatized. When those employees have gone over to Accenture and if their work was not being done, does the generation, transmission and distribu- tion of hydro carry on in its entirety? Hon. R. Neufeld: The people that operate the gen- eration, the people that operate the distribution and the people that operate transmission are not going any- where. They will stay in B.C. Hydro operating those facilities. There may be some people who work in those facilities that are doing other kinds of things, but the people who actually operate the generation, transmis- sion and distribution are not moving. J.

MacPhail: Let me see how I can do this so the minister will actually answer the question. The em- ployees that are going to Accenture, who work for gen- eration, transmission and distribution, are what the minister calls support services. Therefore, he's saying they're not core assets. Is that correct?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5075 Hon. R. Neufeld: There could be people that work in those lines of business who are not core to those lines of business, who have had the opportunity to move to Accenture Business Services. J. MacPhail: I think the minister is saying that the people who are being privatized and working in those three areas are not core. Is that what the minister's say- ing? The ones being transferred are not part of the core assets. Is that right? Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, what I've said…. J. MacPhail: Yes, I know. Hon. R.

Neufeld: The people that work in genera- tion, distribution and transmission who are core to those services — that's core services within B.C. Hydro — are not going anywhere. They're going to continue to run the generation system. They're going to continue to operate the transmission system. They're going to continue to operate the distribution system. But if there are people that work in any one of these services that I listed earlier — customer services, Westech, network computing services, financial ser- vices, human resources, so on and so forth….

If they have a job where they're doing some of those services in a number of different places across the province, they may have elected to move to Accenture Business Services. As I understand, over 90 percent of them elected to do that. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure why the minister keeps saying that 90 percent elected…. No one's challenging that at all. We're challenging the government on privat- izing B.C. Hydro. I have an image. Maybe the minister can tell me I'm wrong. I have an image that all of the people who now work in generation, transmission and distribution — the support services — are being privatized.

They're moving over to Accenture, or Accenture will be their employer, because they're support services. I assume then, because this government has made a commitment not to privatize those core assets, that those core assets will run the same as they always have without the ser- vices of those employees. Is that right? [1605] Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the people that operate those services within B.C. Hydro, those core services, stay operating those services. They will continue to operate those services under B.C. Hydro.

If there is someone that provides an ancillary service who works in that generating station, they may have elected to transfer to Accenture Business Services, but the core assets of B.C. Hydro remain core assets of B.C. Hydro. J. MacPhail: W e h a v e c o r e s w i t h i n c o r e s w i t h i n cores now. Ooh, that's getting to be a pretty small area that we're protecting from privatization. Let me ask this about those employees of genera- tion, transmission and distribution that are ancillary according to the minister's definition. Will they interact with the employees that are left behind? If so, how?

And I want details, please, Mr. Chair — through you to the minister. I want specific examples of how those people will interact with those that are part of the core of the core of the core that aren't being privatized. Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to relay to the member once again that the core services of B.C. Hydro are not sold. The core services — those being generation, dis- tribution and transmission — still remain as core ser- vices within the company called B.C. Hydro. Those people that run and operate and work and deliver those services as they relate to those three entities re- m a i n w i t h B . C .

H y d r o . T h e r e c o u l d b e s o m e s e r v i c e s that are provided to generation, distribution or trans- mission by some of the people that have moved to Ac- centure Business Services. Mr. Chair, I think we should actually get back to the bill. I would rather debate the legislation that we have in front of us than a deal that is outside of this. J. MacPhail: We're actually trying to define support services, Mr. Chair. I know that these questions make the minister uncomfortable, but we're debating what support services are. The minister has said he's privat- izing — or outsourcing — support services.

Yet it turns out that some of those support services or ancillary services, which is exactly what we're debating in the legislation…. I'm not sure why the minister is uncomfortable about this. We're trying to find out exactly where those support services are. What we've heard is — I can al- most say it from heart — that some of them work at the generation stations. Some of them work in the trans- mission, and some of them work at the distribution facilities, but they're apparently a little core within a core within a core. Oh no, no, I'm sorry; those are the ones that aren't being privatized.

They're being privat- ized or outsourced. [1610] I'll sit down, and I won't ask another question if the minister could just give me a yes or no to this question. When those Accenture-ized support services are re- moved from the chain of command inside Hydro, can the core assets, as the minister defines them, of genera- tion operate? Can transmission operate, and can distri- bution operate without those services provided by the people inside those operations who are being moved to Accenture? Yes or no? Hon. R.

Neufeld: Again, as I mentioned, some of the people that will move to Accenture Business Ser- vices provide services to those different generation, distribution and transmission entities. I use an example of computers — computerization. Someone who fixes computers at a generation station may be there doing that kind of work, but that's not absolutely core to that business. The operation of the business — generation,

5076 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 transmission and distribution…. The core people that operate those lines of business will stay there. J. MacPhail: God, I feel badly for the minister hav- ing to fall into these traps. I'm wondering whether the minister has actually seen any of these systems. Let's just talk about the core assets of the system. The core assets of the system deliver power, so when power stops, that's a real problem. It's a huge problem. It means the core assets aren't working. In hydro that's called a power outage. One of the systems that's being privatized….

Interjections. J. MacPhail: Well, it's true. I know. Some of the backbenchers are surprised at the technical level of this discussion. I can well understand it, because the minis- ter himself doesn't get the technical nature of B.C. Hy- dro. I fully understand the backbenchers being com- pletely underwhelmed by the minister's answers. The minister says: "Yeah, a computer system is…. Those who operate computer systems are going over to Accenture, but that's got nothing to do with the core assets." Well, the core assets are to deliver power. When there's a power outage….

Maybe the minister can tell me what happens when there's a power outage. Hon. R. Neufeld: I think this is getting a little ri- diculous. I think the member knows what happens when the power goes out, because her administration was in the dark for ten years from 1991 to 2001. It's just unbelievable, the kind of questioning that's coming from the member. A power outage is a power outage. J. MacPhail: I don't know why the minister thinks these questions are ridiculous. It's probably because he's made a commitment to resign if core assets are privatized.

We're just trying to figure out what part of the core assets are being privatized. In fact, the core assets deliver power. When there's a power outage, the employees at Westech go in and fix it. That's exactly what happens. They keep the power going. It's a computer system that regulates this. [1615] Now, the minister says: "It's people operating com- puters." They use computers to operate the core sys- tem. How else does it happen? Part of the privatization is these very employees who operate the computer. Does this Liberal government think it's people standing and pushing water over a dam?

Is that how they think the core assets work? Do they think it's little munchkins that climb up transmission lines and push the power along? It's computer operators who deliver the power through computer systems, and these are the very people who are being privatized. When I asked the minister whether the system could operate without these employees who are being privatized, he didn't answer the question. There's a very good reason he didn't answer the question: the system goes down without these employees. That's exactly what happens.

It makes a mockery of this gov- ernment's claim that they're not privatizing core assets. It is absolutely ridiculous. Interjections. J. MacPhail: I can understand the Liberal back bench feeling extremely uncomfortable with these questions, because it should have been them that asked these questions in their secret caucus meetings, and they didn't do it. They didn't do it at all. If they had asked it, they would have had to get the minister to stop making the claim that they're not privatizing core assets. That's exactly what it will be doing. Well, this probably should be easier.

We now know that the core assets cannot operate without the employ- ees who are going to Accenture. We now know that. Let me ask this question: even with those privatized employees keeping the system going, how does B.C. Hydro get the information to actually charge customers for that service? Hon. R. Neufeld: Obviously, the services that will be outsourced from Accenture Business Services will be integral to the operation of B.C. Hydro. The core assets are not changing at all, but B.C. Hydro will re- quire services from those divisions that actually will move to Accenture Business Services.

In response to the last question: by meter. J. MacPhail: How does the business community get the information about what hydro they're using and how much to pay for it? We now know that the actual delivery of power cannot be done without the services that are

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0226pm 16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0226pm 16
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c03421ecc1b61633378ac00d78e58e85e01b7ce4

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