2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 30, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Parliamentary Pacers

S. Fraser

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Bill 37 — Animal Health Act

Hon. D. McRae

Bill 40 — Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 38 — Pension Benefits Standards Act

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Ski resort development work of Des Schumann

E. Foster

Marine use planning by central coast First Nations

G. Coons

UBC research on Alzheimer's disease

N. Letnick

Gathering of Nations event in Hazelton

D. Donaldson

Child care

L. Reid

Rivers conservation work of Mark Angelo

K. Corrigan

Oral Questions

European trade agreement provisions on prescription drugs

A. Dix

Hon. P. Bell

Disclosure of information on European trade agreement negotiations

J. Kwan

Hon. P. Bell

Medical supplements for disability benefits recipients

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Cadieux

C. James

Skilled worker supply and training and use of foreign workers

M. Elmore

Hon. P. Bell

Forest management planning

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Pharmaceutical Services Act

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

N. Letnick

G. Gentner

C. Trevena

S. Hammell

K. Conroy

C. Hansen

N. Simons

J. Kwan

H. Bains

C. James

R. Fleming

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

B. Simpson

Page 11253

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce some friends to everyone in this House. From the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association we have Mike Hurley, president. We have Larry Hollier and Dennis Miller from the Kelowna fire department. We have Darren Blackwell and Gary Birtwistle from Victoria fire department. We have Aaron Charlton and Rod Sidhu from Saanich fire department and also Len Garis, president of the Fire Chiefs Association

of B.C., who's also the Surrey fire chief.

We also have in the gallery, from the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia — and there's a theme to this, if you haven't gathered already — Sherman Hillier, provincial vice-president and paramedic chief in New Westminster. We also have James Toll, a Delta paramedic; Lindsay Pernarsky, a Madeira Park paramedic; T.J. Moore from Courtenay; and Tamara McNay from Victoria. We also have the president, who will be introduced by someone else. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

N. Macdonald: Leonora Britneff is the proud mother of Beatrice and Sebastian, a homemaker and a piano teacher. Leonora is an accomplished pianist who has passed on her gift and knowledge to many British Columbia children, including her own. She is also a great advocate of music in the public school system.

She joins us today in the gallery with her husband, Anthony Britneff, a career forester with the Forest Service and an advocate for our public lands. Anthony represents all that is best about our public servants and our professional foresters. I thank him, and I thank Leonora for giving him the time to work with us. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them both to the Legislature.

Hon. M. de Jong: We're joined in the chamber today by members of the Health Sciences Association. I'd like to introduce those members of the HSA to the chamber. Wendy Sikh is a pharmacist; Alison Martell, a dietitian; Fareba Razoul, a cardiology technologist; Anita Bardal, a medical radiation technologist and director of the HAS; and someone I meet with on a regular basis, an occupational therapist from Abbotsford, Jane King. I hope members will make all of these members of the HSA feel very welcome.

H. Lali: Sitting right up in the galleries in front of me is longtime Merritt resident and a good supporter of mine, Allen Peters. He's a medical radiation technologist. He's with the HSA. They'll be meeting with members of this House. Would the House please give Allen a warm welcome to Victoria.

Hon. S. Bond: I actually have two sets of introductions to make today. First of all, I want to welcome to the gallery Tim McGee. He is the chief executive officer of the Law Society of British Columbia. He's here to witness today the introduction of some legislation later this afternoon. I very much want to welcome Tim here and thank them for the assistance that they've provided us. If we could make Tim welcome.

Today in the gallery also are some very dedicated and passionate advocates of motorcycle safety. I'm very, very honoured — I know that all of the members in the House will be today — to have them here. They've travelled a great distance to be here. They were on hand earlier today as we announced new motorcycle safety standards that will help to protect both new and veteran riders.

I'd like to introduce Denise Lodge and Paul Connolly, the mother and stepfather of 21-year-old Corey Lodge, who tragically died in a motorcycle accident in 2005. Denise's group — called COREY, which stands for Coalition of Riders Educating Youth — has worked unbelievably hard to improve safety standards for new riders.

Joining Denise and Paul are Cindy Adey and her daughter Breeanne. We call her Bree. They lost their son and brother Dillon to a motorcycling accident, also at the age of 21, in 2009.

They have become resolute advocates for motorcycle training and safety. They taught me a lot about the changes that needed to be made, and I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am that they came today to celebrate the new laws that we put in place. I thank them for their advocacy and passion. It's turned something tragic into something that will make a difference in British Columbia.

Thank you for joining us today.

[1340]

J. Brar: I'm very pleased to welcome a good friend and constituent, Marg Beddis. Marg is a proud member of HSA. She's also very active in my executive. I would ask the House to please make Marg feel welcome.

D. Hayer: I have two special guests here today. One is Bob Hans. He's a community leader, a very hard worker, helping everybody out, and he's also a small business owner. Would the House please make him very welcome.

A second guest is Len Garis, who has already been introduced. He's the chief of the Surrey fire department, and he's also the president of the Fire Chiefs Association

[ Page 11254 ]

of British Columbia. Would the House please make him very welcome on behalf of Surrey.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure, on behalf of the opposition, to welcome Reid Johnson, the head of the HSA, and the members of the HSA who are in the gallery today. They have been meeting with the members of our caucus to discuss many of the important issues and challenges that HSA members, very much at the centre of health care, face in the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As my colleague mentioned, we have a number of emergency responders in the House today, and I certainly want to warmly welcome all of them. I wanted to personally welcome Bronwyn Barter, the provincial president of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. and paramedic chief in Osoyoos. Bronwyn and I worked together back a few years ago in Trail, when I was a family doctor working the emerg and she was an ambulance paramedic there. I would ask everyone to make her very welcome.

H. Bains: In the House is my good friend Trevor White. He's a respiratory therapist from Surrey Memorial Hospital and also a member of the Health Sciences Association of B.C. He's an excellent activist and a great promoter, promoting health care delivery in Surrey. Please help me welcome Trevor to this House.

L. Reid: I have the pleasure of introducing new staff in the office of public education and outreach today. This summer 14 post-secondary students have been hired to work in the legislative tour office. Over the next four months these eight summer guides and six Parliamentary Players will provide free guided tours to the more than 75,000 school children and tourists around the world who come to visit our beautiful Parliament Buildings.

You will certainly notice the Parliamentary Players, as they will be dressed in period costumes to portray six prominent personalities from British Columbia's history, including Mary Ellen Smith, Thomas Uphill, Queen Victoria, Francis Rattenbury, Sir James Douglas and Amor De Cosmos. I'd like to welcome Rachel Baker, Mik Byskov, Tamara Chwist, Gerardo Espinosa, Hayley Feigs, Alex Frankson, Robin Gadsby, Carly Haynes, Leah Hughes, Laura How, Luke Pennock, Véronique Piercy, Tom Stuart and Gwen Temmel. Would the House please make them welcome.

As well, Mr. Yuri Fulmer is visiting Victoria today from his home in West Vancouver. On behalf of the Speaker, please make him welcome.

K. Conroy: I have the pleasure to welcome two people from my constituency today in the House. Bronwyn Barter is here with the paramedics union — she's a new person to our constituency, and we are really pleased to have her there — as well as Gwen DeRosa, who is a psych nurse with the HSA delegation. She works in long-term care in Trail and is an outspoken advocate for seniors, as well as the rest of the members of HAS. She comes to meet with me often in my office, but it's great to have her here in Victoria. Would the House please join me in welcoming both of them.

Tributes

PARLIAMENTARY PACERS

S. Fraser: There was a little run that happened in Victoria yesterday. The Times Colonist 10K was yesterday, and thousands of runners took

part in that. The fleet-footed member for Surrey-Whalley and I did also run in that. I apologize if members from the government side ran and I'm leaving them out. But I think key from yesterday was that the Parliamentary Pacers, out of all the government teams — 49 of them — was first place. And our Deputy Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd — 43 minutes. That's ridiculously fast.

[1345]

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: I rarely get to introduce guests in this Legislature, but today it gives me great pleasure to introduce Kimball Finigan, an HSA member who is also a radiation therapist. He's here, along with his colleagues, to talk to members around the importance of the HSA members' work in the health care profession as it relates to the delivery of care to all of us, as a network of service delivery. I ask the House to please make him feel very welcome.

D. Black: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Rachel Tutte to the House today. She is a physiotherapist with HSA. She is also part of the B.C. Health Coalition and, interestingly, now is one of the women who is in the race for the YWCA Women of Distinction Award that's coming up very soon. She's a very active community volunteer and a person who does a lot for our health care system and for our community, so I ask the House to please make her welcome.

C. Trevena: I notice that up in the gallery is Anne Davis, who is the executive director of the Comox Valley Transition Society. She's down here with the HSA delegation. She's been very active in the Comox Valley, a good activist who works exceedingly hard on behalf of everyone in her community. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to welcome

Page 11255

Vikki Tellier to the House. She is an HSA member and a physiotherapist in my constituency. Vikki did the service for myself, the member for Nanaimo and the member from Nanaimo-Parksville of arranging a tour of all the services that her members provide in Nanaimo.

We were quite amazed to see how many essential, specific services are provided by these servants to their community and how important it is to the flow of patients through hospitals that the HSA services are provided the way they are by these excellent people.

Thank you, Vikki.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — EMERGENCY INTERVENTION

DISCLOSURE ACT

Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that Bill 39 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First responders put their lives on the line every day to keep people of British Columbia safe. Good Samaritans voluntarily help people in distress on a regular basis. But by the very nature of their actions, these people are at a higher risk of coming into contact with other people's bodily fluids, putting them into a situation where they could be exposed to a serious communicable disease such as hepatitis B or C or HIV/AIDS.

Emergency workers we have heard from have expressed concern that they currently cannot determine with certainty whether they've been exposed to danger until many months later, often past the window of preventative treatments. So they'll ingest a concoction of prophylactic medications which have side effects. And importantly, for months they, along with their families, cannot be certain that they have not been infected.

The psychological strain this puts on them and their families can be incredibly difficult. We can do better for our emergency workers, and that's why we're introducing legislation today that does five things.

First, it encourages people to offer a voluntary blood sample in cases when their bodily substance comes into contact with an emergency worker and the worker needs to test for the presence of a communicable disease. Second, if a sample is not voluntarily given, this legislation means that emergency workers can apply for a court order to require an individual to give a sample.

Third, it establishes strict privacy provisions by ensuring that test results are shared in confidence only. Fourth, it sets penalties for non-compliance with testing orders and privacy provisions.

[1350]

Finally, it amends the Workers Compensation Act to establish a presumption of disease exposure for those seeking workers compensation benefits.

With this legislation, government is clearly stating that supporting the health and well-being of emergency workers is something upon which we will not compromise.

I move that Bill 39 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, 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.

BILL 37 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

Hon. D. McRae presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Animal Health Act.

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, I move the Animal Health Act be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. McRae: Today I am pleased to introduce the Animal Health Act. There are many economic benefits provided to the B.C. economy by industries and farmers engaged in animal production, animal processing and associated activities such as transportation.

Prior to the introduction of this act B.C. has largely relied on the federal government to control animal diseases. Provincial legislation, the Animal Disease Control Act, dates from 1948 and has not been modified substantially since that time. There are very few diseases that are administrated under this act, and the actions that can be taken are very limited.

Modernizing our animal health legislation demonstrates B.C.'s commitment to a healthy animal food production system. The new act will also enhance B.C.'s competitiveness in national and international markets by increasing consumer confidence in B.C.-produced foods.

This new act complements the recent Public Health Act to ensure comprehensive disease management for those diseases that can spread from animals to humans.

Other provinces in Canada have also recently updated their animal health legislation, including Alberta in 2007, Ontario in 2009 and New Brunswick in 2011.

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

Page 11256

Bill 37, Animal Health Act, 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.

BILL 40 — LEGAL PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to introduce the Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012. The bill will amend the existing Legal Profession Act and create a new, modernized act.

These amendments have been requested by the Law Society of British Columbia, which has worked in close partnership with ministry staff in the development of this legislation. The amendments affirm that the protection of the public interest is the paramount purpose and mandate of the Law Society of British Columbia.

The Law Society wishes to be more transparent and accountable to the public through greater involvement of non-lawyers in disciplinary proceedings and in appeals of the decisions arising from these proceedings. This will be accomplished by having a review board hear appeals from a hearing panel rather than a panel of benchers.

Some amendments are housekeeping in nature. There are amendments that formally eliminate the existence of the special compensation fund, which was used in the past to compensate victims of a lawyer's dishonesty. This fund has already been replaced by a type of professional liability insurance through a wholly owned insurance program run by the Law Society.

There are other amendments that recognize the changing nature of the practice of law. An example is that amendments will enable the Law Society to regulate law firms directly. The amendments are based upon a review of legislation in other provinces and a selection of best practices from those other provinces.

The Law Society of British Columbia believes that these amendments will make British Columbia a leader in Canada in the regulation of the profession of law.

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 40, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, 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.

BILL 38 — PENSION BENEFITS

STANDARDS ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act.

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

[1355]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Pension standards legislation in each province and at the federal level set minimum standards for the benefits, funding, investments, disclosure and regulatory oversight for workplace pension plans.

British Columbia's legislation has not been thoroughly reviewed for two decades. In 2008 a panel of experts from B.C. and Alberta conducted a comprehensive review of pension standards legislation in each province which included two rounds of public consultation. Submissions indicated broad support for the recommendations in the final report. This bill implements the recommendations from that final report.

Overall, the new legislation completely rewrites the current act, taking a principles-based regulatory approach. Modernization of current standards is designed to reduce administrative costs and enhance members' rights, including benefit security and disclosure of plan information. The new legislation will also allow the private sector to offer a wider choice of pension plan options so that more British Columbians will have access to pension income during their retirement years.

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 38, Pension Benefits Standards Act, 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 25B)

SKI RESORT DEVELOPMENT WORK

OF DES SCHUMANN

E. Foster: Des Schumann was an Australian by birth but adopted Canada as his home in 1985. Mr. Schumann was a visionary, an old-school entrepreneur.

He was educated in South Australia until his education was interrupted by World War II. He bought his first lift company in Mount Hawthorn, Australia, in 1968 and invested in modern chairlifts and facilities in the village.

Page 11257

He, with his family, operated that resort until 1995 and transformed it during his stewardship from a one-rope-tow ski area to a major resort.

In 1985 Mr. Schumann was encouraged to invest in Big White Ski Resort outside of Kelowna, which at the time was relatively undeveloped. He bought the resort and proceeded to invest heavily in lift and village infrastructure over the next 20 years. His efforts increased visitations and turned Big White into one of the biggest tourist attractions in western Canada. His son Peter operates Big White today.

In 2001 he bought Silver Star ski resort, which is located near Vernon. He invested initially in the ski area and replaced all but one of the lifts with modern chairlifts. He then focused on upgrading the accommodations and facilities and built Snowbird Lodge, a magnificent 54-unit development in the centre of the village.

Next was the construction of the Vance Creek reservoir at a cost of $7.2 million, which he built to resolve all the issues with water supply in the resort. His daughter Jane operates Silver Star today.

Big White and Silver Star resorts now account for approximately one million skier days a year. Together they employ 1,200 people and are one of the major economic drivers in our region. These resorts operate in accordance with this government's all-seasons resort policy, which is the envy of the world in the ski industry.

Mr. Schumann loved his adopted country and had a vision that both Big White and Silver Star ski resorts would be world-class and would benefit all British Columbians. He certainly achieved that and more. His legacy will be shared by generations to come.

Mr. Des Schumann passed away April 12 at the age of 94.

MARINE USE PLANNING BY

CENTRAL COAST FIRST NATIONS

G. Coons: The central coast First Nations territories are the heart of the Great Bear rain forest. They are known for their old-growth forests, productive salmon systems, diverse land and marine ecosystems, and are home to the iconic spirit bear.

Recently the Heiltsuk, Kitasoo-Xaixais, Nuxalk and Wuikinuxv Nations completed their comprehensive central coast marine use plan to guide the management of human activities in their territories. It covers jurisdiction, resource management, economic development and capacity needs across all sectors of the marine market and non-market economy. It's based on traditional laws, knowledge and values and respects the balance of nature, recognizing the connection between the land and the sea.

It acknowledges that respectful relations must be developed with government, neighbouring communities and industry to address the priority issues. These include shared decision-making, revenue-sharing, fish dock restoration and rehabilitation, access for ceremonial purposes, territory-based economic development and the issue of destructive bottom-trawling.

Central coast First Nations have designed five marine zone types and two subareas to facilitate sustainable resource use — a marine sanctuary zone, a marine conservancy zone, a habitat management zone, an integrated management zone, aquaculture management areas, alternative energy areas — and transportation corridors that protect important species and sensitive habitats from activities such as offshore oil and gas development and crude oil tankers from passing through their territories.

[1400]

The plan has the overarching goal to realize a sustainable balance between ecosystem health, social and cultural well-being, and economic development with an ecosystem-based approach to resource use. Respected Heiltsuk leader Gary Housty says: "Everything we do is not about us. It's about our children and grandchildren." Wuikinuxv Chief Alex Chartrand reiterates: "Who better knows about the area than those who grew up on the water?" A Nuxalk visioning feast highlighted that if we do not respect our resources, no one will. I congratulate the central coast First Nations for putting their vision in a marine use plan, one that will work for them and for their children for many decades to come.

UBC RESEARCH ON

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

N. Letnick: Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia. It impacts our short-term and long-term memory and also our thinking ability. The disease currently has no cure and can affect one's mood, emotions and behaviour. My mother-in-law has dementia. We are very lucky that she's in a caring home, and our family appreciates the support from the government and those at the Alzheimer's Society. It gives us great comfort to know that neither she nor her primary caregiver is alone in the struggle. But a cure is always the hope.

So imagine our excitement when we became aware last week of the work of some UBC researchers led by Lindsay Nagamatsu. They have found that twice-weekly resistance training can slow down cognitive decline in seniors with mild cognitive impairment.

While they caution that their initial findings should not be generalized to men or women of other ages, the message is clear. We can do something to fight back against this awful disease. These B.C. researchers compared the efficacy of aerobic training, resistance training, and balance and tone training, and discovered that in senior women with subjective memory complaints, six months of twice-weekly resistance training improved selective attention, conflict resolution and associative memory. With impaired associative memory being a sign of the early stages of Alzheimer's, the research demon-

Page 11258

strates that we can make a difference.

My advice is to keep looking for those early signs of the disease — noticeable memory loss and difficulty with complex tasks, like speaking in front of 85 people, and balancing your chequebook. If you see early signs, contact your primary caregiver and check with your local Alzheimer's support group. We might not have a cure, but sure enough, with more research, one day one may be found in our lifetime.

GATHERING OF NATIONS EVENT

IN HAZELTON

D. Donaldson: Poverty and racism in the north. Those were the themes of a two-day regional education conference, A Gathering of Nations, held Friday and Saturday at Hazelton Secondary School. The featured speaker on Friday was Dr. Martin Brokenleg. His Circle of Courage approach, focusing on generosity, independence, belonging and mastery, hit home with the more than 260 educators and community members in attendance.

I was honoured to participate in a presentation on Saturday that discussed breaking the cycle of poverty through community learning, a model that recognizes supporting individuals to acquire skills to escape poverty goes hand in hand with advocating for change to systems that create impoverishment. Community learning organizations do both at the same time.

On stage I interviewed Chastity Turley, a young aboriginal mother of two from Gitanyow currently living in New Hazelton. Although she has felt the impacts of racism, alcohol and violence in her life, she has not allowed these negative experiences to define her. Chas has chosen instead to define herself by drawing on the positive lessons learned from her family, grandparents and culture.

This is what Chas now passes on to her children. Chas is working with the Youth Works program, catering local food for community events, as well as gardening, composting and preserving traditional foods. Through her work she is gaining new skills and contributing to building a healthier community.

Chas spoke of her experiences in life and her work with the Youth Works program, a social enterprise initiated by Storytellers Foundation under a community learning model. She received a standing ovation from audience members.

With B.C. holding the unfortunate distinction of the worst child poverty rate in Canada for the eighth year in a row and having the second-worst income inequality gap of any of the provinces, it's overdue for the provincial government to change systems that create barriers for courageous people like Chas Turley in their efforts to escape the cycle of poverty. I congratulate A Gathering of Nations organizers Barb Janze and Jody Tetrau and all of the volunteers.

CHILD CARE

L. Reid: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize and celebrate the month of May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. Every year in B.C. the B.C. government, families, child care providers, early childhood development specialists, professionals, community organizations and municipalities join together to commemorate this important month.

[1405]

It's about shining the spotlight on child care providers and the important work they do each and every day for young children and their families. These children are our youngest learners, and they are growing, learning and thriving, thanks in part to the dedication of child care providers across British Columbia.

The high quality of child care in this province is evident, and it definitely shines through when you walk through the doors of child care facilities. Child care providers in family child care environments and in group child care centres organize and offer an array of play-based learning activities for babies, toddlers and children.

Child care also gives young children a chance to interact and socialize with other young children, an important part of the early years. What this means for families is peace of mind. It means that parents can pursue career, education and training opportunities knowing their children are safe, happy and well cared for. We are very fortunate here in British Columbia to provide many options for parents ranging from large group-based child care to smaller family-based care.

Many child care programs are tailored to meet diverse needs. Aboriginal child care offers cultural programs for children to help them stay connected to their cultural roots, and programs are available for young parents who are still in school.

Child care providers and early learning professionals — caring, committed and skilled individuals who take on the important role of helping to care for our children — carry out their extremely valuable work throughout each year. The annual Child Care Awards of Excellence honouring child care professionals, organizations and local governments who have demonstrated outstanding service to children and families will be held on May 11 in Vancouver. The British Columbia government is also recognizing the invaluable service that child care providers provide by proclaiming May 17 as Child Care Provider Appreciation Day.

I ask that the members of the House join me in celebrating Child Care Month and the extraordinary work of thousands of child care professionals across our province.

RIVERS CONSERVATION WORK

OF MARK ANGELO

K. Corrigan: It's my great pleasure to pay tribute today

Page 11259

to Mark Angelo, who has recently retired from a prestigious career at the B.C. Institute of Technology. Mark was involved with river conservation and restoration efforts for over four decades. He established and was the inaugural chair of the Rivers Institute at BCIT and through that institute has worked with river-related organizations throughout the world.

Mark established B.C. Rivers Day back in 1980, and now World Rivers Day, which he still chairs, on September 25 involves 65 countries and millions of people. Mark has a special passion for our local waterways and was instrumental in restoring Guichon Creek at BCIT, which was essentially a severely damaged ditch but is now a classic example of urban stream restoration.

He's also been an advocate for streams such as Britannia Creek since 1975. He says it was a lonely cause back then. In early September of last year salmon returned to Britannia Creek for the first time in a century.

Mark has received both the Order of B.C. and the Order of Canada. For Mark, the formal career is over, but the work is not. I recently attended the amazing Water for Life Benefit Concert filmed by Global. Due to that success, Mark now has plans to make a documentary on river-related issues with a global reach, focusing on rivers lost, rivers saved and rivers restored.

I don't know how he's going to fit in time for his other loves, which include paddling and his family. Mark is one of those people who has changed and continues to change the world and the way we think about our rivers.

I will finish with a quote from Mark himself. He says: "Our waterways have so many values. They do so much for the quality of life that we all enjoy. They have these spectacular natural…and recreational values. So I think we have to do everything we can to ensure they're properly cared for."

Oral Questions

EUROPEAN TRADE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation — I got that right, hon. Speaker — with respect to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. This potential agreement has huge implications in provincial jurisdiction. I'm sure the minister will agree. The minister said last week: "Can't make any comment on CETA." He went on to add: "Love to do it, but you'd be talking to a new minister if I did."

[1410]

Now, as terrible as that prospect is for all of us to consider, I have happy news for the minister. The federal minister has said the provincial ministers can comment. Other provincial governments are commenting. So I wanted to ask the minister specifically on the generic drugs provision, on the prescription drugs provision, of the proposed CETA agreement: has the minister or has the government of British Columbia taken a strong position against those provisions, which would hurt public health care in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: The nature of the question that was asked of me last week was whether I could comment on the state of negotiations. There is a confidentiality agreement in place by those that are participating in those discussions, and it's not appropriate for us to talk specifically about the state of play with regards to the negotiations.

I can tell the member opposite that there are a number of issues that the province has represented a very strong position on. Pharmaceutical drugs would be one of those. Our position clearly is that we don't want to see any increased costs that would come as a result of an agreement of this nature.

We do think that this agreement is very positive for British Columbia. It can translate into literally thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of economic activity. We're hopeful that we'll see a conclusion to this agreement and that it will work for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: As the minister notes and will know, Don Drummond in Ontario has suggested that this agreement would wipe out any benefit to the changes made to generic drugs in that province. Those issues are otherwise before the House here, but I would also point out that we're talking about billions in increased health care costs over the next number of years. Is the minister saying that he will not support the agreement if changes are made that will hurt health care in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite, I would presume, would know that this is a federal government to European Union negotiation. The provinces were invited to participate and to advise the federal government. That's exactly what we're doing.

B.C.'s position on this issue is very clear. We don't want to see any incremental costs that are associated with that.

What the member opposite is referring to are proposals that may have transferred from the European Union back to our federal government. That's exactly what I am not permitted to discuss — the nature of those sorts of proposals. I'm happy to share with the member opposite the strength of our position as it relates specifically to pharmaceuticals, and there are some other positions that we've taken. I am able to share some of those.

However, the actual state of negotiations is under a confidentiality agreement, and I would not be able to comment on those.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a fur-

Page 11260

ther supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, what we're asking is the position of the government of British Columbia. The position of the government of British Columbia appears to be: "We don't like it if they damage public health care, but we won't do anything about it."

K. Krueger: Baloney.

A. Dix: You know, we had a public policy contribution from other members of the Liberal caucus there.

In any event, I think this is an absolutely critical question for public health care, one that other jurisdictions are dealing with. The minister and the Premier have promised that consultations would take place in British Columbia with British Columbians. They made a specific promise for that.

Is the government waiting — since it's not able to speak about anything here — until after the agreement is finalized and concluded before it starts to talk to British Columbians about something that could damage our public health care system?

Hon. P. Bell: The province of British Columbia has actually pulled together, from a number of different sources, the positions it's taken with regards to this negotiation, one of those being on pharmaceutical drugs. The position that we have is very clear on this. We don't want any new or incremental costs. We want to be able to manage our system, and that's the position we've taken forward to this negotiation.

The member opposite should know that under a governance model, the federal government has sole authority in negotiating with the European Union.

Now, I know the NDP opposed NAFTA when it was under negotiation. That's a free trade agreement that has generated enormous incremental benefit to British Columbians over the years.

[1415]

I think it is absolutely appropriate for B.C. to be at the table on this. I think it's very fortunate that we have a federal government that wants to work with us on this. What I'd really like to know is whether the members opposite have changed their position on free trade agreements or if they'd like to operate in a very small 4.4-million-population silo.

DISCLOSURE OF

INFORMATION ON EUROPEAN

TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

J. Kwan: Last June the Premier promised British Columbians that she would consult and that there would be public input into the CETA negotiations. A freedom-of-information request last summer revealed that the government had made no plans for such consultation. Now that there's self-imposed secrecy on the deal, can the minister tell this House how he's going to achieve the public consultation that the Premier had promised?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite should know that at the Union of B.C. Municipalities there was extensive discussion on the CETA agreement. It was very topical. It was one of the key areas that we talked about. We've also spoken with different levels of health professions about the potential for a CETA agreement, but all of the proposals that are being advanced are simply that.

For the opposition to again take a position on something that is under discussion — it's under negotiation — really shows the risk that would be associated with an NDP government. They're coming to quick conclusions on decisions that they have no idea of the implications of.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The UBCM event was actually hosted by UBCM, and I should say that UBCM also passed a resolution asking to be exempt from CETA, as did the BCSTA, the B.C. School Trustees Association.

The minister says: "The nature of the discussions are such that we are not at liberty to disclose the positions that the province has advanced to the federal government. That's the same for all ten provinces." That's what the minister said during estimates debate on April 17. Yet we know the Manitoba government has advanced its position. They're trying to protect their interests. They're doing it openly, and they're doing it accountably.

My question to the minister is this. If there is such a disclosure agreement, which the government says exists, will he actually table that disclosure agreement so that we can know who is trying to hide this information from the public? Is it this minister, or is it the Harper government?

Hon. P. Bell: That's almost comical. The nature of a confidentiality agreement is that you're not allowed to disclose the confidentiality agreement. I would think that the member opposite would understand that.

The Leader of the Opposition and the member opposite asked a very specific question with regard to the province's position on pharmaceutical drugs. I have disclosed that, and I've made it very clear what the province's position is. That has come as a result of discussions at various levels with different professions and with the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

We are fortunate to be at the table and being able to participate in this. That has not always been the case. I appreciate the federal government's willingness to let us engage in this discussion. I think it's an important one. What scares me is whether the opposition would consider that to be appropriate or whether they would just remove themselves from the discussion altogether, as they

Page 11261

did during NAFTA.

MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTS FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS RECIPIENTS

M. Karagianis: Persons with a disability in British Columbia often face various health challenges, and some are being denied support by this government, support that they very vitally need.

For example, a constituent of mine named Jolayne has several types of cancer, including breast cancer. Recently she found out that she needs a double mastectomy, but she is actually too weak for the surgery, and her spleen has been compromised in her health problems. Jolayne's doctor has determined that she needs supplements in order to build up her health so that she can, therefore, be ready for the surgery, but she has been repeatedly denied those supplements by this government.

I'd like the Minister of Social Development to please explain what the criteria are for getting supplements from her ministry.

[1420]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the members opposite will know, I can't speak to individual cases in this House due to confidentiality, but I would be happy to look into it and discuss it with the member in my office. As it relates overall to support for people with disabilities, the province provides income assistance clients with premium-free medical coverage and no-deductible PharmaCare through the Ministry of Health, which covers a range of medical needs and devices.

In addition to what's provided by the health care system, the ministry also provides additional help for individuals who are on persons with disabilities. Medical equipment and supply supplements do help to reduce serious health risks for some of those clients. Some examples of the things we do cover are canes, crutches, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, bathroom aids, foot orthotics, knee and hip braces. Certainly, the ministry covers a broad range of medical devices. But if the individual is not satisfied with the coverage being provided, I am more than happy to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I would be happy to follow up with the minister on the individual case, but this particular constituent actually wrote to both the minister responsible and the Premier.

I do want to draw the minister's attention to the reason that the request was denied for supplements. It was very interesting in reading this supplementary decision

summary. It says here: "Has a medical practitioner listed and described a severe medical condition?" In this case, yes. "Is the minister satisfied that as a result, the applicant is being treated for a chronic, progressive deterioration of health?" Yes. "Is the minister satisfied that the applicant is displaying two or more symptoms?" No.

It goes on to explain. The ministry accepted that the applicant has cancer but under "the significant deterioration of a vital organ," her spleen, the ministry says this: "The spleen is not a vital organ. It's possible to live without a spleen, although living without a spleen can stress other organs."

I think this demonstrates the most callous and heartless response to a woman with compromised health. So once again to the minister: why is the government denying people like Jolayne and other individuals living with compromised health vital things like supplements, which her doctor is demanding?

Hon. S. Cadieux: While I appreciate that the member opposite would like to use this House to discuss the specifics of individual cases, I won't do that. I have committed that I would be happy to look into that on behalf of the member and the client that she represents. But let's be clear. The Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Health do their absolute best to provide individuals who require assistance the assistance that they require.

All programs of government have criteria established to limit the scope of those programs. While sometimes that may appear arbitrary, there are good reasons for that. As it relates to the specifics of an individual's case, I am happy to look into it, but I am confident that the ministry is doing everything it can to support the individual.

C. James: Sadly, this isn't the only case where individuals have had to go public to try and get help. Last summer I worked with John Barna. John had cancer. He had to come to the opposition and the media to get the doctor-ordered supplements that he needed. He's an individual who is extremely ill. He needed the supplements in order to deal with a serious, life-threatening health condition.

My question is to the minister. Why do the desperately ill in British Columbia have to share their private stories publicly in order to get any help from this Liberal government?

[1425]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, while the members opposite may use this House to try to gain points around the very unfortunate cases of some individuals in this province who are going through what any of us would recognize as very difficult circumstances dealing with chronic or potentially fatal diseases, no one would wish that anyone was in those circumstances.

The Ministry of Social Development provides people who are eligible for disability assistance with a wide range of supports — both income supports, medical supports

Page 11262

and other supports. We do that to provide the best care that we can for individuals beyond what other programs and services may be available through the Ministry of Health in relation to medical needs.

Again, I won't speak to individual cases in this House. I will commit that if individuals are dissatisfied, they can approach my ministry and myself. We will look into the cases and ensure that we are providing everything we can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I want to read the quote from this minister's ministry once again. "The spleen is not a vital organ. It is possible to live without a spleen, although living without a spleen can stress other organs." If that's the best the Liberals can do and this minister can do, then we all are in trouble in British Columbia.

That is not compassion. That is not dealing with people who are seriously ill. We certainly discovered that when Mr. Barna, in the news last August, had to come forward to try and get supplements he needed to survive. The Minister of Social Development finally dealt with the case, but only after eight months. Eight months of fight by Mr. Barna — going to the media, going to the opposition, taking the issue forward, because the Liberals had to be embarrassed to do something.

The minister at the time said they would evaluate requests for assistance on a case-by-case basis. Well, that's why these cases are coming forward.

This is another case. Jolayne needs surgery for breast cancer and needs supplements to get her healthy enough for her life-saving surgery. Will the minister act for those individuals today in this House?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This government has acted in the best interests of people. In fact, the investments that we've made in our medical system and in supports to the B.C. Cancer Agency…. We now have the best cancer outcomes in Canada.

The member opposite is talking about individual cases. On an individual case-by-case basis, we do look into circumstances where individuals are requesting supplements of a non-medical nature, and we do our best to support individuals where we can.

SKILLED WORKER SUPPLY AND TRAINING

AND USE OF FOREIGN WORKERS

M. Elmore: The Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation says that employers can turn to the newly revised temporary foreign worker program when they are unsuccessful in filling vacancies in highly skilled occupations with existing B.C. workers. But where is the plan for B.C.'s young people and workers who need training?

Liberal cuts in advanced education and skills training budgets mean lost opportunities for young British Columbians and existing workers to fill such posts. Landed immigrants, highly educated and trained, remain on the sidelines because their credentials continue to go unrecognized.

[1430]

To the minister: why is the government not actively pursuing policies that expand B.C.'s skilled labour force?

Hon. P. Bell: The province is acting in significant ways to expand the opportunities, specifically around trades training but also technological services, also immigration, also post-secondary services. Under this government, we just recently announced the 8,759th trade certificate issued this year. That's 20 percent more than any other year on record and double what the NDP delivered during the 1990s in any year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Well, contrary to what the minister is claiming, we're seeing huge shortages in skilled workers, and we just haven't been able to meet the need here in British Columbia. Instead of focusing on skills training and recognizing the foreign credentials of B.C.'s immigrants, the Liberal government is planning on using temporary foreign workers as a band-aid fix for job vacancies.

The Liberals have cut advanced education and skills training. They haven't fixed the apprenticeship system to improve completion rates. There have been few measures to integrate highly skilled immigrants who choose to rebuild their lives in the province. Now we're importing workers, creating an unbalanced labour market environment with no policy to address structural unemployment or growing income inequality. It leaves our economy at risk and creates tensions between workers and between communities and employers that are counterproductive.

Will the minister explain why the Liberals are more interested in flying in temporary workers than in investing in programs that train our young people and skilled immigrants?

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, 8,759 — that's the number of credentials we issued last year. During the entire 1990s there was not a year when they did half of that. There is a very clear reason for that, a very clear reason. This government has developed an economy that's resulted in billions and billions — in fact, $60 billion — worth of major projects across northern British Columbia. We're training people for the trades of tomorrow. Those folks on the other side of the House didn't have an economy. That's why they didn't need to train people in the 1990s.

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING

N. Macdonald: Eleven years ago, as the pine beetle epidemic spread across the province's interior, the B.C.

Page 11263

Liberals decided (

a) not to replant, (

b) to cut forestry research, (

c) to not fully monitor the spread of the pine beetle epidemic.

Can the minister responsible for forestry explain why, after a decade, the B.C. Liberals still do not have an effective action plan in place for forestry communities to recover from the pine beetle epidemic?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is wrong. With over $884 million in investment in mountain pine beetle mitigation, we continue to work with communities across the region in putting mitigation programs in place through the pine beetle coalitions. That's an investment in those communities.

We're doing the timber supply analysis. We've undertaken that analysis through the timber supply areas. We continue to look at options to address the future of midterm timber supply. We're going to continue to work on those options. That's the appropriate response. We will continue to consult with communities, with workers, with First Nations in assessing those options across the communities in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Let's just review here. The Auditor General, the Forest Practices Board, the association of professional B.C. foresters all say that the forest inventory is hopelessly inadequate. We even have the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako hiring its own forestry consultant because it does not trust the provincial data.

[1435]

That is incredible. We actually do not know what the timber supply looks like, let alone wildlife habitat or riparian areas.

Will the minister explain to this House how the B.C. Liberals can make decisions about the future of our forest industry when they do not even know what our land base looks like today?

Hon. S. Thomson: We continue to make investments in inventory work. We continue to make investments in reforestation — $236 million in reforestation through the Forests for Tomorrow program; $46.3 million in the Forests for Tomorrow program this year alone, in inventory and reforestation work. We have staff dedicated to doing inventory work — $6.1 million and 24 full-time-equivalent staff doing inventory work.

The timber supply analysis work is being done through the region so that we can appropriately assess the options for responding to the midterm timber supply issues through that area.

As we said clearly last week, we will assess all of those options and will continue to consult with communities, with First Nations, with workers throughout that region and the public to ensure that we do a full analysis of all those options and provide the appropriate response in that region.

B. Routley: The B.C. Liberal approach to forestry in this province is absolutely baffling. At a time when more than two million hectares of forest land is not sufficiently restocked and communities are unsure about the future of their mills and their jobs, can the minister responsible for forestry please explain why the B.C. Liberals have delivered a budget that plans to actually cut $30 million from the silviculture budget over the next two years and why they have simply given up on the future of B.C. forest communities?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, we're looking at all the options for this region. Members on this side of the House understand the importance of those jobs. We understand the importance of those jobs for the workers, for the Steelworkers through that region. They are saying that we need to assess all the options going forward as we look to address the midterm timber supply impacts.

That's what we're doing. We're continuing to look at those options. We continue to build strength in communities. That's why, since 2001, we've increased community forests, from one to 56 community forests throughout the province.

We built capacity for First Nations participation in the industry. Now 15 percent of the annual allowable cut is in First Nations partnership. That's providing jobs and economic activity for First Nations across the province.

We will continue to work on assessing all those options, as I said. The analysis has been done, and we will continue to consult with all stakeholders in the industry — that includes the workers, the First Nations and the community — as we assess those options going forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: B.C. communities need a vision, a plan for the future of forestry and the future of forest communities. Yet on the coast of B.C. we see the Liberals intervening to keep B.C. logs from the local mills in favour of exporting jobs overseas, while in the Interior years of cuts to forest health are leaving communities with little hope of a future for forestry. We've lost tens of thousands of jobs under this government.

Can the minister explain why the Liberals still don't have a plan to add value to logs to maintain B.C. jobs?

[1440]

Hon. S. Thomson: So 7.3 million cubic metres of lumber exports. That's what's building jobs in British Columbia, the equivalent of 18 mills of production; 9,000 jobs created through a balanced diversification policy, balanced market diversification.

Just last week, in the riding of the member for

Page 11264

Columbia River–Revelstoke, $38.5 million invested by Canfor — $38.5 million. Reopening the mill in Radium, $1½ million into the mill in Canal Flats — that's creating jobs and protecting jobs in that riding. That's what the diversified-market approach that we have, working with the industry, is doing in British Columbia — 9,000 jobs and the equivalent of 18 mills in production.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will do second reading of Bill 35, intituled Pharmaceutical Services Act, followed by Bill 36, intituled School Amendment Act, 2012. Should we have time, we would then move to committee stage on the Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012, which is Bill 31, and then to Bill 32, intituled Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

In the little House this afternoon we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — PHARMACEUTICAL

SERVICES ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 35.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to wait just a moment, Minister.

Members, if you could hurry off to tend to your other business and a little bit of quiet in the House.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, moving second reading of Bill 35.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As I indicated in first reading, broadly speaking, two purposes are being pursued with respect to Bill 35. The first is to create a genuine legislative foundation or framework for B.C.'s PharmaCare program, and that's despite the fact that PharmaCare has been with us for many, many years — the first time that has been the case.

This act is designed to enshrine all of the provisions of pharmaceutical services for British Columbia, but enshrine it in legislation. That part of the act consists of PharmaCare provisions which already exist, such as the establishment of drug plans themselves, the ability to enrol beneficiaries and providers, the setting of a formulary and those sorts of things.

However, it goes further than that and also includes changes, such as giving the minister the ability to regulate drug pricing in the province. I'm going to speak a little bit more about that in a moment, that being the second component to what is being pursued here.

Firstly, a little bit about PharmaCare itself. I think most British Columbians would agree that we are fortunate to have an exceptional public drug plan — in fact, one that I would suggest to my colleagues in the chamber is one of the best in Canada. PharmaCare provides B.C. families with ready access to prescription drugs at affordable prices. To place that into some kind of context, I thought I would just take a moment to point out what that translates into for families.

[1445]

For families who earn less than $33,000, there is actually no deductible, and the ceiling on amounts that they would pay is $400. As income levels increase over time, those amounts are adjusted. For example, a family earning between $50,000 and $52,500 is responsible for a deductible of $1,000, and the maximum they would pay to cover drug costs is $1,500.

Now, that is not a trifle amount, to be sure. But contrasted with what some of the costs for certain drugs can be, it certainly eliminates the possibility that a family in those circumstances is going to find themselves in a position where they can no longer afford medication, which in some cases is required to preserve a quality of life or even to keep someone alive. Sometimes that is what the stakes are.

As family income increases, the amount they are being asked to contribute increases. For example, a family with an income of $106,000 to $118,000 is asked to contribute $3,375 to the costs of their drugs that they may incur. There is, similarly, a deductible of $2,500. So it's a sliding scale.

One of the reasons we think it's important to address the issue of the cost that is paid for drugs is to ensure that we have a sustainable PharmaCare program and that we are in a position to make some decisions, perhaps, about how to further assist British Columbians.

The interesting thing about all of this is that despite having a program that provides upwards of $1 billion worth of benefits, PharmaCare has existed as a series of plans under a regulation of the Continuing Care Act. Bill 35 will change that and, as I said a few moments ago, give PharmaCare the protection and the certainty that can only go with having it enshrined in a piece of legislation.

As I said, we spend over $1 billion on PharmaCare — taxpayers' money that is spent via this program. My guess is that that amount will continue to rise — an aging demographic that tends to live longer, healthier lives. That's good news. People are living longer, but there are costs associated with preserving quality of life and attending to their needs as they do live longer. In our society there is a dependence on medication, and we want to ensure that we have a program that will assist British

Page 11265

Columbians in accessing that legislation.

This then brings me to the second part of the bill and, in fairness, probably the part that will receive the greatest amount of attention. I'm sure there will be questions about some of the mechanisms that will be used to do this, and that relates to the cost and the pricing of drugs.

The first thing about that is the Pharmaceutical Services Act will consolidate all aspects of PharmaCare in the legislation. It will encode legislatively much of the policy that presently exists. There are provisions here for the enrolling of beneficiaries as well as pharmacies and others who provide services under the act.

There will be better tools, I would suggest to members of the House, for enforcement. This act has provisions for enforcing orders and administrative penalties and provides remedies that heretofore have not existed in the case of non-compliance either by a beneficiary or a provider, such that we have really been obliged to rely on contractual provisions and seek enforcement by resorting to contractual provisions.

There are also, members should know, provisions for management of personal information.

[1450]

But as I said a moment ago, the part about this act that I think attracts most of the attention is those provisions which provide the authority for B.C. to regulate and lower prescription drug costs and, in this case particularly, generic drug costs.

A very quick history. This government originally negotiated lower drug prices with the B.C. Pharmacy Association and the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores in July 2010. The objective was to drive the cost of those generic drugs downwards. Now, the House will know — certainly, the hon. critic will, I'm sure, point out — other provinces sought to accomplish this other ways, most notably Ontario, through the introduction of legislation, which itself attracted a fair degree of attention, and chose at that time to benchmark prices at a lower rate of 25 percent.

The decision was made in 2010, following in the footsteps of recommendations from a task force that had been assigned to analyze the situation, to negotiate an agreement with the parties, and particularly the pharmacists association, to achieve savings. That decision was not without some controversy. People rightly asked: "Why not just legislate, the way Ontario did?"

The short answer is because, confronted by the choice, the government's preference was to negotiate and come to an agreement around the savings that could be realized and be in a position to devote those savings to preserving the sustainability and perhaps even improving the services available under PharmaCare — all of that good, logical and worthwhile. One problem. The savings didn't materialize.

That became clear to me last year when I was provided with material indicating that the savings were not materializing to PharmaCare in the way that all of the parties had agreed that they should and would, despite repeated efforts and attempts to ensure that that would happen and to correct that fact.

We are talking about significant amounts of money, so I wouldn't want to leave the impression that we are talking here about small, insignificant amounts of money. The targets were missed by tens of millions of dollars, and that led to a series of discussions. I was not involved in all of them. I was certainly involved in some where the parties — the pharmacists association, generic drug manufacturers — were told in no uncertain terms that unless the provisions of the agreement dealing with these cost savings were realized, and unless the government could be certain and satisfied that they would be realized going forward, other steps would have to be taken.

I must tell you and the House, Madam Speaker, that by virtue of the bill having been introduced, we were not provided with that assurance in a way that gave the government the confidence necessary to move forward without the abilities created by this legislation to ensure with certainty that those savings are realized. So it was for that reason that the government provided to the signatories to the agreement notice that it would be terminated effective April 1, 2012.

Notice was provided in accordance with the terms of the agreement. I don't think there has been much secret about that. I think that members of the House are aware that that notice was provided. I certainly haven't been shy about indicating that legislation was being drafted to present to the House for its consideration.

[1455]

Our intention, of course — if the House chooses to pass this legislation, and I hope it will — is to lower generic drug prices to be in line with other jurisdictions. Now, when we began to have this conversation, I think it's fair to say that the benchmark deriving from Ontario is 25 percent. I understand from reports that they are seeking to go lower than that. In the committee stage debate I am certain that my friend the hon. critic will canvass in detail the mechanism by which those regulations will secure and achieve the certainty of lower generic drug prices.

I can say now that one of the reasons for providing the price-setting mechanism regulation is to ensure that there is the flexibility necessary to take account of changes that occur in the marketplace going forward. In short, whilst it clearly was not the government's intention at first instance to proceed legislatively, the fact that the agreement that was negotiated failed to realize the savings intended and agreed upon by the parties has placed us in a position where we, and I, believe it is the responsible and necessary thing to do on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The Pharmaceutical Services Act, Bill 35, I will suggest, paves the way for a sustainable future for PharmaCare

Page 11266

and for prescription drugs in British Columbia, and it will provide the government with a very important tool in ensuring that the cost of drugs in British Columbia is competitive and that British Columbians and British Columbia taxpayers who support PharmaCare have the confidence to know that they are sourcing those drugs at the most cost-effective way possible.

I know that during the course of second reading debate members of the House will share their opinions on this decision to introduce legislation and proceed on this basis, and I know at the committee stage of the debate there will be questions and a discussion about the specific mechanism by which drug prices will be set under the auspices of this act. I await the commentary from members of the House in this second reading debate with interest.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 35, the Pharmaceutical Services Act, an important piece of legislation that I think deals with one of the areas of our health care system that the public of British Columbia do cherish and are rightly proud of, and also concerned about its long-term future.

My colleague the Minister of Health mentioned that PharmaCare has been around for decades, and he is absolutely right. It has been around since the Dave Barrett government of 1972-75, and it was probably one of the most important initiatives that he undertook during that period.

It is designed to ensure that we have an affordable drug plan that meets the needs of families in the province of British Columbia, and it has done that since its inception. Now, a lot has changed since it was first introduced. The development of new types of drugs has been remarkable, particularly in the last 20 years.

As more and more research has gone into the development of drugs, as patents have gone off of old drugs and we have seen the emergence of a significant number of generics, the pharmacy has changed significantly from what it was in '72-75, but the bottom line has always been the same — that we want to have a PharmaCare program that meets the needs of British Columbians.

The other thing that's important to recognize is that the needs of British Columbians have changed over time. The minister alluded to a changing demographic. We are an aging population. We are a population that is more diverse than it was in 1975. We are a significantly larger population, and with those changes have come significant demands upon our PharmaCare system.

[1500]

One of the things that this bill seeks to do is to, in essence, codify in legislation the PharmaCare program as it exists right now, which is basically a collection of policies and regulations. We think that that is a good thing, and it's something that we will be supporting. We think that most British Columbians would support that.

As I said, the population has changed. Our demographic has changed. We can do far more with pharmaceuticals today than we could almost 40 years ago. One can just enumerate the areas where pharmaceuticals and advances in pharmaceuticals have made significant advances in our ability to treat illness, to prolong life, to create a better quality of life.

It doesn't matter whether it's in organ transplantation, where inhibitor drugs and anti-rejection drugs have played a significant role in our ability to make transplants successful and to extend the life of people receiving many different kinds of transplants…. In terms of the treatment of cancer, we have drugs today that were unimaginable 40 years ago and can not only treat and cure many cancers but extend the life of cancer patients.

All of these initiatives and all of these advances, though, have come with a cost. The growth in cost of pharmaceuticals has been quite significant. We spend in this province, I think, just over $1 billion a year right now on pharmaceuticals. It's something that is…. The cost is increasing on an annual basis more than the rate of inflation. About a third of that is currently spent on generic drugs.

Over time, that's going to increase. In fact, we may well be at the point — and we have been pretty close to it for some time now — where we do more in terms of pharmaceutical interventions than we are sometimes doing with traditional interventions, what people think of as invasive — that is, surgeries. That's how far the role of pharmaceuticals has come. It is a very important component of our health care system and one that deserves our attention.

Much has been made around costs, in our debate on health care over the past number of years, and pharmaceuticals, as I said, are clearly part of that. One of the things that governments of political stripes right across the country have wanted to do is to look at how we can contain those costs at the same time as providing the medications and the pharmaceuticals that British Columbians and Canadians expect.

One area has been the growth of generic drugs — a lower-cost alternative to a name-brand drug, for example. These are often developed as patents on traditional or older drugs wear off, and the marketplace comes in and is able to provide those medications.

But we need to have that supply of medications, and provinces are often at the mercy of the price that's charged for those medications. One of the advantages that we have as a province is the ability to, hopefully, in essence, take advantage of the sheer volume of medications and pharmaceuticals that we require to get a better price. Provinces have been looking at how we can deal with the issue of cost containment for quite some time.

The government engaged in an exercise, as the minister pointed out, trying to negotiate an agreement with the pharmaceutical association and the Canadian Association of Drug Stores, which resulted in an agree-

Page 11267

ment in 2010 that was to achieve a certain amount of savings over a number of years. In Ontario they decided to legislate in place an agreement that capped the price for generics at 25 percent. That was 25 percent of the name-brand alternative. So if a name-brand medication cost $10, then a 25 percent cap of that would mean $2.50. That would result in significant savings.

[1505]

Ontario legislated a cap of 25 percent. The province of British Columbia announced an agreement that would put that cap at 35 percent. At that time the opposition was concerned that the cap, the agreement that the government had put in place, would not meet its objectives, that there were a number of issues that would not allow those savings levels to be reached and that the agreement the government had put in place would not be as successful as the legislation that Ontario had put in place.

Two years down the road the Ontario government is looking at extending its agreement — of moving from a 25 percent cap to a 20 percent cap for the top ten drugs that are used in the Ontario pharmacare program. So they will be looking to get even further savings out of their pharmacare initiative.

That'll be one of the questions that we will be asking in committee stage. I'd just like to digress a moment and talk about that a little bit. The committee stage debate on this bill is going to be extremely important. The legislation that is before us, which we're debating at second reading, debating the principle…. One of the key things about this legislation is that its implementation will primarily be by regulation.

Regulation is not something…. While the nature of them is before the House, the detail of those regulations is still to be, in many cases, determined, I would expect, by cabinet and, perhaps, committees out of the Ministry of Health. Those regulations…. As is often said about legislation, the devil is in the detail.

The detail of those regulations, I think, will determine whether this legislation that's before us will, in fact, meet the needs and the expectations of the province and, certainly, those of us on the opposition side.

There are a number of questions around that. One is, for example, the 25 percent cap. Initially, my understanding was that the government was going to go to the 25 percent cap, that that was definitive. Now I'm hearing that that may be the goal of the government.

There are some issues around that. If it's a goal, how long are we looking at to achieve that goal, and why are we not moving to the 25 percent cap? The minister has correctly anticipated one of the questions that we will be raising around the 20 percent cap on the ten most used drugs in Ontario. Is the government planning on doing a similar initiative through this legislation here in B.C.? That's just one of questions that will be coming to mind.

The regulations are a crucial and key part of this bill. It is where, during the committee stage, we will be spending, I think, a fair bit of time, going through the regulations — how they're going to be implemented, the timeline for the implementation, the effect of those regulations, how they are being developed or have been developed — so that we can get a clear understanding of how this bill is going to work, and what the bill will, in fact, accomplish.

The minister has stated that the initial impetus of the previous policy, the agreement, was to achieve significant savings. The minister has stated that some tens of millions of dollars of savings that were anticipated were not met. I think it's important for the House to quantify that a little further.

For members of the opposition and, perhaps, members of the government's side who are not familiar with just how much savings we have not achieved over the last two years, research that was done here in British Columbia independent of government — and, I might add, independent of the opposition — at the University of British Columbia reported that B.C.'s agreement had cost taxpayers at least an additional $157 million per year compared to what had been done in Ontario.

Well, $157 million a year….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That is a lot of money, as my colleague the Finance critic points out. I'm always nervous when Finance critics or Finance Ministers go: "That's a lot of money."

With $157 million…. There are small countries that that budget could fund, but it could make an important difference in terms of the delivery of health care within British Columbia.

[1510]

Certainly, it could make an important difference in the types of services, the types of drugs that we are able to provide under our existing PharmaCare program, the type of support that would be available for families in British Columbia. Those are not small dollars that we're talking about.

I think it's important that the legislation that we are debating and the regulations that are put in place are able to meet those targets, able to meet what has been accomplished in Ontario, and do it in a way that meets the needs of British Columbia.

There are a number of other issues that I think, along with this, we've got to address. This legislation has had, and is receiving, comment from a number of sectors. One of the areas — and I've got a number that I want to address, to touch on, before I conclude my remarks — that is important and that we need to hear, I think, from the government on….

The reason the government is doing this particular piece of legislation is about making some cost savings — significant cost savings. One of the things that can impact on those savings is how this legislation is imple-

Page 11268

mented. I've talked a little bit about that in terms of the regulation and the details. Those are things the province has control over.

But other areas of public policy, other initiatives being undertaken by other levels of government, can also have an impact on this legislation. The one that comes to top of mind is CETA, the Canada-European trade agreement. I think the issue there is around patent extension and the potential impact it can have on the pharmaceutical industry in this country and thereby, through extension, British Columbia, and how those costs impact on our own provincial health care system.

Ontario, as we know, has made significant impact already. As I have said, they've enjoyed two years of savings already, significant savings. We've had two years of, I would say, failure in that regard, but this legislation is an opportunity to change that.

I would hate to see it undermined by the implementation of an agreement that could see, as Don Drummond, a highly respected economist who has been advising the government of Ontario on cost containment initiatives that they need to undertake…. Those savings in Ontario would be sucked up like a sponge because of the potential impact of the CETA agreement on our health care system.

I take what the minister said today in question period, in terms of that these are proposals and negotiations which are confidential. I do think it's important that we as a province recognize that if we're going to be putting in place legislation like this and we're going to be booking significant savings, that we are able to enjoy those significant savings and that we as a provincial government have an opportunity to allocate those savings to areas of public policy importance, particularly in the health care system.

My concern is that we as a province are standing up and making clear to the federal government that we are trying to do our

part in terms of addressing some of the cost pressures on our health care system and that the federal government needs to stand up and do its part and make it clear that while we value trade agreements with Europe, for example, they should not be done at the expense of our public health care system in the province of British Columbia or in the rest of the country.

I think that that is an important message that this government needs to communicate.

That's an area in which I think I'd like to hear the minister's comments, in terms of: has this government looked at the impacts of any potential issues around pharmaceuticals and the CETA agreement and how it would impact on British Columbia and, in particular, on this piece of legislation and the potential changes and the impact on the potential savings that we're looking to achieve? I would hope that there has been work done in that particular area.

[1515]

Another area that has been raised is issues around privacy and privacy concerns. As the minister is well aware, PharmaCare does collect a significant amount of data. When you read the legislation, particularly sections 22 through 29, under "Administration" — information management; around the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.... I think we will want to spend some time on that, to look at it and make sure that issues of privacy have been recognized by the government.

There will be some questions around the regulations, how they're going to be implemented and how they're going to be carried through. In terms of anonymized data, that's one thing, but for example, issues around personal data would be something completely different. That's another area we will be looking at within the legislation — as to how this bill will work and how it will be implemented.

Another key area — I think it's a very crucial area that we need to recognize — is that this legislation also deals with a number of practices that are prevalent, that occur within the pharmaceutical industry and that are addressed within the legislation. In the particular bill it comes under

part 3, "Price Regulation."

Section 20 deals with, appropriately enough, price regulation.

Section 21 deals with the issue of incentives. Again, this is another issue that we need to look at thoroughly if we are going to see how this legislation will be successful and achieve the goals that the government wants it to.

The practice of incentives is something that is fairly common, whereby pharmaceutical companies can offer a discount, as it's referred to, to carry particular brands of drugs at the expense of other brands of drugs. That can be, and is, a significant cost driver within our PharmaCare pharmaceutical system. I think it's something that needs to be addressed.

Clearly, it appears that the government is anticipating addressing it in this particular piece of legislation. I think what's important, again, is that we know what those details are and get some sense of the government's thinking on how the regulations will be formulated, whether or not there has been consultation on that, whether the government has some policy objectives already in place, what the timelines are, what their thinking is and when the regulations will in fact come into force.

I know, from my own experience around the cabinet table and from having served in this House for some time, that often when legislation is debated, it's examined at committee stage, and it receives royal assent. But unless those regulations are in fact proclaimed, they don't have any force. So that, again, is also an important area that we need to look at.

The issue of incentives is something…. Doing away with them is what I think I get out of this particular piece of legislation, but I'll be looking for confirmation on that from the minister. I think that that's a crucial area that needs to be looked at.

Finally, I want to conclude my remarks by recognizing

Page 11269

that our PharmaCare system has a very broad base to it. It's complex; it's not simple. It's something that has been around now for almost 40 years. The pressures on it are…. There's no one single pressure that causes challenges. I mean, yes, demographics is one. Yes, inflation within the pharmaceutical industry is another. Usage is another. How prescriptions are prescribed is another. The types of drugs that are approved for the different formularies are all…. There's a whole series of different pressures.

[1520]

I think what's important to recognize is that this particular piece of legislation is one component of how we deal with the issues and the challenges facing us with our PharmaCare program — which people cherish and that we want to see be around for a very long time, meeting the needs of the people of this province.

Other areas that we have dealt with in the past…. One, for example, is reference-based pricing. Blood pressure medication is the most common category of drugs that's dealt with by reference-based pricing, for example. That's an area of public policy that the government may or may not be looking at, in terms of future considerations.

The Therapeutics Initiative, something that was started by the previous NDP administration — which sadly, I think, the current administration, the current government, has undermined and rendered a mere shadow of its former self. The Therapeutics Initiative — which was recognized by, I think, the Harvard Medical School as a model for drug efficacy and approval processes that could be followed by other jurisdictions — is an area where we could make significant improvements in our PharmaCare system.

Other concepts, such as academic detailing, whereby physicians are educated about drugs not just by pharmaceutical companies but by people within the Ministry of Health, are also potential initiatives.

The bottom line is this. This is potentially an important piece of legislation — if it is done right, if we have regulations that are designed to make it work. If we do that, then we can have something that I think will be supported by this side of the House, as well as the government.

I do think there are a lot of questions, though, that have to be answered, and we'll be dealing with that, as I said earlier in my remarks, in committee stage of the bill. I look forward to that.

I look forward to also getting a sense from this government on what consultations, if any, have gone into the development of this particular piece of legislation, because I do think that that's important as well. You know, there have been concerns raised by the pharmaceutical association. There have been concerns raised by individual pharmacists. There have been issues raised by the Privacy Commissioner. We need to have a thorough examination of all those issues during the committee stage of the debate.

With that, I think I am probably close to my 30 minutes of allotted time. I look forward to hearing comments of my colleagues on both sides of the House. At the appropriate time, when the debate is finished and we've had a vote on this piece of legislation — which we will be supporting, certainly, at this particular stage — I look forward to the committee stage, where we can get a number of the questions answered by the minister.

With that, I take my place.

N. Letnick: I'd like to thank and congratulate the Minister of Health for introducing this very important piece of legislation into the House today, and also to thank the government for bringing this forward. My last thank-you is to the opposition critic for Health for his announcement that the opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation.

The opposition critic is correct when he says that health care is a complex system. It kind of reminds me, sometimes, of those child toys — kind of a rubbery toy where you push in one side of the toy and something pops out in another piece. You push that back in and something else comes out.

It's a complex system, and therefore, with any complex system, you have to come up with usually very intricate answers and solutions to solve problems. It's not good enough just to assume that one little piece will fix everything. I would just like to reiterate that with health care, that definitely is the case.

[1525]

What we see here is a government that was courageous and is courageous in trying something new. They tried something new by negotiating, coming up with a solution that worked in a collaborative way with the industry, hoping that within a reasonable amount of time the government would realize savings in generic drug prices that it could pass on to other areas of that complex system called health care or, perhaps, reduce the growth in the costs of health care so that we could have more money to continue to fund other programs that government is responsible for.

When the government found that the goals that were supposed to be achieved by that collaboration were not, I thought it was very courageous, as I said before, for this government, under the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Health, to come forward and say that we need to take a different look at this. We need to approach this in a different way.

We need to make some changes and make sure that we continue to deliver on a top-notch Fair PharmaCare program and a health system but at the same time look for a new way so that we can achieve those goals that we've set for ourselves regarding the cost of generic drugs. Therefore, the government has come up with a proposal called Bill 35, the Pharmaceutical Services Act, which I stand here to support.

Page 11270

Not only does the Pharmaceutical Services Act help health care, but all of our publicly funded health care system gives us a competitive advantage. When we look worldwide at how much health care costs our competitors to deliver products that we compete with, right here in British Columbia — thanks to our publicly funded health care system and to British Columbia's PharmaCare program — those costs are built into the tax base for the most part.

Therefore, it provides our companies and individuals the opportunity to take risks, to be entrepreneurial in creating new jobs, new industries and new businesses that employ people and, of course, improve quality of life. That comes as a big part of our very affordable tax structure that we have in this province, matched with our very, very affordable health care program covered by the Canada Health Act and delivered by this government.

The pharmaceuticals act that's being proposed here is perfectly in line with that complex system, which will allow for government to deliver not only the important health care services that we do deliver to our citizens — everything from acute care hospitals to primary care in the community, home care to ambulance services and other services that we pay for through our tax dollars — but also to make sure that when someone is in need of affordable, lower generic drug prices and they qualify under the plan, they can have access to those drugs at a cost that we all can afford as British Columbians. That is the crux of the bill.

PharmaCare currently operates a series of plans under the Continuing Care Act. This means that this complex, over $1.1 billion — I believe, currently — program was essentially run from policy only. This policy-based approach no longer meets our needs when it comes to effectively managing the program's agreements. Therefore, enforcing its policies or controlling its costs is problematic.

So the Pharmaceutical Services Act is an historic piece of legislation, and by enshrining the best public drug plan in Canada into law, it provides tools that will allow us to ensure prescription drug costs will remain sustainable for future generations.

As we all know, there are many challenges to sustainability in our publicly funded health care system, everything from the cost of our human resources — in terms of costs for staff and for fee-for-service physicians — to the costs of drugs that are escalating and the cost of new technologies — and a big part of that is the drugs. Also, there's the cost of delivering care in the home, care at the end of life, care in long-term care facilities and the capital costs associated with all of these parts of a very complex system.

It's important for us to continue to look at change and innovation, wherever possible, that will drive the tax dollars as long and as effectively as possible so we can continue to provide excellent service that looks for improvements as we continue to age through the next 25 years and beyond.

[1530]

This is one piece of a very complex puzzle. Government, again, I believe, should be congratulated for looking at how well the previous agreement was working and deciding that it's not quite working to our standards, and therefore, we're going to take the politically courageous decision and make some change and look for those efficiencies.

This legislation will bring more effective management and reinforce our commitment to provide affordable PharmaCare for British Columbians. PharmaCare is the only public drug plan in Canada that currently does not have supporting legislation. After this legislation gets passed, you'll see that it is now in line with the rest of the country.

Beneficiaries — and this important for people listening at home who are on Fair PharmaCare now — will experience a seamless transition of PharmaCare to this act and will not have to reregister or change their PharmaCare account in any way. The services and the practices will be better managed and protected, with considerable savings for British Columbians, and in a seamless way that will benefit each and every one out there.

Now, just some brief statistics on the numbers, and then I will cede the floor to the members of the opposition. As of April 2, 2012, generic drugs cost 35 percent of their brand-name price in B.C. This act will allow our government to further lower drug prices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions. For example, generic drugs currently cost 25 percent of brand-name drugs in Ontario. The Ontario government has signalled that they may reduce prices for some generics down to 20 percent.

The savings will apply to all British Columbians through this program, whether they are covered by PharmaCare, an employee union-paid drug plan, or they are paying for drugs out of their own pocket.

With the leadership of this government, there will be benefits beyond those just on PharmaCare. It will be, of course, in our hospitals, by seeing the cost of running hospitals come down. The cost of businesses will also improve, or at least be sustained, by seeing that our cost of health care as a whole is able to be accommodated within our tax regime.

For example, the current costs, not including standard pharmacy fees, of a 30-day prescription on the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor is $55 for the brand-name drug. The cost of the generic version today is 35 percent, or about $10. In another example, if the province were to lower the generic drug price to 25 percent, it would cost $14. A drop to 20 percent would bring down the cost to $11. That's quite a significant savings on one drug, one service only.

We need to expand that to the broader health system, which will also benefit from the savings that can be re-

Page 11271

invested back into lower drugs for everyone, reinvested back into pharmaceutical services and medication treatments — and then, of course, continue to protect both remote and rural pharmacies as we do that.

In conclusion, I'd like to repeat that this is a bill that will allow government to put into law what is currently in law in the rest of the country. It is a bill that will help the government continue to fund a sustainable, strong, publicly funded health care system in this province that will be second to none in the country. It will be a benefit not only to the people who qualify under Fair PharmaCare, those who pay for their own drugs or have insurance for drugs but also will help us to maintain our competitive advantage over many of our competitors from around the world.

In the end, if we have strong businesses and strong individuals who pay their taxes, that will flow right back into making sure we have a strong, healthy, expanding health care system that can provide more and more services at a higher and higher quality for the citizens we serve.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking, and I look forward to supporting the bill when it comes forward in the near future.

G. Gentner: I rise to quasi-support this bill until we finally find out what the final details are. It's quite extensive, Bill 35, the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

I'm quite honoured by the fact that I'm following the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Health. It's been an interesting journey we've been involved in. One of the big issues we've been discussing on that committee has been that of escalating costs. Of course, we keep hearing about the senior tsunami, but we also know that pharmaceutical drugs are escalating. After all, we do live, like it or not, in a drug culture.

[1535]

It's quite amazing, what's happened to us. We hear about the stories of OxyContin and prescribed drugs. Particularly, I think, for some sectors of society, prescribed drugs are the choice of suicide for many. This is a beginning, I believe, of a legislative approach, a framework, for PharmaCare and other things that, until now, have been governed primarily by policy and regulation. I think it is the right step. The devil is in the details, which we will find during committee stage.

The member from Coquitlam had mentioned before that the provincial drug program known as B.C. PharmaCare has been established. It was mentioned before, of course, that Premier Dave Barrett and his government introduced it way back in the 1970s. What a breath of fresh air that was for many, including my father and many others, to know that in their retirement years there was something they could fall back on to get them through those uncertain times.

The bill, of course, establishes and maintains regulations, establishes and maintains certain drug plans. It's quite extensive in that I think the most important part of the bill, which we seem to forget, is its effectiveness to provide cost-efficient drugs and the safety of a prescribed drug as well. It's also necessary to allow information respecting a drug, and what the substance is, from a manufacturer and a supplier. I think those types of establishments are important.

I also know that it's important to get bang for your buck, particularly with the rising costs of drugs. In particular, under

section 3(2)(f), "if 2 or more drugs, devices or substances have different compositions or means of administration or use but have essentially the same therapeutic objectives, treating the drugs, devices and substances differently...." That is referring to: "The minister may do anything the minister considers necessary or appropriate for the purposes of establishing and maintaining…." That's sort of the premise of much of the good work that may be seen in this bill.

There are some interesting parts in this that I welcome the government to entertain, and that's

section 32, the whistle-blower protection part. Hopefully, there are some areas there that we can explore during committee. "A person must not dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage another person, or deny another person a benefit, because…." And it goes on to quantify what that means. I think there are some good starts here. I think we have to pursue it step by step, and we'll do that in committee stage.

To discuss this bill you can't help but look into your own personal life and how you've been affected by pharmaceutical drugs and, in particular, the generic aspect.

I remember a few years ago when I was in Africa, in Tanzania, that I was quite literally blown away by India. India has pharmaceutical factories, if you will. It was amazing to me how a great percentage of those generic drugs had to be used in certain states of Africa. It was a donation made by the state of India as a means of foreign policy. Had the African states not had that type of foreign help, they would be in a very dire situation.

You think of drugs. You don't really think where they come from, but these types of pharmaceuticals, particularly generics, are very much a part of the economy of the developing world. But it has changed. The world has changed regarding the development of drugs, pharmaceutical prescribed drugs. We think about the good old days and the penicillin days when Fleming invented penicillin. Banting, I believe, was a Canadian who invented or helped invent insulin.

[1540]

There it was done through altruistic means. There wasn't a price put on it, per se, because it was invented for the best of humanity.

In today's world, in the multi-billion-gazillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry, young minds are snapped up out of university before they're even pretty well graduat-

Page 11272

ing, to help pharmaceuticals and for pharmaceuticals to make money. Of course, any of you that have RRSPs or pension plans know that we are invested in pharmaceuticals as well. So there is that big debate about the public good versus that of private interests, which I'm going to touch upon shortly.

The thing that comes to mind, for me, is a personal story I have to share with the House. When I was young, my mother died. She was given, back then, a certain type of digitalis to keep her alive, and we really couldn't afford the drugs.

Back then it was $150 a month for this powder my mother had to use to keep her alive. I remember it well because my father…. We had no PharmaCare or medicare or any means. My father had to hold down three different jobs. He was a carpenter; he had one job. He moonlighted, and because he had to find the money for the digitalis, he had to find illegal means to make money. Therefore, the government didn't make money off of taxes because of it. He also played in a band late at night in the Legions to pay for this drug.

Consequently, the family…. There are three of us. I was the oldest. At the age of nine and ten, we basically had to look after ourselves because my father was working 70, 80 hours a week. For me it was a scar psychologically, and it's probably one of the reasons why I'm on this side of the House. At a very young age I saw what the social democrats were doing in the country in the Tommy Douglas years, and Dave Barrett. They were putting the interests of the public and those of the needy, particularly those who had medical needs, ahead of the interests of pharmaceuticals and the private medical system.

I was talking to my dear friend next to me. It's why I'm approaching it in this way. We were talking briefly about some seniors who have to line up their drugs on the counter. Now, perhaps $1,000 a month to get by — huge costs, huge implications. For those who may have Blue Cross and those who have a plan, they can get by. But I think about, in particular, some of the elderly — the single women, for example, whose husbands may have gone, the medical plan is no longer the same, and who have a fixed income and are going day by day trying to exist.

It's for those people, those particular people and those who are vulnerable, that we have to support a legislative framework that guarantees an equitable approach to PharmaCare for all British Columbians. For that I have to applaud all the history that's gone before us to get to this point and the rethink and re-examination of the government itself, who I think was on the wrong road up until recently and has now re-evaluated the need for a plan that we can be, hopefully, proud of.

The bill will allow the government, through subsequent regulations, to control the price of generic drugs in British Columbia. This will affect the price paid by the B.C. government, employer- and union-sponsored drug plans and individuals. So it has a wide-sweeping approach for those who can afford it and those who may not be able to afford it.

The impetus of this legislation is, I think, in many ways the original failure of the government, who expected to achieve some savings. Namely, that was generated some time ago by…. In 2007 the Liberal government started what was known as the Pharmaceutical Task Force, and it took those recommendations, and I think those recommendations took the government. It was a folly approach.

[1545]

One minister, who's now the Minister of Finance — he stayed in the House at the time — said: "I want to make sure I get it right…to examine the pharmaceutical policy." He went on to support it. But as it's turned out, as the previous member has mentioned, it's cost us a whole whack of extra money that we didn't think it would necessarily cost.

Under estimates, I've gone back and looked at the record, including some of the statements made by the then Minister of Health who is now the Minister of Education, who was also very much in support of the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Task Force. He went on to say that we could save about a billion dollars annually on pharmaceuticals. "Are we getting the best deal yet?" Yes, we can by following the task force.

So it was an interesting debate. I was here at the time, and I remember it well. But what was driving that — which is maybe a new culture that is emerging here in the Legislature — of course, were the recommendations from the task force. The task force that the government was listening to was that of private interests, not that of the interests of perhaps children, myself or those who are in need and needed inexpensive means to drugs.

Nine people were appointed on the task force, including Mr. David Hall, chief compliance officer, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals; Susan Paish, chief, Pharmasave Drugs National; and Russell Williams, president of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. RX&D was also part of…. The list went on and on.

The interesting thing back then is that all the donations at these same companies also were found to have been given to the B.C. Liberal Party at the time. Angiotech, a member, gave the Liberals $2,900 one election. Another drug company, GlaxoSmithKline; Wyeth Canada; and Pfizer Inc. — $6,200, $5,400 and close to $4,000, respectively. So on and on it goes.

That's what has driven, up until now, a PharmaCare system that was governed by, basically, policy and regulations as opposed to a regulatory legislative framework, which I think both sides of the House will be able to work towards.

So I think that there's maybe been a change, a shift, here. I'm hopeful that we're going to be on the right path. Again, through third reading, I think we will be able to explore it further.

The Health Minister has mentioned that…. Of course,

Page 11273

we were very critical of the 35 percent price cap at the time. In September of that year the Minister of Health, I think, admitted then that the deal had fallen short of its anticipated savings targets. The ministry officials believe that they had lost $46 million. I think that was per annum. Hopefully, the minister can correct me, and we'll get some of those details.

There was a failure of the old approach. Therefore, here we are today. The bill presents the opposition with the opportunity to look at that failed record. Any analysis is a comparative analysis, so we can look at what's happened before and where we are today.

Ontario was the lead in 2010. We believe that if we are going to save, looking at that model, $157 million per year…. This is going to be implemented, I believe, curiously enough, just before the next election. So be it. If you do the math, I think we would have saved close to half a billion dollars had we implemented this much earlier, rather than the charade that was called the Premier's conversation on health and all that other stuff that we were involved in.

Now, the government has yet to achieve the same savings as Ontario has. The minister has said that the government will aim for a reduction of 25 percent by April 2013. I have to put parentheses or quotations around "aim."

That's the goal, but I don't know how driven the ministry and the province will be when we've heard a similar promise relative to a need for a seniors advocate, which was going to be done before the next election. We're still waiting for that. We'll see if they will comply and drive home the view about fulfilling the reduction of 25 percent — more than just being an aim of the government.

[1550]

Ontario recently has lowered the price again for the top ten generic drugs by 20 percent of their brand-name equivalents. I think it goes on to say that this will be, hopefully, a gradual approach by the government and that the government will go further than what it has today and find further cost savings. We'll find out whether or not those are real dedications.

The minister, really, has failed, I believe, to commit to banning the practice of drug companies offering pharmacies rebates to carry their products, which is a significant cost driver. From a consumer perspective, I think that's wrong. It's a kind of form of bribing, where you push our product before the next and there's something there for the pharmacy. I think that's not being genuine. I think it lacks integrity.

I think the cost should be a one-time cost. It should be on the shelf. I don't think that people should be somewhat bribed to carry a certain product, particularly when that product is there to save somebody's life. I think that's ethically and morally wrong. Ontario is on its way. I ask the minister to re-examine that. Maybe, perhaps, we can do better.

Also, on the privacy situation. I will be looking, like all of us, to see where we're going to go with that one in committee stage. It has some implications. Hopefully, it'll be spelled out to us. We know that with e-health and where we're going, there are obviously some concerns.

The bill looks at…. Let's look at two studies that showed…. I think the recent study done by Statistics Canada regarding the 2010 survey of household spending shows that B.C. residents had the highest average health care spending, at $2,680 per year — 22 percent above the Canadian average.

When we talk about pocketbook issues in this province, it resonates. We know what happened with the HST — the implementation and how wrong it was. We know that MSP, for many families, is going through the roof. We know hydro rates are going up. People are probably resonating more today with what is happening to their pocketbook than probably any other issue, and for good reason.

It costs money to live here. When we see we have one of the highest household expenses when it comes down to mortgage, your rent, your shelter, the food and now, of course, the cost of drugs…. People are very concerned.

Again, going back to my social democratic perspective, I look at the good work of people like Tommy Douglas. He brought it home to all of us that there is a difference between equality and equity. Equity or the lack of it can make sure that you lose that opportunity. Everybody who is ill should be treated the same way whether they have the same income or not.

I think that this is a telling tale, where we have the highest cost of drugs. Those who cannot afford them should still be given the opportunity. This bill will weigh the importance of good generic drugs that will cost quite a bit less than the expensive pharmaceutical brand drugs. We have a form within this bill that will allow the ministry to do the right thing and ferret out what is an effective drug for those who need it.

Also, in January the CMA Journal published a study that showed that 17 percent of British Columbians cannot comply with prescription drug treatments because they are too expensive, and that is way beyond the national average.

Those two studies are clearly showing British Columbians and all of Canada that we lag far behind. Hopefully, now with this new commitment by the government and also, perhaps, with some changes to legislation that may be forthcoming, we could together make this a better place to live in British Columbia.

[1555]

Briefly, what was talked about was CETA today. The bill looks at…. I think it's another example of how this government is lacking the fortitude it should muster relative to dealing with Canada and the provisions of CETA.

I know the minister during question period said that there's a confidentiality agreement, and specifically that

Page 11274

we're dealing with the federal government. The federal government is the one that provides, through the Canada Health Act, these types of changes, and the outcomes will be forthcoming. But you know what? The province should be standing up. I think the guy should be standing up, and I think it should be transparent what the potential result of CETA could be on the cost of generic drugs.

I think, too, that there are more implications here than just one trade agreement. I mean, have we flushed out what the consequences are to TILMA — the sort of even playing field between buying generic drugs or pharmaceuticals in one province versus another? I'd like to know, hopefully through the committee stage, what the implications are for all trade agreements — not just what CETA is about; the new agreement with Saskatchewan, for example.

How's that going to affect us when we're looking for a lower cost from generic drugs from within the pharmaceutical industry?

Finally, I just want to end by talking about what the minister said earlier. I want to go back to the problem we're having or had with the previous policy — of, shall we say, not the legislating framework but that of policy and basically make it up as you go type of approach.

The minister said: "We negotiated an agreement on the basis of a certain set of expectations, savings to be sure, to PharmaCare and to the purchasers of drugs in B.C., and they have not been realized."

It took a lot of pounding the desk over the years for the government to realize that it had gone the wrong way. The government's expected to save $70 million over two years. I think, with proper negotiation, that could be realized way beyond that. The minister said: "We're about $46 million short. That can't continue, and it won't continue."

There is a problem with politics and politicians. We get stubborn. We never want to admit that we made a mistake. That's not part of the game. But this is what this bill does, and kudos to the government for turning it around.

We're looking at prescription drugs as a major expense for British Columbia. B.C. spent close to a billion dollars on drugs in the fiscal year of 2010-2011, and some $325 million of that was for generics. That tells you how important this legislation can be, because it may be very effective in realizing not only cost savings but better and hopefully more transparent access through the whistle-blowing part of the legislation — a better approach.

I'm not a purveyor of good news on the government very often, but I do believe we're moving in the right direction. Mistakes have been made. I'm hopeful that for all British Columbians, we will realize a PharmaCare system that goes beyond just ignoring people's incomes and having that at play but realizing that we need a PharmaCare system that looks after the general population, regardless of income.

C. Trevena: I'm very happy to stand here and to talk to Bill 35, the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I think among my colleagues that there are going to be a number of us from this side of the House who want to speak about this important piece of legislation — important because we all care very much about our health care system. We're all concerned about how it's operating and all very well aware of the impact of the cost of drugs on that health care system. It's a phenomenal amount. Approximately a billion dollars are spent on drugs for the health care system, which is quite an extraordinary amount of money.

[1600]

What this bill does is really provide a legal framework to be put around PharmaCare. I think it was actually recognized by the minister and talked about by other members from this side of the House that PharmaCare, brought in almost 40 years ago now by the then Barrett NDP government, is something that has had a huge impact on B.C. I think it's something — really is something — to be extraordinarily proud of. In fact, the Minister of Health described it himself in his opening remarks in second reading as an exceptional public drug plan. I think we'd agree that it is an exceptional plan, and exceptional plans can only be improved upon.

One of the ways that it can be improved upon is looking at how people can actually have access to the drugs at an affordable price. There are different ways that people do get access in different parts of the system, with rebates and so on. But it's to ensure that they are getting the drugs at a fair price.

The bill that we're discussing at the moment — all the bills have the explanatory note — talks about the collection of personal information, which we've talked about a little; changing some of the acts to make this streamlined; ensuring that there is support for the provincial drug program; and authorizing a legislative framework to govern the provincial drug program, commonly kn