H0512pm 09

H0512pm 09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, May 12, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 15, Number 9 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 Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen 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.................................................................................... ..................................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, Hon. 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....................................................... Hon. 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 Monday, May 12, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6657 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 6657 School Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 50) Hon. C. Clark Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 51) Hon. C. Clark Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52) Hon. S.

Bond Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 54) Hon. C. Hansen Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 49) Hon. S. Santori Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48) Hon. J. van Dongen Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58) Hon. G. Collins Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6659 Mining industry in B.C. B. Bennett Surrey RCMP award recipients commended D. Hayer Financial services industry in B.C.

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

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

Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 6687 Ministry of Health Services, service plan, 2003-04 to 2005-06 Ministry of Health Planning, service plan, 2003-04 to 2005-06 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 6687 Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39) Hon. R. Neufeld P. Nettleton B. Penner J. MacPhail R. Hawes Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) Hon. R. Neufeld J. MacPhail

6657 MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I'm pleased today to introduce a longtime friend. In fact, we've known each other since we were about "that high," and there are not many people who can make this claim. Both he and I were born in the town of Blue River. Now, not many people can say that; not many people really want to say that. We had a great time up there as little kids. He now lives in the constituency of Kamloops–North Thompson. He's a constituent there.

He's here representing the forest industry to meet with the government caucus today. Would you please wel- come Carman Smith. [1405] Hon. G. Plant: A few weeks ago I had the honour to meet with a group of grades 5 and 6 students at Tomekichi Homma Elementary School in beautiful Richmond-Steveston. Thanks to the careful preparation of their teacher, Jacquelyn Johnston, I was asked a se- ries of much more difficult questions than I have ever been asked on the floor of this Legislature. They have actually come to visit us all here today. They're sitting in the gallery about to watch democracy unfold.

I hope the members of the House will all make them very, very welcome. V. Anderson: I would like the House to join me in welcoming four visitors from the Working Group on Poverty who are here today to meet with the Minister of Labour: John Argue, Afsaneh Dashtlalli, Christina Davidson and Gurtej Gill. Please make them welcome. L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to introduce my con- stituency assistant, Mr. Ashley Haslett, who has joined us here today in the gallery.

Ashley had a stint in the Manitoba government as the executive assistant to the Minister of Health and a little bit of time down in the government of New South Wales as a minister's assis- tant there. Would the House please make him welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. C. Clark presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled School Amend- ment Act, 2003. Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 50 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 50.

This act makes a number of changes to the School Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Education. The School Amendment Act, 2003, is about giving stu- dents a voice on school planning councils, providing more choice for students and their parents and provid- ing all principals with the ability to accrue seniority. It's also about further eliminating red tape for school dis- tricts. The bill will ensure that students have real mean- ingful input into school planning which will, in turn, improve student achievement.

It will give boards the ability to permit students to continue to attend schools outside their enrolment boundary or catchment area, and it will give boards the flexibility to maximize re- cruitment efforts as more principals reach retirement age. It will also allow boards to spend short-term lease revenue where it will benefit students most, and that is in the classroom. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 50 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. TEACHING PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. C. Clark presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Teaching Profes- sion Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 51 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 51. This act makes a number of changes to the Teaching Profes- sion Act, which is also administered by the Ministry of Education.

The Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2003, is about increasing public accountability, clarify- ing the role of the College of Teachers and enhancing its efficiency. [1410] The bill will ensure that parents have the right to register complaints about teacher conduct and help increase public confidence in the teaching profession. It will change representation on the College of Teachers governing council to encourage the participation of parents and other educational partners and the public.

It will require college members to report professional misconduct of another member to promote profession- alism within the teaching profession. It will require the College of Teachers to prepare an annual report to in- crease financial accountability and to include a report on teacher competence. It will give the college the au- thority to set standards for teacher certification but not approve how teacher education programs are taught or administered. This bill will permit the college to dele-

6658 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 gate the power of decision-making to a discipline committee to ensure procedural fairness for all parties. I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PRIVATE CAREER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS ACT Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Private Career Training Institutions Act. Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 52 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Bond: This bill will repeal and replace the Private Post-Secondary Education Act in order to im- plement the core services review recommendations concerning the current private training policy and leg- islative model. The bill will establish a new legislative framework for private training in the province.

It will replace the Private Post Secondary Education Commission with a self-regulating board composed of industry representa- tives and will minimize the regulatory burden on the private training sector by narrowing the scope of regis- tration to include only those private training institu- tions providing career-related training programs be- yond a specified time and cost threshold. In addition, this bill will establish a student training completion fund to provide consumer protection for the tuition fees of students attending registered institu- tions.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amend- ment Act, 2003. Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 54 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Schedul- ing Amendment Act, 2003, which will transfer the re- sponsibility for dealing with requests to access Phar- maNet from the College of Pharmacists to a new PharmaNet stewardship committee within the Ministry of Health Services. We are making this change to respond to a request from the College of Pharmacists that it be allowed to dis- continue its responsibility for dealing with access re- quests to PharmaNet.

Quite simply, the college has con- cerns over the workload associated with managing these requests, and they also feel many of the requests they receive are outside their day-to-day work and scope of interest, as requests are typically for research purposes. The database that we know as PharmaNet contains medical histories including allergies, adverse reactions and patients' medical conditions. PharmaNet is invalu- able in preventing harmful drug interactions and aller- gic reactions.

The network also contains invaluable data on drug use patterns and trends that can signifi- cantly benefit health care planning, research and pro- gram evaluation in this province. In order to protect patient confidentiality, access to this information is severely restricted. [1415] Our amendments will transfer the responsibility from the College of Pharmacists to the PharmaNet stewardship committee within my ministry. In order to protect patient confidentiality, this committee will be independent and will include representatives from the College of Pharmacists as well as the College of Physi- cians and Surgeons.

These amendments will allow access to this data- base for the purpose of health policy research and monitoring and evaluation of Pharmacare. In response t o s o m e v e r y u s e f u l a d v i c e f r o m t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d privacy commissioner, amendments to this bill will be introduced to clarify our intent in that regard. Patient confidentiality will continue to be protected. Measures currently in place under the Freedom of In- formation and Protection of Privacy Act and the by- laws of the College of Pharmacists ensure that privacy of patients is protected and will remain in place.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. S. Santori presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 49 be read a first time now.

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6659 Motion approved. Hon. S. Santori: Bill 49 provides the statutory framework for the four public sector pension plans. The amendments in Bill 49 will remove or replace ob- solete terminology in this act and simplify the ap- pointment process for the B.C. Pension Corporation management board. It will provide the College Pension board of trustees with the authority to make retroactive regulations. It will remove obsolete and inconsistent provisions in various other statutes regarding pension contribution for statutory officers.

It will legislatively transfer responsibility for the negotiation and administration of group health benefits for retired plan members from government to the pen- sion board of trustees. It will clarify that post- retirement group benefits are not subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, and it will provide authority for the partners to the college pension plan to enter into non-statutory joint management agreements. I move that Bill 49 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. J. Van Dongen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that Bill 48 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J. Van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 48.

This legislation amends the Farm Practices Protec- tion Act and the right-to-farm provisions of the Local Government Act. Together those statutes provide the legislative framework for the right-to-farm system. The right-to-farm system enables the province to ensure that there is a proper balance between provin- cial objectives for agriculture and aquaculture and the farming industry standards of practice and local gov- ernment regulatory authority over these activities.

The system requires local governments to which the system has been applied to get the approval of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for zoning and farm bylaws. The system was established in 1995 and has operated with a high degree of success. [1420] Through operational experience we have learned, however, that local governments have on occasion avoided or sought ways to circumvent the intent of the legislation. Also, the current wording of the act does not cover aquaculture as effectively as was originally intended.

The amendments I'm introducing today ad- dress both of these matters and ensure that the legisla- tion provides the legal support needed to achieve the province's policy goals for the right-to-farm system for agriculture and aquaculture. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the In- surance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003. This bill amends the Insurance Corporation Act to provide the B.C. Utilities Commission with responsibility and au- thority to independently regulate the Insurance Corpo- ration of British Columbia.

The legislation will ensure that basic mandatory automobile insurance provided by the Insurance Cor- poration of British Columbia will continue to be pro- vided on a financially sound, efficient and fair basis to all drivers and vehicles in British Columbia. In addi- tion, the bill will encourage and enhance competition for those automobile insurance products that are not mandatory, such as collision and comprehensive insur- ance coverage. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 58 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C. B. Bennett: This is Mining Week in B.C. Miners, whether they wear a plaid shirt and boots or a pin- striped suit, are some of the most independent and entrepreneurial people in our society. When you think about what it takes to make a mine from a chunk of rock in the mountains to the point, ten years later, when the first product is sold, you can un- derstand how this amazingly resilient, can-do mining

6660 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 culture has developed over the past 150 years in B.C. However, some people in today's B.C. believe the whole concept of mining is anachronistic. The new, high-tech BlackBerry generation has evolved beyond that primitive activity of digging stuff out of the ground, despite the fact that our televisions contain 35 different minerals and our computers almost as many. I n m y r i d i n g o f E a s t K o o t e n a y t h e f i v e c o a l m i n e s employ about 2,500 workers. They each make $82,000 a year on average, including benefits.

What other indus- try pays like that? Mining has gotten a bad rap. Mines make only a tiny footprint on our land base. Mining is an industry that has embraced high-tech more than most indus- tries. Mining is the safest heavy industry in Canada. Mining today has a highly respectable environmental record. For B.C. to try to build back prosperity without utilizing our mining wealth is like volunteering to run a race on one leg. This government has done a lot to get the mining industry going again in B.C., like the elimination of sales tax on mining machinery and equipment.

We have the best flow-through share benefits in Canada, the two-zone land use designation and a simplified permitting and regulatory process. But we have much further to go. After the decade of anti-mining policies from our predecessors and the loss of half of our mining industry, we must show the international investment community that we are seri- ous about mining in B.C. We must protect mineral-rich lands for potential discovery and not lock them out of reach of our children and grandchildren.

We must en- courage people to go out and search the land base for minerals, we must encourage mine construction, and we must ensure that B.C. becomes competitive once again with the other mining jurisdictions in the world. SURREY RCMP AWARD RECIPIENTS COMMENDED D. Hayer: I rise today to honour those who protect us, those who make our lives safe.

On Thursday the Surrey community honoured the Royal Canadian Mounted Police men and women — honours that be- gan seven years ago when I and a team of volunteers worked very hard to develop the awards program dur- ing my term as the president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce in 1996-97. We established the Police Officer of the Year Awards in Surrey. Last Thursday the Solici- tor General was in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to honour those who have served above and beyond the call of duty. The Surrey RCMP detachment is the larg- est in Canada and is also the best in the nation.

I hope they will remain our police force in Surrey for many, many more years to come. [1425] The officers whose names I want to introduce in this House today have been exemplary in their ser- vices. Sgt. Terry Kopan was chosen police officer of the year by the community for his efforts in crime preven- tion and for assisting in the presentation of our 2010 Olympic bid in Switzerland. Police officer of the year chosen by his peers at the Surrey detachment is Const. Marc Searle, who has contributed hundreds of volun- teer hours to making Surrey a better place to live.

The award for the community policing initiative went to Christine Farrar. Rod Greenwood was named policing volunteer of the year. Corrine Marelli was the police municipal employee of the year for 2003, and the GIS Unit of the Surrey RCMP received the special achieve- ment award. The Central City shopping centre received the police and business partnership award. I would ask that the House join me and my fellow Surrey MLAs in offering congratulations to those ex- emplary members of the Surrey RCMP who worked very hard to make Surrey a safe place to live, work, play and do business in.

FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY IN B.C. R. Sultan: The government has designated 2003 as B.C.'s year of forestry. The government should con- sider designating 2004 as B.C.'s year of financial institu- tions. Three developments are the reason why. First, the B.C. Securities Commission has proposed a B.C. model for securities regulation, replacing our ancient system of prospectus disclosure with a stream- lined public offering process. Public companies would continuously disclose all material information all of the time.

The commission would also eliminate the regis- tration of individuals in the securities business — thou- sands of them — placing onus for responsible conduct on the firm. Second, work is underway to resuscitate interna- tional financial centres in Vancouver. The federal gov- ernment gave Vancouver privileged IFC designation years ago, along with Montreal. Quebeckers with strong provincial backing picked up the ball and ran with it, and we played catch in the backfield in B.C., trying to figure out how the game was played. Today Montreal activity outnumbers Vancouver by at least 10 to 1.

All of that can change with commitment from government and the financial sector. The third leg can be further expansion of our ven- ture capital capacity, particularly in the heartlands. The new VCC act has been well received and is doing its job. However, labour-sponsored funds are still not op- erating in a fully competitive mode. On another gov- ernment's watch they drained $147 million of risk capi- tal from the heartlands and put back only $12 million. They can and should change that. These three developments can be the cornerstones of the year of financial institutions.

There's a lot of em- ployment and prosperity riding on it. Oral Questions IMPACT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY REORGANIZATION J. Kwan: In prepared comments read in this House on March 24 of this year, the Minister of Children and

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6661 Family Development said that there is no evidence to support the claim that vulnerable children are being put at risk as a result of budget cuts and the reorgani- zation of the ministry. While the rules of this House do not permit me to note the presence — or lack thereof — of a member in this House, I wonder if the Deputy Premier can explain why the minister would make this claim when his own officials are saying that is not true. Hon. C. Clark: I would be delighted to take that question on notice on behalf of the minister. J.

MacPhail: We have a crisis on our hands here. The opposition has come into possession of a risk regis- ter.

According to the risk register, there is a high likeli- hood that as a result of budget cuts, none of the ser- vices required to implement his new model will even exist — resulting in mass confusion, loss of confidence and erosion of trust in the child protection system right here. [1430] The Deputy Premier may want to just take this on notice in the absence of effective colleagues at her side, but without the support of the people who prepared this assessment the government can't proceed with the new model, and it's proceeding now. There is no time to take questions on notice.

They're telling the govern- ment it's impossible right here. It's labelled the risk register. It simply won't work. How can the Deputy Premier, on behalf of her col- leagues, take a question on notice when we see that with this plan, children are at risk as we speak? Hon. C. Clark: Despite the rhetoric of the opposi- tion, despite the fact that they like to fearmonger and they like to try and create crisis, the Minister of Chil- dren and Family Development is continuing to work on this plan.

He is very sensitive to the needs and con- cerns of the community out there, and this government — just like when we were in opposition — remains very, very much committed to ensuring the safety of children in our society. Children are the best invest- ment any government can make, and we will continue to make that investment. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: T h e r i s k r e g i s t e r t h a t w e h a v e , i n which the Ministry of Children and Family Develop- ment officials participated, goes directly against what the Deputy Premier just said.

It's a risk register. The minister's plan to cut the child welfare budget by 40 percent on the south Island, while implementing a massive reorganization of child welfare, is failing. It's that simple. Service providers, even ministry officials, can see the writing on the wall: $25 million spent on a reor- ganization that's failed. It's only led to confusion. But most importantly, what this risk register says is that it threatens kids and puts them at risk. Will the Deputy Premier agree to put this whole plan on hold, look at the risk register, show how her government — bottom to top — is putting kids at risk?

Will she then go back to her Premier, to the Minister of Finance, and demand that the funding cut to the Ministry of Children and Family Development be restored? If so, will she do that this afternoon so that the risk register cannot put chil- dren at harm? Hon. C. Clark: The Minister of Children and Fam- ily Development has been working very, very hard on making sure this works. He makes a virtue out of the fact that he listens — not an attribute that is often seen in the Leader of the Opposition. He has gone out, and he has listened, and he has heard. That is why he is looking at the plan.

That is why government is review- ing the plan. That is why we want to make sure we get this right. This isn't just a simple matter of political posturing and using kids as political footballs in the Legislature. T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n o f m a k i n g s u r e t h i s p l a n i s d o n e right. We need to make sure that children, who are the greatest investment any government can make, are protected in British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS MINISTRY RECREATION SITES R. Harris: My question is for the Minister of For- ests.

My riding is home to a number of forestry camp- sites, which prove to be very popular for both constitu- ents and tourists. The decision to comanage some of these sites, however, has raised the concern in my rid- ing and all across the north. While being interviewed on CKPG radio, the Pre- mier said the Ministry of Forests was conducting a re- view of this issue. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what p ro g re s s h as b e e n m ad e o n t hi s i s s u e and whe n the review will be completed? Hon. M. de Jong: As most members of the House know, last year we announced we were looking for partners… Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Forests has the floor. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Forests has the floor.

6662 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 [1435] Hon. M. de Jong: …to comanage the more than 900 rec sites that British Columbians value. Thus far we are in negotiations with groups that will lead to comanagement agreements for well over half and, as a result of a portion of the review that the member referred to, have been in a position now to offer assistance with respect to ensuring there is liability coverage for those partners.

We expect that will further enhance our ability to create those co- management partnerships that will allow us to keep that valuable recreational infrastructure open and available to all British Columbians. PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM S. Brice: My question is to the Minister of Educa- tion. I realize the consultation which the minister en- gaged in, in terms of graduation requirements, came as a result of extensive consultation with parents and stu- dents and educators. The decision was to not include physical education as a requirement. Given the…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Order, hon. member. We'll wait till we have order in the House, please. Then you may continue. S. Brice: Given the very serious situation of child- youth fitness, I was personally disappointed in the decision. However, I was encouraged that there was to be a requirement in the graduation portfolio for dem- onstrated physical activity. I wonder if the minister would elaborate on that and give this House some as- surance that there would be some rigour required in that very important aspect of our children's develop- ment. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

The Minister of Education has the floor. Hon. C. Clark: When we did the public consulta- tion on the discussion about grad requirements — we were out there for about a year and a half talking to people — we talked about a phys ed requirement, mak- ing it mandatory in grades 11 and 12. It was something that I was quite interested in seeing happen, but 90 percent of the people we spoke to and who made sub- missions didn't think it was a good idea. It was a ques- tion of listening to the people and making sure that the grad requirements that we brought in met their expec- tations.

That doesn't mean we don't think that physical ac- tivity and enhancing a level of physical activity is im- portant for kids. We need to make sure that kids have a love of an active lifestyle. We also need to make sure that young people, particularly young women, gradu- ate from high school with a healthy body image and a good approach to eating and to their lifestyle, which will mean a healthy society. Here's what we've done.

We are going to require that every child who graduates demonstrates that they have had at least 80 hours of documented physical ac- tivity in addition to the required mandatory physical education up to grade 10 inclusive. We are going to be looking at the curriculum, and we're going to be work- ing with the Ministry of CAWS to make sure we have healthy kids graduating from our schools. IMPACT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY REORGANIZATION J. Kwan: If the Deputy Premier actually cares about children and their education, maybe she should take a look at the risk assessment here.

According to the risk registry, there is a high likelihood that as a result of budget cuts, none of the services required to imple- ment this new model will even exist, resulting in mass confusion, loss of confidence and an erosion of trust in child protection systems. The Deputy Premier may want to deny there's a problem, but without the support of the people who prepared this assessment, the minister responsible cannot proceed with this new model. They're telling the minister that this is impossible, that it simply won't work.

How can the Deputy Premier continue to say that everything is fine and things are proceeding ac- cordingly? The government needs to step back, put this model on hold…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: The government needs to step back and put this model on hold and ensure that children and youth are protected as this government claims that it's going to be doing. Mr. Speaker: The question has been taken on no- tice. The Minister of Finance. Hon. G. Collins: The risk assessment is done for exactly the reasons…. J. MacPhail: I t d i d n ' t c o m e f r o m y o u r s i d e .

Y o u were forced to participate in it. It's the agencies that deliver the services, not you. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1440] Hon. G. Collins: Without a doubt, I think that there will be, from time to time, disagreements between the agencies that are paid to provide services and the gov- ernment who pays the bills. However, on this very serious matter, the member…. I have not seen the document she has in front of her, although I've seen

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6663 other documents that indicate there are challenges in this ministry in 2004-05 as the changes and the imple- mentation of this plan come into phase. That is why… J. MacPhail: Mental health risks escalate. Sexual exploitation on the increase. Hon. G. Collins: …we are reviewing the plan that the ministry…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. Hon. G. Collins: That is the exact reason why we are reviewing the plan and the service plan of the Min- istry for Children and Family Development.

The goal remains to make sure that children and adults that are vulnerable and that need attention and need care are provided with that. That is the whole goal. The whole review of this ministry's plan is based on the feedback that we've received from people out there around Brit- ish Columbia. Comments…. J. MacPhail: I t d i d n ' t c o m e f r o m y o u . Y o u w e r e forced into this. Hon. G. Collins: That is why we have engaged in the review. It is because…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, we all care about children.

The challenge is to listen to what we hear from people out there — to listen to service providers, families, the aboriginal communities and the profes- sionals in the ministry — a n d m a k e s u r e w e h a v e a plan that will work. That's why we are reviewing the plan. We're reviewing it now — unlike what was done by the previous government when that individual sat around the cabinet table, when they swept it under the carpet month after month, year after year. We know what the impact was on children in British Columbia. REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS T.

Bhullar: My question is directed to the Minister of Deregulation. Can the Minister of Deregulation tell the House about deregulation and if he is meeting his self-imposed deadlines on deregulation? As a side note, I did read a letter from the Barbers Association. They don't sound very happy. Just some free advice — it's not legal advice, so it's free: do not attend any barbers, or we might have a by-election in Cloverdale. Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'd like to thank the member for that question. The member will be happy to know that my visits to the barber are more infrequent as I get older.

For the question that the member posed, I thank you. We did have a target in the ministry to achieve a 12 percent net reduction by March 31 of the proceeding fiscal year. I am pleased to inform the member and the House that we have, in fact, exceeded that target. We're just over 13 percent. That represents over 60,000 regu- lations that we no longer are burdening British Colum- bians with. We're doing that, member, while protecting the important interests of public health, safety and the environment. [End of question period.] Supplementary Estimates H o n . G .

C o l l i n s p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: supplementary es- timates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. Hon. G. Collins moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I c a l l C o m m i t t e e o f S u p p l y . F o r the information of members, we will be debating the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Health as well as the estimates for the Ministry of Health Ser- vices. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J.

Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:45 p.m. The Chair: I call the committee to order, and we will take a ten-minute recess. The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:57 p.m. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] R. Lee: May I seek leave to make an introduction? Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Lee: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House 28 grade 5 students of St. Helen's School from my riding of Burnaby North. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Ramalho, as well as several parent volun- teers. They are Ms. Frafca, Ms. Bruschetta, Mrs. Alberti, another Mrs. Alberti, Mrs. Luongo, Mrs.

Whol, Mrs.

6664 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 Cortese, Mrs. Herdman and Mrs. Debenedetto. Would the House please give our visitors a warm welcome. Debate Continued Hon. C. Hansen: There are actually two motions that will constitute the votes for the Ministry of Health Services, and one is the main vote, which is vote 29, that was tabled in February. The second is the vote that reflects the increase, the supplemental estimate that was tabled today. I'm going to propose to the opposition, Mr.

Chair, that we put the vote 29(S), which is the supplemental t o p - u p , a n d w e j u s t d e a l w i t h t h a t o n e . T h e n i t w o n ' t impede any of the discussions we want to have around vote 29 itself, if that's appropriate to the member. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES On vote 29(S): ministry operations, $319,400,000. Hon. C. Hansen: I will speak to it very briefly, and if it's appropriate, we can put the vote on that and then get to the main motion itself — the main vote.

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

I will then move vote 29, and we can deal with the whole range of issues that need to be addressed. [1500] J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister making the point. Just to clarify and confirm that after the passing of this vote, any question after the passing of this vote that would have arisen out of the original vote will be able to legitimately be put under the general estimates debate? Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that is my understanding. Vote 29(

S) approved. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES On vote 29: ministry operations, $10,038,097,000. Hon. C. Hansen: I'll start with an overview of our service plan and some of the budget highlights just as a way to introduce the whole subject. I'd first like to in- troduce some of the ministry officials who have joined me in the House today. To my immediate right is Dr. Penny Ballem, who is our deputy minister. I'd also like to introduce Tamara Vrooman, who is the deputy min- ister responsible for strategic initiatives.

Behind me is Marnie Mitchell, who is the executive director of the Pharmacare branch, and also Steven Brown, who is the assistant deputy minister in the ministry. I'd like to start by just acknowledging the huge con- tribution that's been made by staff in the ministry. T h e y h a v e d o n e a n e n o r m o u s a m o u n t o f w o r k o v e r these last almost two years now since we formed gov- ernment. I've certainly learned to appreciate the dedi- cation and the hard work they bring to this ministry, and I must say I appreciate it very much.

I would also like to acknowledge the nurses, the doc- tors and the other health professionals and support work- ers throughout our health care system who really make the system work for British Columbians. I think, by and large, we have a first-class health care system in British Columbia. It's not to say there's no room for improve- ments, because we all know there is room for improve- ment. We can get into some of those issues throughout this debate.

But it is those workers, those front-line staff, who actually are providing care to British Columbians, who really deserve the credit for the positive attributes of our health care system in this province. As members are aware, the Ministry of Health Ser- vices 2003-04 Estimates document that was tabled on February 18 by the Finance minister showed a $10.185 billion budget for the Ministry of Health Services. The supplementary estimates, which were introduced to- day, will increase that budget by $319.4 million to bring it up to its total amount of $10.505 billion.

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

Then in the third year of our service plan, '05-06, there will be an increase of $595.6 million over what was tabled February 8, and that is an increase of $197.4 million, or 1.9 percent over the immediate prior year. We are requesting approval for the supplemental estimates, which we have dealt with earlier. This will apportion the amount that was increased as a result of the first ministers' accord on health care renewal.

Be- cause none of these additional funds were reflected in the ministry's '03-04 estimates and the interim service plan, it is the combination of the supplemental esti- mates and the amounts tabled in February that will constitute our full budget. The federal accord that was originally announced in February will result in the allocation of approxi- mately $1.3 billion in additional federal funding to Brit- ish Columbia over the next three years. That new fed- eral funding is in three distinct categories.

The first is the Canadian health and social transfer — CHST, as we refer to it — which will provide to British Columbia

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6665 $333.1 million over that three-year period. There is also the health reform fund, which is an additional $780 million over three years. Then finally, there is a diag- nostic and medical equipment fund of $200.1 million over the three-year period. [1505] We are pleased to note that the office of the auditor general has agreed to support the province in the recog- nition of the CHST fund increases over the three-year period, starting with this current fiscal year.

This fund will be used to protect British Columbians against catas- trophic drug costs as a result of the new Fair Pharmacare program. The Ministry of Health Services has also in- corporated new performance measures into its new ser- vice plan to measure and report on the number of British Columbians who are adequately insured under their prescribed drug costs, and this year the Fair Pharmacare policy will be evaluated by the Centre for Health Ser- vices and Policy Research, which is located at the Uni- versity of British Columbia.

This addition was requested by the office of the auditor general, and we are certainly pleased to incor- porate his suggestions for enhancing our ability to en- sure maximum effectiveness from this funding. Defin- ing and meeting clear targets is certainly nothing new to this government, and we welcome the opportunity to develop further performance measures. It is all part of government's demonstrated commitment to a sys- tem that focuses on openness, results and accountabil- ity. We've established the following priorities with re- gard to the new federal funding.

The first is to buy system improvements; secondly, to provide a stable, predictable funding base for the health authorities; thirdly, to provide one-time health authority transition funding to invest in redesign; and finally, to meet the requirements of the federal government. I should perhaps point out that the federal dollars come with expectations that are yet to be defined.

Al- though the accord specifies the types of services the funding must be used for, the level of enhancement will be determined partly through the performance indicators and targets that are not yet agreed upon by federal, provincial and territorial governments. They are being worked on now, and it's our expectation that those will be finalized by this fall.

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

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

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

As stated earlier, given the relative timing of the federal-provincial discussions, it is possible that further changes will be required to the '04-05 through '06-07 service plans to accommodate new performance indica- tors that may be required as a result of that federal accord. The service plan reflects our first priority, and that's patient care. This year's service plan has a stronger emphasis than ever on outcome-based per- formance measures to improve patient care and de- tailed strategies to meet them.

Members should be aware that the new accountability measures for the Ministers of State for Mental Health and for Intermedi- ate, Long Term and Home Care have also be included in the final service plans. [1510] This year's plan refines performance measures first introduced last year to strengthen reporting and ac- countability on health services provided to British Co- lumbians.

In the service plan we have focused on a number of objectives and strategies, including support- ing the appropriate use of hospitals and health services; helping British Columbians maintain and improve their health, including appropriate coverage for drugs; im- proving primary care and chronic disease management; and, finally, creating a broader range of care options to give seniors greater independence, choice and quality of life while meeting their health care needs.

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

We will continue to refine performance expecta- tions with our partners — the health authorities, the physicians and the other service providers — and we will continue with our reforms aimed at providing better patient care and system sustainability. We're staying the course with health system rede- sign. The addition of $319.4 million in supplemental

6666 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 estimates that we dealt with today as a result of the increased federal funding brings total provincial ex- penditures on all health services across government — so that's the health services provided by government, not just by the Ministry of Health Services itself…. That total amount now increases to $10.7 billion in the 2003- 04 fiscal year. This now represents 42.3 percent of total government spending, the highest portion ever. Health spending has grown by more than 78 per- cent over the last ten years.

Between 1985 and today our health care costs have tripled, and yet the pressures keep on mounting. Across Canada and in British Co- lumbia our health care system is being strained by growing demands and rising costs. We need a system that can be responsive to challenges and change — challenges like the unexpected and devastating emer- gence of SARS or the West Nile virus —, which bring new and unforeseen costs to the health system. There are longer-term challenges like the aging population and aging facilities, pharmaceutical costs that were going up 14 to 15 percent a year and new compensation pressures.

We have increased the health budget for the last two years because we believed that it was necessary, but we recognized that simply adding more and more money into the system will not over- come the structural problems within that system, which is why the changes we and the health authorities are making are so critical to the long-term survival of the public health care system that we all cherish. This service plan will guide the management of the ministry and health care in British Columbia as we work towards improving patient care and building a more modern and sustainable health care system for the future.

We have redoubled our efforts to develop step-by-step goals, strategies and performance meas- ures to help us create a future where we can respond to change from a considered, thoughtful vantage point instead of the panicked, ad hoc approach of the past. We will continue to face these challenges by develop- ing strong relationships with our partners, clearly de- fining performance expectations and actively engaging in our stewardship role. As noted earlier, the health authorities will receive a total of $130 million from the federal health accord lift.

I know there are lots of people that are looking at the new federal moneys as some kind of a panacea for the challenges in health care. I would like to just put t h a t a m o u n t o f m o n e y i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e , b e c a u s e $ 1 3 0 million in increased money is obviously important and will provide for better opportunities for better patient care, but it also funds the health care system for a total of 92 hours. The cost of running our health care system is about $1.4 million an hour, so while it's helpful, it is certainly not the panacea for the challenges.

In addition to that $130 million, there is also $60 million that will flow to the health authorities in addi- tional money for medical and diagnostic equipment. Health authorities will also receive an additional $8 million reallocated from within the ministry's existing base budget, for a total increase of $198 million to the health authorities in this current fiscal year. The plan is to provide base dollars to the health authorities upfront and continue with the existing performance expecta- tions.

These funds will support transition in this cur- rent fiscal year so that new expectations can be estab- lished for the following two fiscal years. Health authority performance agreements and acute care access standards, three-year service redesign plans and budget management plans — all these are in place and being refined continually.

These initiatives are already demonstrating the value of this approach in better management of the health care system. [1515] I'd like to conclude by acknowledging the hard work and dedication of our health professionals at work every day in British Columbia to provide high- quality services. The fact is that despite increasing sys- temic pressures, British Columbians continue to enjoy world-class health care in this province. Each year ap- proximately two million British Columbians go to an emergency room.

About half a million will receive some kind of in-patient surgery or treatment, and the vast majority find the system works smoothly and effi- ciently. We don't always know how to show that the sys- tem is working well or how to identify where and w h e n i t m a y n e e d w o r k . W e a r e m o v i n g B . C . h e a l t h care into the twenty-first century, where the system will be increasingly measured on patient outcomes and clear performance standards. The plans we are submit- ting today will increasingly lead to a system where success is not just anecdotal.

It is measurable, and it will lead to a system which is even more deserving of British Columbians' faith, pride and confidence. I would be pleased to entertain whatever questions the opposition would like to put forward. J. MacPhail: It is good news for British Columbians that the federal government is pumping money into the system, and it's not a moment too soon. I wasn't actually going to address this part of the debate until l a t e r , e x c e p t t h a t t h e m i n i s t e r p r o v o k e d m e b y s a y i n g that they are going to do things differently than the panicked, ad hoc ways of the past.

Isn't it good news that this government, since its election in 2001, has had increased transfer payments from the federal government for health care? This gov- ernment, this Liberal government, has not had to suffer any cuts in transfer payments for health — none what- soever. Let's just be realistic about this. The health care system was not operated in a panicked, ad hoc way in the past, but it was under duress — massive duress — not because of anything any provincial politician did but because of the federal government itself.

The very same Liberal federal government that is now doling out money to this Liberal government at the provincial level was making massive cuts in transfer payments for health from 1994 onward. In '94 a cut, in '95 a cut in federal transfer payments for health — in '96, '97, '98 and '99. At the last half of 2000 money started to flow again just prior to this government getting elected.

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6667 What did this then opposition, now government say while those massive cuts were being made in trans- fer payments to the health care system? The now Pre- mier stood up and said: "Oh, those cuts aren't deep enough." In fact, at the time that the health care system was being funded to the tune of about $6 billion in this province, he said: "That should be enough.

That should be enough for the health care system." Not one iota of slack or understanding or positive feedback did the then opposition give to the then government at all about those cuts in transfer payments — not one. Yet throughout that whole period of time health care funding wasn't cut by the provincial government. Even in dire economic straits because of the Asian eco- nomic downturn, the then administration funded the health care system, making up for every cut dollar from federal transfer payments, and the then opposi- tion said: "How awful." Not one iota of understanding — not one.

In fact, they would use surgical wait-lists — isn't that interesting — as an example of how awful the health care system was. Isn't it interesting? We'll get to that to see how well we're doing there. They would prey upon seniors and the effect of the health care sys- tem on seniors even though the system was fully funded. Every single dollar cut by the federal govern- ment….

Paul Martin, the then Minister of Finance who got his great fiscal record on the backs of the province, was cutting dollars every year, and British Columbia was the only province who didn't pass those cuts through to the patients or families of British Columbia. [1520] It was a cheap shot — completely unnecessary for the Minister of Health to talk about the 1990s as being panicked and ad hoc. If anything was ad hoc, it was the way the then Liberals in opposition defended our health care system against the federal Liberal cuts. In fact, they didn't defend the health care system at all.

They embraced the cuts the federal Liberal gov- ernment made. But it's good news. Thank God, the federal Liberal government is restoring health care payments to British Columbia. This government will benefit from that. They won't have had to do one iota of health care management in the face of massive fed- eral transfer payment cuts — not one. Their record will be judged on their well-being, their efficiency and their expertise alone in managing the health care system.

They won't be able to turn to Ottawa and do anything except say thank you to Ottawa for giving back the money that was cut miserably from the health care system in the 1990s. The first area we need to look at in terms of the well-being of the health care system is in the area of Pharmacare. I want to quote from a study that was released last month, on April 23. It's from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It was released out of Ottawa. I'm quoting from the news release attached to the study.

It says: "Expenditure on prescribed drugs continues to increase, occupying a larger proportion of total drug spending in Canada, according to a new report released today by the Canadian Institute for Health Information." The report is called Drugs Expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2002 . It is a study that includes a discussion of factors affecting drug expenditure. The report covers all drug expenditures, both drug expenditures made privately and publicly, both prescribed and not pre- scribed. There's a wide variation in terms of provincial comparisons, but the study does make provincial com- parisons.

It says: "There is considerable variation in the level and growth of drug expenditure across the provinces. In 2000, the latest year for which comparable data are available, estimated drug expenditure per capita ranged from $407" — per person — "in British Columbia to" — a high of — "$534" — per person — "in Ontario. The share of prescribed drugs in total drug expenditure ranged from 74.5 percent in British Columbia to 83.1 percent in Quebec.

The proportion of prescribed drugs financed by the public sector varied from 32.1 percent in Prince Edward Island to 53.7 percent in British Columbia." For those watching, British Columbia is at the head of a lot of the tables, but what does that mean? Let me go through the table, if I may. This was released less than a month ago, three weeks ago. The Canadian Institute for Health Information is a non-partisan…. I think it's even non-political; I'm not sure. No, it's funded by the provinces.

It's funded pro- portionately from provinces, but it is an academic re- search body based on real evidence that it gleans from expenditures from every province. Here's what it says: "The total drug expenditure, as a percentage of total health expenditure, in British Columbia is 12.5 per- cent." [1525] Well, that's a lot. I agree; that's a lot. That means one out of every eight dollars in the health care budget is spent on drugs. But what are we in comparison to other provinces?

Well, it turns out that the Territories are, across the board, less, but in terms of the prov- inces, we are the second lowest in drug expenditure as a percentage of total health expenditure. Newfound- land spends 14.5 percent; P.E. I., 17.5 percent; Nova Scotia, 16.7 percent; New Brunswick, 16.7 percent; Quebec, 17.6 percent; Ontario, 16.1 percent. Manitoba spent 12.1 percent; Saskatchewan, 13.9 percent; Alberta, 13.7 percent. British Columbia is the second lowest of the provinces at 12.5 percent. However, what does it mean for real people? That's a statistic; that's a percentage.

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

We have the second- lowest percentage expenditure of the budget on drugs,

6668 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 of the total health expenditures in the country. We have the lowest per-capita costs, per-person costs of drug expenditures. The next one is the prescribed drug expenditure as a percentage of total drug expenditures. That's the per- centage of all drug expenditures prescribed by doctors and, therefore, affected by our Pharmacare program. Well, let's see. How does British Columbia fare there? It turns out that we're at the low end — not quite. We're at the second lowest amongst the provinces. Oh no, I'm misreading again. I've got to get my glasses checked.

That'll cost me ninety bucks. We're the lowest of all the provinces in terms of the prescribed drug expenditure as a percentage of total drug expenditures. In British Columbia, out of all the drug expendi- tures, the prescribed drug expenditure is 74.5 percent. Other provinces are 80 percent, 76 percent, 78 percent, 83 percent, 76 percent, 76 percent and 77 percent. There's British Columbia, amongst the provinces, at the bottom. We're doing pretty good compared to the rest of the provinces. In fact, we're the best. We're the best in terms of managing expenditures and the percentage we spend on drugs.

What does the public get for that, though? What do British Columbians get for those good numbers? Well, they get the best coverage of all of the provinces. Isn't that interesting? The public prescribed drug expendi- ture, as a percentage of the total prescribed drug ex- penditure — now, what does that mean? That means: how much is paid out of the public expenditures as a percentage of all the drugs. In other words, what do your tax dollars get for you? British Columbia is at the top. Well, they were, as of 2000. Of all prescribed drug costs, 53.7 percent came out of the public purse for British Columbians.

What did other Canadians get? Other Canadians got 44 per- cent covered — that was Alberta — 43 percent in Sas- katchewan, 45 percent in Manitoba, 43 percent in On- tario, 48 percent in Quebec and 39 percent in New- foundland. British Columbia has the lowest per-capita cost of drugs. British Columbia has the lowest total prescribed drug costs per capita. British Columbia has the lowest prescribed expenditures as a percentage of total drug expenditures, and they have the highest amount of their prescribed drugs covered by public expenditure.

What was wrong with the Pharmacare program that's specific to British Columbia? [1530] Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, I have a lot of respect for CIHI and the work that CIHI does. They provide some very valuable and objective data. I think it is very useful. I don't believe that you can measure the success of a health care system by simply how little you pay per capita for medications. There are medications devel- oped that actually take pressure off our acute care sys- tem.

There are certainly conditions that in the past would have required surgical intervention, which now can be treated with a pharmaceutical product. There- fore, in those cases, an increase in expenditure in a drug budget might actually save the overall health care system money and provide better care for individual British Columbians. I think the point the member raises…. To address her specific question, I think the problem we had with the Pharmacare system before was that it was not fair to certain families in British Columbia compared to other families.

I'm sure the member, like all MLAs in this House, each January or February receives letters from low-income families, non-senior families, who are struggling, under the old Pharmacare system, to come up with their $800 deductible, where they have to pay out of their own pocket 100 percent of their drug costs until such time as they would hit their $800 ceiling. Only then, in the past, would the Pharmacare system click in. At the same time you had high-income seniors who would be paying a maximum of $275 per person for their drug costs over the year.

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

MacPhail: Well, that's a new argument that the minister has had to come up with in order to justify the labelling of his program, called Fair Pharmacare. We'll get to individual cases. We'll get to how fair Phar- macare is under this government. This minister and his colleagues said over and over again that Pharmacare wasn't sustainable, and he would label the increases every year. That was why, he said, money had to be cut out of Pharmacare. Indeed, that's why they cut the growth of the Pharmacare budget for two years. In fact, the Pharmacare budget, under the previous vote, was going down by $90 mil- lion.

Now, thank God for the federal government, be- cause the federal government sent a whole whack of money to British Columbia, and this minister is being forced to put some of it into Pharmacare, so the Phar- macare budget's going up now. What was it about the Pharmacare success story I just read out to the minister that he disagreed with? He said that it was good, that certain health outcomes are better managed by prescription drugs than not.

What was it that made him so upset about Pharmacare that these wonderful outcomes listed — where B.C. was at the top of every good statistic, led the country in every good statistic around Pharmacare…? What was it that made him so upset? What was it that made him change his mind from saying that Pharmacare was unsustain- able to saying that it wasn't "fair"? Hon. C. Hansen: I just want to start by reminding the member that when she was the Minister of Finance

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6669 in this House, she actually brought down a budget that showed only a 2 percent increase in the Pharmacare budget. Yet they knew at the time there were cost pres- sures in Pharmacare of over $90 million that they did not fund, and they did not explain at all in that budget how they were going to manage those risks.

One of the things I think the member has to admit is that we have been transparent with all of the issues and the chal- lenges around our Pharmacare budget — indeed, the whole Health budget. [1535] What we were facing under Pharmacare was a budget of approximately $714 million that was increas- ing at a rate of 14 and 15 percent a year. That would actually result, over the long term, in not being able to sustain a Pharmacare system.

I think that we want to make sure there is financial assistance for low- and middle-income families in particular, so that they can afford the medications their doctors prescribe to them. It's only by changing the system so that it is sustainable into the future and we can live within our means that we're going to be able to assure there is access to neces- sary prescriptions.

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

It's the right thing to do. J. MacPhail: We'll get to that in a moment — how much people support this government's change. Again, let me be clear. This is a new message. This is new spin from the minister — that it's fair and that they had to do it because Jimmy Pattison was getting his drugs for free and poor people weren't getting their drugs. Well, that's balderdash. That's absolute balderdash, and we'll get to that in a moment. The shift, in terms of applying an income test, is nothing more than this government trying to reduce Pharmacare.

That's why they started out: to cut the amount of access British Columbians had to Phar- macare. Let's be clear. Any work this government does around Pharmacare better improve those numbers and not make them worse. We have the lowest per-capita cost of drugs, and that's because the previous govern- ment actually took on the pharmaceutical companies. This government won't. We had the lowest per-capita costs of drugs. We had the lowest percentage of our health care budget going into prescription drugs. We had the greatest por- tion of prescription drugs being paid out of the public purse.

I'll just read this last one here. We also in British Columbia had the lowest amount of prescribed drugs as a percentage of overall drugs. Therefore, the number of prescriptions wasn't out of control. That was great news for British Columbia. Everything this government does to Pharmacare will be tested against these num- bers — from best in Canada in every category to now. We'll see what happens.

Of course, unlike the previous government who had one hand tied behind their back by the cuts in transfer payments from the federal government, this government is getting — let's see — how much more money from the federal government to put into Phar- macare? Their budget for Pharmacare prior to the lar- gesse earlier this year from the federal government was going to be $614 million — a cut, a real cut of about $87 million. Now we see that the revised estimates…. Let me just see. The revised estimates are that there will be $743 million into Pharmacare, an increase of…. Yeah, that's right.

Maybe the minister could confirm for me. Because of the federal government largesse, instead of cutting the Pharmacare budget by about $87 million, they will be increasing it year over year by about $41 million because of the federal government. Is that cor- rect? Hon. C. Hansen: The numbers that the member indicated are correct. We will see an increase, or we do see an increase in the Pharmacare budget for this year by $41 million. We will also, as she knows, see an in- crease the year after, the year after and the year after that.

We do not project that there will ever be a decline in the Pharmacare budget. [1540] I do want to come back to a point the member said about the fairness message. I don't know if she had a chance to listen in on the press conference when we announced Fair Pharmacare back in February.

That message around the need to address the inequality of benefits to different families in British Columbia has been very much central to all of the discussions and all of the messages — whether it's been things I've said in this House or whether it's been interviews that I've engaged in or, indeed, the initial press conference when we announced it. I would also point out…. She mentions that right now British Columbia, as she indicated, is the top when it comes to the percentage of prescription costs borne by the taxpayer. She mentioned that the CIHI numbers for 2000 show that at 53 percent.

I'm not sure that's necessarily something that shows B.C. is the best. It just shows that B.C. taxpayers are footing a greater percentage of those costs than any other province. Un- der the new Fair Pharmacare system, what we antici- pate is that instead of being at 53 percent, it will be at 47 percent. Of all the prescriptions purchased in British Columbia, 47 percent of the costs will, in fact, be borne by the new Fair Pharmacare program. J. MacPhail: Yeah, it would be awful for British Columbians to actually have their government deliver the best service in the country. I can see why the minis-

6670 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 ter would object to that — the best record for public resources being used to pay for prescription drugs. That's not a good statistic. I say that sarcastically for those who only read these words. Of course it's a good statistic. Value for your tax dollars, it's called. But when you also combine that with that we have the lowest per-capita costs of prescription drugs, it makes a wonderful statistic.

It means British Columbi- ans are getting better value out of their tax dollars and greater coverage because they ain't giving it away to the pharmaceutical companies — until this government was elected. That's what it means — lowest per-capita cost of drugs and highest coverage out of your tax dol- lars. That's what that means. It's a wonderful story that can simply not be challenged by anybody in the Liberal government as not being good for British Columbians. But we'll see. We'll see. I already know now that one of the stats is going to be decreased by over 10 percent.

We're going to go from 53.7 percent of prescription drug costs paid out of the public purse — a f t e r y o u ' v e p a i d y o u r t a x e s , o f course — down to 47 percent. Let's see. That's 7 percent on 53 percent. It's about a 12 percent cut. It's about a 12 percent reduction in the benefit that British Columbi- ans get from their taxes. That's what it is. Lots and lots of British Columbians will be paying more for that re- duced coverage. Gee, that's good news, isn't it? The minister said that he was going to be taking on drug costs in British Columbia.

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

Hansen: The announcement that we made last week was the listing of a new drug that has been developed. It's called rabeprazole, or I guess the more common name that we may come to know it as is Pa- riet. This is a proton pump inhibitor. There are three drugs existing from three different companies that had been listed previously. This one, evidence shows, is equally as effective as those products. So we have listed this drug with a preferential listing over the other drugs, and it is a saving to the Pharmacare budget over the next three years of $42 million. J. MacPhail: How was that decision reached? [1545] Hon.

C. Hansen: The company that developed this new drug approached the ministry with a proposal that this drug be listed. We then went out to the other three companies and asked for their suggestions re- garding how we could better control the very rapidly rising costs of proton pump inhibitors in our Phar- macare budget. Each of those three companies came back with various proposals, but nothing really achieved the kind of savings that the preferential list- ing of this one drug would achieve. J. MacPhail: Okay, so the drug company ap- proached the ministry directly.

Then what procedure did the ministry follow to put the listing of that drug company forward? Hon. C. Hansen: I t h i n k , a s t h e m e m b e r k n o w s , a very thorough review is done of new medications that come forward to assess the clinical trials that have been done and the other evidence that is available. We also looked at what other jurisdictions had done. In the case of Ontario and Newfoundland, they had gone down a similar route — although not exactly the same — with regard to the listing of this drug. This then, ultimately, came before the drug benefit review committee.

The drug benefit review committee, which is a body within the Ministry of Health Services, came forward with their recommendation to me. J. MacPhail: I want to know what process was fol- lowed that didn't involve the minister's own officials. Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things that the provinces and the federal government have collaborated on over the last two years is a common drug review process. What we found was that each province was going through its own review in terms of the efficacy of a new drug.

It was really a duplication of what should be the same scientific process of evaluation, and yet there was a duplication of costs, effort and time delays with all jurisdictions undertaking the same process. So the provinces collectively, the Territories and the federal government, with the exception of Quebec, agreed to come together to collaborate on what is now referred to as the common drug review. What will happen is that as a new drug comes for- ward, one of those jurisdictions will take the lead in doing the assessments necessary.

While I'm not sure off the top of my head exactly which jurisdiction did the assessment for the common drug review, it was done and then shared with all of the other 13 jurisdictions that are participating. J. MacPhail: I'd like to know which jurisdiction. I'd like to know. Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that information at my fingertips. I will endeavour to get it for the mem- ber. J. MacPhail: What role will the therapeutics initia- tive play? Hon. C. Hansen: The therapeutics initiative in Brit- ish Columbia is certainly part of the common drug review process.

As drugs come up for review, there will be new products assigned to the TI to review on

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6671 behalf of the other jurisdictions. The whole idea of the common drug review process in Canada is to avoid the kind of duplication we saw in the past and the unnec- essary duplication of costs. J. MacPhail: Well, if this drug review was done, why was it the drug company that approached the minister? Why wouldn't it be the minister initiating this? If there was a common drug review program done, why did it come from a drug company approaching and lobbying the ministry directly? I don't understand.

Perhaps the minister could explain to me the changes that have been made in how a drug gets listed for the drug of choice. I simply don't understand it. Hon. C. Hansen: As the member, I'm sure, knows, when drug manufacturers come out with new prod- ucts, they will bring that information to the provinces. Once the notice of compliance has been agreed to by Health Canada, which indicates that a product is safe, then those products are brought forward to the various provincial governments. I n t hi s c as e , t hat w as no e x c e p t i o n.

W hat t hi s p a r- ticular company came forward with to all provinces in Canada was their pricing. They proposed that this be put forward as a preferential listing in British Colum- bia. In doing so, we wind up with the same benefit to patients that is needed and yet at about a 40 percent saving to the taxpayers — and not just the taxpayers. For the 50 percent of drug costs that is not borne by the taxpayers directly, then certainly those British Colum- bians get the benefit of this lower price as well. [1550] J. MacPhail: The minister somehow says: "As the member knows…." Well, I don't know.

That's not the way it was done before, so things have changed, and I want to know how they've changed. Whoever is listen- ing from the Ministry of Health Services, could they please tell me which province did the drug review on that particular drug? If they could get it to us soon, that would be great. Thank you very much. That's not the way it was done in the past. It was a completely independent process. Is the listing of that drug…? The member says it was a preferential listing. Is it part of the reference drug plan, or has the minister created another category? Hon. C.

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

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

Harvard Medical School said ― they released a study, and the minister is well aware of it ― that the reference-based pricing for prescription drugs should not be scrapped. They said: "Implementing an entirely new policy could have severe consequences for pa- tients and Pharmacare managers." This was an

article by researchers in the Canadian Medical Association Jour- nal published, I think, in December. Yes, it was at the beginning of December. It says… Let me see — what else? The study said more intensive cost containment is needed, achieved by refining the pricing plan, adding more categories of drugs and simplifying it administra- tively. What's the status of the reference drug plan in this province? Hon. C. Hansen: As the member was referring to, there was a review done by the panel. That report was released by my colleague the Minister of Health Plan- ning.

In that report it recommended there be a review of Pharmacare that would look at some of these other op- tions, and that review will be undertaken over these coming months. No final and ultimate decision has been made with regard to the reference drug program, but the interim decision was made, which was recommended by the panel, and that's that the reference drug program remain in place while that review is undertaken. J. MacPhail: So we have the Harvard study saying that reference-based pricing shouldn't be scrapped.

Is the minister referring to the report of April 2002 by George Morfitt, John Esdaile, Marshall Moleschi, An- drew Saxton and Arlene Gladstone? Is that the report? Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct. J. MacPhail: That was a year ago. What's happen- ing? Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I think as I just said, the Minister of Health Planning released that report in F e b r u a r y o f t h i s y e a r . W e i n d i c a t e d t h a t w e w e r e a c - cepting the panel's recommendation that the reference drug program stay in place for now and that there be a more comprehensive review of Pharmacare.

That has not been started yet, although the planning for that is underway, and we should have that initiated in the consultations we plan to embark upon. That should happen fairly soon. Basically, within the ministry, with the rollout of Fair Pharmacare, it was a question of the capacity of the ministry to roll out the review at the same time that Fair Pharmacare was being launched. We are now fo-

6672 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 cusing, turning our attention to that, and it should be underway very soon. J. MacPhail: Well, as you know, Mr. Chair, the op- position has been advocating through question period that the government, before it attacks British Columbi- ans and forces them to pay more for their Pharmacare coverage, should maybe attack the pharmaceuticals and reduce the costs of drugs.

But oh no, we've got a full-fledged Pharmacare change going where British Columbians are going to pay more, and yet we have a report that this government has had sitting, with no action, for over a year ― 13 months now. The minister isn't planning on doing anything in the near future e x c e p t p l a n f o r w h a t h e ' s g o i n g t o d o w i t h t h e r e p o r t from the reference drug program consultation panel. [1555] Well, let me ask this. Here's the Picture of Health advertisement that I am reading from. It was December 13, 2002.

It's interesting the way the minister was spin- ning an affordable, sustainable Pharmacare plan then and the reaction he got from the public. Here it says, "We are acting to control costs," and one of them…. I'll read it aloud. This is the government's own ad. It cost quite a bit of money, I'll tell you. It's a full page. "Reducing inappropriate drug use and avoiding use of unnecessary drugs." Well, British Columbia's got the lowest ratio of prescription drug usage in Canada.

"Improving patients' health by increasing emphasis on prevention and wellness." I have no idea what they're doing there, but I'll be asking questions later. "Ensuring we get the lowest prices from drug companies." "Working with other provinces to develop a com- mon drug review process." It says right there that they're working to develop a process. Apparently that process is already in place. I can hardly wait to hear who did it. There we are. Here's what they say about why Pharmacare needed to be changed.

It's because "Pharmacare costs are growing faster than any other health program — over 75 percent in the past five years." So it was cer- tainly an economic issue back in December, and of course, there was quite a bit of reaction from the pub- lic. The minister had to delay his program, and here we are now. To the minister: why 13 months of inaction? Hon. C. Hansen: I'm a little bit…. I'm trying to fig- ure out what the point is that the member is trying to make with this. W hat we have done with Pharmacare is bring in some changes that will make sure it's sus- tainable in the years to come.

It was growing at a rate of 14 or 15 percent a year. Clearly, when she was Min- ister of Finance, she was not prepared to fund that, because she didn't. She brought in a 2 percent increase to the Pharmacare budget. We want to make sure it is structured in a way that is sustainable. We brought in some changes that bring more fairness to low-income families. High-income families in British Columbia, we think, can pay a bigger percentage of their pharmacy costs.

When the member talks about 53 percent of pharmacy costs being borne by the taxpayers, that's not to say that every single Brit- ish Columbian should get 53 percent of their pharmacy costs paid for when they go to get a prescription filled. It's saying that low-income British Columbians deserve and should get a higher percentage of that support. We wind up with low-income families under the new Fair Pharmacare system that will wind up getting 90 or 93 percent of their prescription costs paid for by the new Fair Pharmacare program.

On the other hand, you're going to wind up with some higher-income families in British Columbia that are going to get noth- ing in terms of taxpayer assistance with their pharma- ceutical costs, because our assessment is that with that household income, they can afford to bear those costs,

whereas low-income families can't. When the member talks about 13 months, there has been an enormous amount of activity, over the course of almost two years now since we formed gov- ernment, to make sure that we bring pharmaceutical costs under control. The member seems so hung up on just the reference-based pricing debate. That is but one small issue that has been on our desk in terms of dealing with Pharmacare changes so that in fact they are sustainable. There has been a huge amount of work done over that period of time to make sure Pharmacare is there for families that need it. J.

MacPhail: Well, let me just paint the picture if the minister is missing my point. He's brought in changes to Pharmacare that are going to have hundreds of thousands of people pay more for their Pharmacare that they didn't pay for it before. They paid their taxes; they got sick; they got their drugs prescribed. Hun- dreds of thousands now are going to have their cover- age reduced, and a lot of them will be poor. I'll get to those letters in a minute. There will be poor seniors, as a matter of fact. That's the change this government has made. Now, we'll get to how effectively that program is being introduced.

I hope the minister has better re- sults than he did at the end of last month on how the Fair Pharmacare program is actually working. [1600] What point am I trying to make about drug costs? My point is this. Why didn't the minister try to control drug costs first rather than who pays for the drugs? Why didn't he tackle the pharmaceutical companies to keep drug costs under control and then decide what portion taxpay- ers in British Columbia should have to pay for that? That's my point.

No, what he first does is a big cash grab from British Columbians not only in increased medical services premiums but in changes to Phar- macare, so that we're no longer having the best cover- age and the lowest per-capita costs for prescription drugs. We're going to lose that position. Why should B.C. be the best in that area? There's absolutely no action on reducing drug…. Well, there's been one example from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, which I'm dying to find out how it actually came about.

But there's been no action on this report that the government spent tens of thou- sands of dollars on — in fact more than that — on how

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6673 to reduce drug costs — not how to make British Co- lumbians pay more for their drugs but on how to re- duce drug costs. I n f a c t , i f t h e m i n i s t e r i s s o c u r i o u s a s t o w h y I would care about this report, let me just read the rec- ommendations. This is now 13 months old — 13 months. All I'm trying to find out is what the govern- ment's doing about this report. They're planning on doing something. Here are the recommendations:

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

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

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

(4) In particular, frank discussions should be held with the pharmaceutical industry to explore the possi- bilities of substantially improved investment in re- search and development in British Columbia.

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

(6) Drug utilization reviews should be reactivated either through the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., the body currently responsible for them, or by transferring responsibility to another agency willing to undertake this role to support program development.

(7) Physicians, pharmacists and the public should be provided with better information to encourage shared responsibility and support informed and cost- effective decision making with respect to drug use.

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

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

(10) The reference drug program should be ex- panded in appropriate additional therapeutic catego- ries in order to maximize its cost-saving potentials. Perhaps we could go through these recommenda- tions one by one. [H. Long in the chair.] Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, that report was released in February of this year. We indicated at the time that while we were accepting the first recom- mendation of the panel, we were also going to embark on a review of the Pharmacare program that would take all of those recommendations into consideration.

That will be undertaken by the ministry over these coming months. We hope to have it completed within this calendar year. J. MacPhail: The minister seems to be making a point that they released it to the public in February 2003. Is the date on the report of April 2002 wrong? Hon. C. Hansen: The report was completed in April 2002. It was released in February 2003. [1605] J. MacPhail: That's like waiting to find out what the special prosecutor said about the Minister of Agricul- ture, Food and Fisheries. The public is only well in- formed when the minister decides to actually release the report.

Sometimes we'll never be well informed. The government has had this report sitting on a desk for over 13 months now. They don't seem to hesitate to a t t a c k p e o p l e i n m a k i n g t h e m p a y m o r e f o r P h a r - macare out of their own pockets, but the drug compa- nies…. Let's not move too quickly on those drug com- panies, shall we? It is completely unacceptable that this government has done nothing on this report. I'm wondering whether anybody has had a chance to say what jurisdiction reviewed the drug that the minister talked about earlier. Hon. C.

Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the new c o m m o n d r u g r e v i e w i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t p r o c e s s . I t ' s independent of governments. It's really to take out some of the politics we've seen in other jurisdictions. One of the things I didn't realize until just now — in fact, senior officials didn't know

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0512pm 09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0512pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	112717cff56c5d0b97377755ffd7de4af8d69368

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