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)

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Day of the Honeybee

Hon. D. McRae

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Bike to Work Week

S. Chandra Herbert

Day of the Honeybee

J. Les

Burnaby school district

K. Corrigan

Manning Innovation Award nominees

L. Reid

100 th anniversary of French Creek School

S. Fraser

50 th anniversary of Trinity Western University

M. Dalton

Oral Questions

Government position on cosmetic pesticides ban proposal

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Government planning committee for Burnaby Hospital

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Rebates for home energy retrofits

M. Sather

Hon. R. Coleman

Prevention of homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. C. Clark

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, annual report, 2011-2012

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2011

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2011

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2010-2011

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2011

Petitions

M. Farnworth

B. Simpson

Motions Without Notice

Referral of Insurance Act revision to Parliamentary Reform Committee

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 35 — Pharmaceutical Services Act

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

D. Routley

J. Kwan

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Pharmaceutical Services Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

M. Sather

J. Brar

S. Simpson

[ Page 12429 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: It is my pleasure today to welcome guests from the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, now known as the chamber. Today in the gallery is Lisa Wong, the chair; Howard Harowitz, director, chair of the policy and advocacy committee; Gerard Edwards, director, chair of the international committee; Craig Jones, executive director.

The Richmond Chamber of Commerce was established as a society in 1925, originating as a board of trade. Today the Richmond Chamber of Commerce represents over 1,150 companies from across many diverse industries and professions.

It was our pleasure today to join these individuals for lunch. My colleagues from Richmond Centre and Richmond-Steveston and I would ask the House to join with me in making them unbelievably welcome to our chamber.

[1335]

C. James: I have a very important member of my extended family in the gallery to introduce today. She very kindly and generously shared the care of her brother with our family for over 20 years. I knew I shouldn't look up. Although Norman is not with us anymore, he will always be a very, very special part of our family forever, as Bobbi will.

She was also a civil servant for many years in Victoria. She's since retired, and she's loving retirement and looks fantastic, so I highly recommend it to a number of people in this Legislature. Would the House please make Bobbi Mitchell very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson and I were very honoured to have as our guests at lunch four Kamloopsians visiting us. Today in the House we have Rachel Lammers, Ryan Scorgie and Tom Eaves, who are outstanding representatives of the legal profession in Canada's tournament capital, and also Percy Folkard, who is an agrologist with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture in Kamloops. Would the House please join us in making them very welcome today.

H. Bains: Visiting us all the way from Kelowna is the couple Dayleen Van Ryswyk and Eduard Van Ryswyk, who run a koi farm in Kelowna. They are here to watch the proceedings of this House. Actually, they are here to draw the attention of the Minister of Transportation. Hopefully, the minister will pay attention to their needs. Please help me welcome the couple here.

Hon. S. Cadieux: After just a little over three years in this House, I have the opportunity today to welcome my husband to the Legislature. My husband, Daniel Cadieux, is in the gallery for the first time, and I hope that everybody will make him very welcome. He certainly is.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see in the House, joining us today in the gallery, is a good friend of mine, a good friend of our caucus and a constituent, Mr. Ian Reid. We miss his deft touch, his analysis, but I also really miss his sartorial splendour. I'm wearing one of his ties today, as a way to honour his being here. Somehow it went missing, Ian. I'm sorry. Here it is. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Statements

DAY OF THE HONEYBEE

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, if you may indulge me for two seconds here as I make my introduction. Honeybees have played an important role in B.C. agriculture since they were introduced to America by European settlers hundreds of years ago. Today, on this Day of the Honeybee, I'd like to recognize B.C. beekeepers who work hard to protect their colonies from environmental conditions and diseases that can affect honeybees.

The Day of the Honeybee was founded by a gentleman by the name of Clinton Shane Ekdahl, a beekeeper who wanted to acknowledge the critical role that honeybees play in our food system. He chose May 29 as it is the day Sir Edmund Hillary, an avid beekeeper and mountain climber, first conquered Mount Everest.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to introduce in the gallery today Barry Denluck, a local beekeeper who is the president of B.C. Bee Breeders Association and co-president of the Capital Region Beekeepers Association. He's accompanied by Evelyn Shaw. The association recently announced a new bee swarm hotline, which they are hoping to build a stronger bee community with. We as British Columbians can help improve local bee habitat by planting bee-friendly plants that support many different bee populations. Please make Barry and Evelyn very welcome.

G. O'Mahony: I'd like the House to acknowledge a visit from Mount Cheam Christian School, in particular two classes. Grade 7 and grade 11 had the opportunity to tour the Legislature today, and after this session I have the honour to meet with the grade 7 class, under

[ Page 12430 ]

the teacher Ron Neils and the parents Kareen Neils, John Klopp, Henry Klopp and Jessica Kerkoff, who graciously volunteered to help make this event possible. Would the House please make them all welcome.

N. Letnick: In the House today we have Andrew Powell. Andrew is a constituent of mine. He used to be a constituent of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Like many of us in this House were, Andrew is active in student politics, including a couple of stints trying out for city council. Also, he was president of the Theatre Kelowna Society, I think, for three years. Would the House make him duly welcome.

[1340]

J. Les: In addition to the introduction from the member for Chilliwack-Hope, I would like to point out that the grade 7 class from Mount Cheam Christian School includes my niece, Amy Lindhout, and the grade 11 class includes my nephew Corné Van Hoepen. I'd like to have the House make them feel especially welcome.

D. Hayer: We have three very special guests, our community leaders, very prominent members of our community. One is Dr. Amin Pirani. The others are Mr. Saleen Sayeed and Mrs. Yasmeen Sayeed. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BIKE TO WORK WEEK

S. Chandra Herbert: Today British Columbians all over are biking to work. It's Bike to Work Week, organized by Bike to Work B.C. and HUB: Your Cycling Connection, formerly known as the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition.

Bike to Work Week is about experiencing the joy of an increasing number of people safely commuting by bicycle. Safe riding training, celebration stations, bike repair stations and a heck of a lot of people getting on their bikes to ride to work for the first time can be seen in Terrace, Shuswap, Prince George, Smithers, Penticton, Revelstoke, Victoria, Campbell River, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Powell River, Vancouver and many more B.C. communities.

Here in Victoria we have the official opposition's Cycling for Change team, made up of many of our members and many of our staff. Ministry staff have teams, and hopefully, in future we will also have a government team.

Bike to Work is about leading by example. It's about building livable communities with safe roads and pathways. It's about getting fit, getting healthy. It's about helping move away from climate-change-causing pollution and a reliance on oil to more reliance on ourselves to get around when we can.

I've met many who said they could never bike to work, only to give it a try in Bike to Work Week and become lifelong cyclists. I've met many who've said they can't bike to work because it's just too far. Well, I should let the House know that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan has taken Bike to Work Week so seriously that he has been riding his bike to the Legislature and home again. His home is in Ladysmith, nearly 100 kilometres away.

If you haven't yet, I invite you, if you can, to get on a bike and have a fabulous Bike to Work Week.

DAY OF THE HONEYBEE

J. Les: May 29 has been proclaimed the Day of the Honeybee in British Columbia in recognition of the critical importance of honeybees to the agriculture sector and, by extension, to everyone's health and well-being.

Who would think that a creature as small as a honeybee could hold so much importance both to our food security and to our economy in British Columbia and around the world. It has been estimated that up to one-third of the food that we eat is the result of and dependent upon pollination by honeybees. They are responsible for about 70 percent of our food crop pollination. To put this in perspective, the total market value of all honeybee-pollinated crops in British Columbia is estimated at over $200 million per year.

The Day of the Honeybee recognizes how beekeepers and the province are working together to continue to improve agricultural production and stabilization of the apiculture industry. It also acknowledges beekeepers' efforts to protect their colonies from environmental conditions and diseases that can affect honeybees.

So on this official Day of the Honeybee I encourage everyone in this House and all British Columbians to make it a priority to grow honeybee-friendly plants in their gardens. Honeybees are an important keystone species, and as such, they are the cornerstone of the sustainability of our agriculture and stability of our environment.

BURNABY SCHOOL DISTRICT

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to acknowledge the incredible work of the Burnaby school district. Burnaby is a leader in academic excellence, with one of the largest advanced placement programs in Canada, high completion and transfer rates to post-secondary and scholarships of more than $6 million awarded annually.

I attended the Moscrop School leaving ceremony last weekend, and I know we are in very good hands with the talented, accomplished and well-rounded students that are graduating from our public schools.

Burnaby is also a leader in early learning and was one of the first districts to adopt programs for newborns to age five. Literacy excellence is celebrated annually with

[ Page 12431 ]

the WORDS Writing Project and the public speaking challenge, which I have had the pleasure to judge several times.

[1345]

The district has a vibrant visual and performing arts program — the most comprehensive in the province — and there are specialized music teachers in every school. The district also offers a wide variety of specialized programs, including French immersion, Mandarin language arts, challenge programs, sports academies and on-line learning.

Burnaby has one of the largest district-run community and continuing-ed programs, as well as comprehensive career programs with a variety of apprenticeship and ACE IT programs and is supported by literally thousands of employers who provide work experience. There are eight community schools to meet the educational, recreational and social needs of neighbourhoods. Burnaby has one of the highest levels of poverty in the Lower Mainland, but you would never know it from the success of our students.

I'd like to congratulate the new BCCPAC president, Terry Berting, who hails from Burnaby. This year we'll be bidding a fond farewell to Claudio Morelli, our very capable superintendent who should be proud of his years in the district. I salute the board for their strong and principled leadership. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge all the dedicated teachers, administrators, staff, parents and generous community partners, who work together to guide, to teach and support all of the district learners. Thank you, all.

MANNING INNOVATION AWARD NOMINEES

L. Reid: I'm very pleased to recognize the eight British Columbia residents who are nominees for the prestigious 2012 Manning Innovation Awards. The Manning Awards have been recognizing Canadians of all ages with the imagination to innovate and the stamina to succeed. British Columbians are well represented as recipients of Manning Awards since they began 31 years ago.

Since the awards were incorporated, over 35 British Columbians have received recognition as a winner of an award from the Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation. British Columbia is indeed fortunate to enjoy a supportive business and research climate which encourages innovators and folks who are interested in bringing the economy.

The impact on the B.C. economy by innovators has been immense. This year's nominees include well-established innovators and startup entrepreneurs. Some of their innovations are now being exported all over the world, and others are in the early stages of entering markets. They deserve our attention and recognition. These are the individuals who are changing the way British Columbia, and indeed Canada, competes, manufactures, communicates and cares for each other.

Mr. Lynn Mueller of Burnaby, British Columbia, nominated for the SHaRC sewage heat recovery system, which uses raw sewage as a heat source. Mr. Terrence Bigsby of Lumby, British Columbia, nominated for Aspenwear, biodegradable wooden cutlery. Mr. Ron Hartman of Nanaimo, B.C., nominated for the iDUS Controls G-100 Tech, a compact, free-standing, battery-less internal solar-powered data collection transceiver module. Capt. Michael Lever of Richmond, B.C., nominated for the Nautilus Lifeline. Mr. David Smith of Sidney, British Columbia, nominated for ICE, a three-axis marine suspended cockpit. Mr.

Ross Mitchell of Surrey, B.C., nominated for the i-Shifter bicycle derailleur. Mr. Geoffrey Auchinleck of Vancouver, B.C., nominated for BloodTrack, an advanced transfusion management system. Mr. Nigel Bennett of Vancouver, nominated for RBS Triton, a patented oil-skimming technology.

Please join me in congratulating the 2012 Manning Innovation Award British Columbia nominees.

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF

FRENCH CREEK SCHOOL

S. Fraser: On Saturday, May 19, I attended a wonderful community event in Coombs…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. It's hard to hear.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: …well known for its wonderful market with goats on the roof. The event was held at the French Creek School just across the bridge right next to the market. The community showed up en masse to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the school.

I was in good company. There were lots of politicians, from the federal MP to the regional district director. The member for Nanaimo, whose family history goes way back with the school, was there, along with Barry Avis. He's the nominated candidate for the NDP for the Parksville-Qualicum riding. As well, the Leader of the Opposition showed up, and took the time to witness the gala event, which included a number of speeches, a cake-cutting and the unveiling of an incredible handmade quilt to commemorate the centennial.

A one-room schoolhouse opened in August 1912, in what was at the time a Salvation Army colony. This was the very first government-built school in the area. It was constructed in what is now the village of Coombs, and it has remained open for 100 years. Some families have had four generations attend the school. The fact that this school has survived for a century is a testament to the dedication of the community and the residents who joined together to prevent at least three proposed clos-

[ Page 12432 ]

ures of the school.

[1350]

It was 2004 that the French Creek School received community school designation. It's the first school to do so in District 69. Now this is no longer a one-room schoolhouse. It was originally designed as one in 1912, but the school has grown. It's grown in size, certainly, but it's also grown to meet the needs of the community. The village of Coombs itself has grown with the French Creek School, and the village is celebrating its anniversary also.

Please join me in saying happy birthday to the French Creek School.

50 th ANNIVERSARY OF

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

M. Dalton: I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished educational institution that is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, Trinity Western University.

Trinity Western is consistently ranked among the top two universities in Canada for quality of education according to Maclean's magazine and the National Survey of Student Engagement. TWU is also Canada's only university to score a most impressive A-plus in quality of teaching and learning in the Globe and Mail 2012 Canadian University Report .

Trinity Western University is a faith-based institution that emphasizes excellence in academic scholarship while always keeping in mind how knowledge and understanding gained through study can serve the world's deepest needs. As a comprehensive liberal arts, sciences and professional studies university, it is committed to continually building on its educational vitality. TWU offers 42 bachelor's degrees, 16 graduate degrees, as well as adult degree-completion programs.

Trinity Western is Canada's largest independent Christian liberal arts institution with an enrolment of 3,600 students and over 22,000 alumni in more than 80 countries around the world. Since its inception in 1962, Trinity Western has grown from being a small private university in Langley to the modern, robust, advanced learning institution that it is today.

TWU has a presence in Ottawa with its Laurentian Leadership Centre, and next year it opens a new 20,000-square-foot satellite campus in downtown Richmond, which will accommodate up to 2,000 new students. Trinity Western also has excelled in extracurricular achievements, and it regularly wins national championships in CIS sporting events across the country.

On its 50th anniversary I want to express my congratulations to Trinity Western President Jonathan Raymond, its board, professors, staff, alumni and students, as well as its many donors.

There can be no denying that this remarkable and prestigious university has a bright future ahead.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN PROPOSAL

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier. Will she keep her promise to ban cosmetic pesticides on lawns, parks and playgrounds?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me thank the legislative committee, a bipartisan committee, for working on this and gathering as much information as they did. The committee got, as I understand it, more input than any committee in the history of this Legislature. They spoke to many, many people. They gathered a great deal of information. We will be considering that information and the breadth of other information that we have as we get closer to a decision.

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

A. Dix: During the by-election campaign in Vancouver–Point Grey, the Premier was specific in her commitment to her new constituents. She said: "I support banning the use of cosmetic pesticides, and I've supported this for years now. I talked about it a lot in my private sector life when I was on the radio, and I continue to support it. I promise that I want to pursue that if I become Premier. We are going to do it."

I just want to ask the Premier if she still holds that position.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is not asking me to ignore entirely the work that the legislative committee did. They worked incredibly hard. It was a very rigorous examination of the evidence that was out there.

[1355]

Now that they have just recently completed their work, we are going to be taking that information that they've gathered into consideration as we get closer to a decision.

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

A. Dix: Well, when she was still in front of elections, the Premier said: "To put families first, we must ensure that our families are raised in safe environments. That is why I want to see a ban on cosmetic pesticides on lawns, parks and playgrounds. These dangerous pesticides are proven to increase the likelihood of childhood cancer and other illnesses and have no place near our… homes."

I know the member for Kootenay East disagrees with the Premier, but that is what she said. The Minister of Environment agreed with that. The Minister of Health

[ Page 12433 ]

agreed with that. It's been three years since this government came forward with a throne speech that said they were going to bring in legislation. Does the Premier still support such legislation?

Hon. C. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition has for years complained that the legislative standing committees don't do anything meaningful and that they're not heard by government. Now he stands up and says he wants government to ignore the work that they did. They did a lot of work. They have provided us with very important information that we are going to consider.

Unlike the opposition caucus, this is not a group of one. This is a government that reflects the views of the citizens and that listens to them, that gathers that information. We're working hard to try and reflect the views of citizens across the province. That was why I appointed the bipartisan legislative committee to look into it, to make sure that we did have the diversity of views and to make sure that citizens had input.

It's very, very different — we know the way that these guys like to run government — from the way that they ran it when he was chief of staff and very different than he runs his opposition caucus now. I'll give you another example of that. Just on Monday we released the results of the most extensive, wide consultation that government had done over the Internet on any single policy issue. We let British Columbians decide what day they would choose for Family Day.

We're a government that listens to people. We believe in being open. That's the way we're going to conduct ourselves. It's very different from what the Leader of the Opposition might advocate, but we believe in openness on this side of the House. We're not going to take any lessons from them on that.

R. Fleming: If the Premier wants to listen to British Columbians on the issue of cosmetic pesticides, then she should stand up in this House and reject the recommendations by the committee Chair, because they are completely out of step with British Columbians' public opinion. There are 39 municipalities that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Continue, please.

R. Fleming: There are 39 municipalities that represent and govern 2.6 million British Columbians. They have bylaws in place that restrict cosmetic pesticide use, but they have no jurisdiction over the retail sale of these products.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities passed resolutions in 2008 and 2010 calling for provincial legislation to ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides. When he was the mayor of Kamloops, the Environment Minister sponsored the 2008 resolution calling for a provincewide ban on cosmetic pesticides. He said this: "When you have a provincewide ban, it's much more effective."

My question is to the minister: does he still agree with this position? And if he does, will he work with this side of the House — and whoever are the colleagues on his side of the House that he can work with — and pass a legislative ban that British Columbians want?

[1400]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the member opposite for the work that he and his fellow committee members did. I read the report this past weekend. It was clear that there was an enormous amount of material that was considered, and I want to thank, as I said, all members of the committee.

I think it's important that we respect the work of the committee and look at the report, carefully examine it, look at the recommendations and come up with a comprehensive response to the report. We are in the process of doing that.

I can say that all of us on this side of the House agree, I think, with the members opposite that all British Columbians want a reduction in the unnecessary use of pesticides in the province of British Columbia. We will respond to the report when we've had time to fully evaluate it and give it the full credit and response that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Again, this is what the Minister of Environment said when he was the mayor of Kamloops. He said: "If we want to see a true reduction in pesticide use, going with provincewide legislation is the only effective way of getting that to happen."

The minister was right when he made those comments in 2008. So my question to the minister is: does he still stand by his views? If he does, has he had a conversation with the member for Kootenay East, who is the co-chair of the B.C. Liberals' election planning and the Chair of the legislative committee that rejected the very ban that the minister has called for in the past?

Hon. T. Lake: It's no secret that I have been an advocate of a provincewide approach to a reduction in pesticide use. That's why I want to fully consider the report, along with my colleagues, examine all the material that is there and give it the full and due consideration that it deserves.

We don't strike standing committees just to ignore their work or to come to preconceived notions about it. I've always said we make our decisions based on information. I want to thank the committee for the amount

[ Page 12434 ]

of work they did, and I'll be happy to discuss it with my colleagues once we have had an opportunity to fully examine the report and the recommendations and the effectiveness proposed to reduce the amount of pesticide use in British Columbia.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: This government found time to consult on the date of a holiday in February, yet they haven't been able to find time to talk to the liquor industry about their ill-conceived decisions that will impact business and increase prices for consumers. Maybe the Premier, after her earlier comments, might want to talk to the minister about consultation.

Tod Melnyk, the chair of the Craft Brewers Guild, said: "The government seems to be rushing this through without any regards for small business in British Columbia." Raechelle Williams, the executive director of ABLE-BC, said: "We can't support this. We are absolutely perplexed why they are doing it." She went on to say: "If they could give us some documents or a business case to show us exactly how this will work or justify it, that might give us some reassurance." Instead, the industry is getting nothing.

You have a whole industry pleading for consultation and some justification for this move and a government that's ignoring them. My question to the minister: how is running roughshod over the industry while offering not a shred of evidence to support this either defensible or competent governing by the minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is about looking at privatizing the warehousing and distribution of liquor in British Columbia. There is no intent to do it whatsoever if it would have increased costs to the consumer in British Columbia. It won't affect the business case for any of those people that the member opposite actually mentioned in his comments, because the pricing is staying with the Liquor Distribution Branch.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The industry is certainly not confident about that. If the minister could produce a business case, maybe he could assure them, but he has produced absolutely zero.

[1405]

We've got about a month before the request for proposals closes for the privatization and a little more than four months until a successful bidder and plan is finalized. Over four months to go, yet we have an industry that can't get answers to any of their questions, can't get any substantive information or any sense that the government has any idea what they're doing except giving away another public asset.

Yesterday the minister was backtracking, and he repeated it again today, saying the deal would not go forward if it's not good. Yet he isn't talking to the industry. Mr. Chambers from the Liquor Distribution Branch says there's no time to consult.

Does the minister agree with Mr. Chambers, or will he commit today to a full and open engagement with the industry over the criteria about what constitutes success before he makes the decision in October? And if he won't commit to meaningful consultation, why not?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're looking at the warehousing and distribution of alcohol in British Columbia. It's presently done through the Liquor Distribution Branch. We're taking it out to an RFP with successorship, so the B.C. Government Employees Union will be protected as this goes through. We've said all along that if there's not a savings or efficiencies to both that we can find, then we wouldn't be doing it. But the RFP will tell us that.

That's why we've gone out to the private sector. I know the members opposite hate the words "private sector," but we're going out to the private sector to see if there's a better way to do it, save money for the taxpayers and get a benefit for consumers in British Columbia. I think that's the right thing to do.

GOVERNMENT PLANNING COMMITTEE

FOR BURNABY HOSPITAL

K. Corrigan: Fraser Health has an official planning process underway looking at the future of Burnaby Hospital. The committee has a budget of $230,000 and is drawing on Fraser Health's own expertise.

Now we hear that the government has struck its own committee, essentially with the same mandate, to be co-chaired by the member for Burnaby-Lougheed and the member for Burnaby North. Can the Minister of Health explain why the government wants to strike a committee to duplicate the work already being done by people who understand the issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I am very much obliged to the hon. member for highlighting the fact that in addition to $7 billion in capital construction taking place, we are also making planning provision to renew the campus at the Burnaby Hospital. Further, that master planning exercise is engaging the direct participation of Fraser Health and the Burnaby Hospital Foundation.

I'm pleased to say that MLAs from Burnaby who are concerned, as they should be, for the provision of proper medical services to their constituents have taken the initiative to strike their own committee to engage with citizens in Burnaby. That is precisely the role that I see for Members of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia.

[ Page 12435 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, isn't this going to be interesting? We're going to have a community advisory committee headed by the two MLAs, which doesn't include the MLA who happens to be in the riding that has the hospital. But that's fine. And we're going to have a committee put together by Fraser Health. So we'll have two community committees. It's going to be interesting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Well, we have the sparse terms of reference for the new government committee. This is the other committee. There are two items: provide assessment of health care needs in Burnaby and provide advice as to how to improve health care in the region.

Can the minister please tell us what expertise the members for Burnaby-Lougheed and Burnaby North have that is not already available to the planning process underway in Fraser Health?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I must confess I do feel for the hon. member, but the last time we invited her to participate in a decision involving a major capital expenditure in Burnaby, the project ended up in Surrey. So it's clear the member has her view of the role that Members of the Legislative Assembly should play.

In project after project across British Columbia over the last 11 years…. I can speak from experience, because after a decade of listening to an NDP government say they were going to construct a new hospital in Abbotsford, I was the member of a local committee, along with a government, that got the job done, and that's what'll happen in Burnaby as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: On one hand, we have Fraser Health Authority, with all its expertise — the day-to-day running of the hospital in Burnaby — doing a long-term plan involving the community and involving doctors, physicians, nurses, councils, unions — involving everybody who should be there — with a budget in place.

On the other hand, we have a committee composed of two MLAs. My question to the minister is this: what is the budget that the minister has set up for the committee of the two MLAs so that they can do their work thoroughly?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, (1) the minister didn't set up the committee; (2) there isn't a budget; and (3) it is an example of MLAs taking precisely the kind of initiative that we expect them to take.

Fourthly, in communities across British Columbia — whether it was the Okanagan, whether it was in Prince George, whether it was in Vancouver, whether it was in any of the regions of British Columbia that have received the benefit of $7 billion in capital investments in hospitals and health care facilities — there have been government MLAs directly involved, seeking input, involving their community and delivering on $7 billion in capital investments.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: It'll be interesting to see how many on that side throw in the towel come May of next year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Fraser Health Authority didn't ask for this committee of two MLAs. The minister said that he didn't set up the committee. The Ministry of Health said that they didn't have a role in establishing the committee. The minister says that it's not going to cost any money. But the ministry is supplying administrative staff and administrative support to the committee.

Can the minister at least tell us: how much is that going to cost? Why are we duplicating work done by experts, as opposed to the work of the members for Burnaby-Lougheed and Burnaby North, when it comes to the long-term planning? Leave the job to the professionals.

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: I confess I'm having a little trouble with this one today. We have a hospital facility in Burnaby that admittedly is aged, well past its best-before date. As we have done in communities across British Columbia, thanks to sound fiscal management and sound planning, the health authority, in consultation with the hospital foundation, has embarked upon a high-level, long-term site redevelopment planning process. Gee, I think that's good news.

Local representatives, members of this assembly, have decided that they may have a contribution to make in marshalling the opinion of their constituents. Gee, that sounds like good news.

Confronted by the need, or the imperative, of com-

[ Page 12436 ]

paring their woeful record in ten years of government in failing to address the health care needs of British Columbians versus the capital investment record of this government, it doesn't surprise me that the opposition now has resorted to denigrating the efforts of members of this chamber who want to make a positive contribution. I think that's great news.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

REBATES FOR HOME ENERGY RETROFITS

M. Sather: My constituent, Joanne White, went through the federal ecoEnergy retrofit program and the provincial efficiency incentive program to upgrade on an eco-friendly furnace and heat pump installed in July of 2011. She got her federal rebate last year, but she's still waiting for the eco-smart rebate of $1,600 from the province, and she's paying interest on that same amount.

Now, we approached the minister's office early this month, and they assured us that she would get her rebate at the end of May. Now they've backtracked and said no rebate once again. Can the minister explain why my constituent has had to wait for almost a year and still no rebate from the provincial government?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the two programs there have been some system challenges. Those have been rectified. Your constituent should be seeing the cheque very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Sather: Excuse us if my constituent is a little bit disbelieving of yet another promise from this government. She was told in December 2011 that she would get her rebate in January. She was told in January that she'd get it in February. She was told in February that she'd get it in March, and in March that she'd get it in April. Then the minister's office said the end of May. Now they've backtracked again, and there'll be no rebate this month.

Again to the minister: when can he get it together, and how can he explain that the LiveSmart B.C. program is a year behind in sending out those cheques?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I do apologize to your constituent and other people who have been waiting for this. We apologize for the delay, and we reassure anyone that has applied for incentives that does qualify that they will soon start to receive their funds.

The challenge we've had is we expect that the software that calculates the customer payments…. We've been having difficulty with the updating. It is there now to be able to complete the job, and we'll get it done.

[1420]

PREVENTION OF HOMOPHOBIC AND

TRANSPHOBIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

S. Chandra Herbert: A year and a half ago, when the Premier was courting gay and lesbian British Columbians for her leadership bid, she promised to make tackling homophobic bullying one of her top priorities. Since then we've had talk in the throne speech and more promises in this session. When I last raised this issue, the Premier said, "There are very few issues about which I am more passionate than this one," and promised to work with me to "bring in the best legislation, the best policy, the best methods we possibly can for addressing this issue."

Can the Premier explain why, with two days left in this session, she still has not done anything to address the fact that almost three-quarters of B.C. schools don't have strong, explicit policies to protect youth from homophobic bullying?

Hon. C. Clark: The member should stay tuned. He'll see it very soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: When I told the House the story of David, a grade 9 student who attempted suicide because he was being constantly bullied at school for being gay, the Premier said: "We will be taking action on this, as I promised, in this, our second session of the Legislature." Yet with two days left to the end of the sitting, there has been no action. When David was asked if he expected the Premier to keep her promise, he said: "She's a politician. You can't really expect that much. They say they're going to do something, and they don't."

Can the Premier explain to David and lesbian, gay and transgendered students across B.C. why she has broken her promise to them this session?

Hon. C. Clark: I think one of the things that is important for us in politics is to recognize where good work has happened. I know that the member in the past has been complimentary or at least acknowledged the work that I've done on this issue in the past. I have to say that over the last five or six years of my life there is no issue to which I have devoted more passion and more concern than the issue of bullying of individuals — whether they are in schools, whether they're in workplaces or whether that happens at home or in other places in our society.

Bullying is something that scars people for life. We need to do a couple of things. First of all, we need to change the way we deal with bullies and recognize that

[ Page 12437 ]

in a bullying situation it's not like some typical disagreement you might find between two people. One is a victim, and one is a perpetrator, and they need to be dealt with appropriately. So that's one element of the plan that the member will see very shortly.

Second, we have to make sure that we are encouraging people to stand up against bullies. If there is one thing we can all do to make a difference, it's to remind each other and ourselves that when we see bullying happen around us, we stand up. When we stand up, and when we step in and protect those who are vulnerable and being bullied, we deprive the bully of oxygen. That's ultimately the way that we're going to be able to change bullying.

It's a change in culture, and it's something that I think is achievable for British Columbia. Will it be achievable in a month or two months or a year? No. But we're going to get started, and as I said to the member, we're going to get started very soon.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Office of the Ombudsperson, 2011-2012.

Hon. K. Falcon: I have the honour to present the 2011 annual report for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the 2011 annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission, the 2010-2011 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board and to present the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.

Petitions

M. Farnworth: I rise to table a petition from 1,387 people who signed a petition by United to Break the Chains against the inhumane chaining of dogs in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I rise to present a petition — 126 signatures calling for changes to DriveABLE so that seniors can get tested closer to home.

[1425]

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF INSURANCE ACT REVISION

TO PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I do the orders of the day, I have two motions to move to the House.

By leave, I move:

[That the revision of the Insurance Act (RSBC 1996 c. 226) be presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendations pursuant to the Statute Revision Act .]

Just for the clarification of members, this is actually not a change in the legislation. It is a revision that is pursuant to the Statute Revision Act and has been prepared by leg. council with respect to the Insurance Act. Extensive reforms to the Insurance Act were adopted by the Legislature several times since the 1996 general revision but especially in 2009. The regulations adopted in 2011 will bring these 2009 changes into force as of July 1, 2012, and so the need for a revision of the statute.

I point out that a revision is not a change in the law. It is a change in formatting the existing law. In effect, it is a legal consolidation of the statute. Under the terms of the Statute Revision Act, the revised statute must be provided to the committee of Legislature for examination and recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor and not back to the House.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR GENERAL

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[That notwithstanding the motion adopted on October 3, 2011 regarding the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an Auditor General, pursuant to

section 2 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2) . The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee shall be composed of Members Eric Foster, John Les and Ralph Sultan, and Bruce Ralston and Kathy Corrigan.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12438 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this chamber we will start with committee stage on Bill 35, intituled the Pharmaceutical Services Act; followed by committee on Bill 46, intituled the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012; then followed by Bill 52, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will continue the committee stage of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

In

section C, in the Birch Room, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — PHARMACEUTICAL

SERVICES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Farnworth:

Section 2 establishes a legislative framework for regulating B.C.'s provincial drug program. The legislation covers benefits provided through PharmaCare's drug plans and benefits available outside the drug plan. The act also provides the minister with the authority to administer the provincial drug program.

Can the minister explain to the House how this will be different from the current model that's in place and how the framework will work in that regard?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer for the hon. member and the committee is that in the very short term it doesn't contemplate large differences. It takes the plan or, perhaps more accurately, the nine PharmaCare plans that presently exist and enshrines them in the legislation. So to that extent, it doesn't contemplate any changes.

It does contemplate the possibility of providing benefits outside of one of those nine plans under a special payment or emergency circumstances. But that, too, is presently contemplated in policy. Generally speaking, what we are doing, as we talked about in second reading, is codifying the existing plan, PharmaCare — the nine PharmaCare plans that presently exist.

M. Farnworth: What I hear the member saying is that it's codifying what's existing. So it's not making any changes, either adding new areas or any new programs or deleting any existing programs. It's strictly codifying what's there and allowing, as the minister said, for changes to be made that are already contemplated in the current structure.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes is the answer. The other provision I didn't mention is that it specifically contemplates the possibility of adding additional plans to the nine that presently exist.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Farnworth:

Section 3 deals with the establishing and maintaining of formularies. This is a

section that's going to be subject to the regulations, and the minister has the authority to establish and maintain the drug formularies. But within the way it's currently structured in this legislation, there's no provision for the minister to give notice or for an opportunity to be heard if the minister decides to make a change in establishing or changing the formulary. This would include "cancelling the listing of a drug, device or substance from the formulary."

Can the minister tell us how he anticipates the regulations working, and will any intended regulations deal with issues about notice and an opportunity to be heard?

[1435]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think my first answer on this

section will be rather general, and then we can drill down into a couple of the areas, one of which is the notice provision that the member has highlighted. I think the hon. member is referring to sub 3(2), (3) and (4).

The general statement that he has made is, I think, correct. It's an interesting word — "formulary." It's one that seems only to apply to this type of legislation and the PharmaCare plan. A formulary is the listing of prescription drugs that are approved for use as benefits for each of the nine drug plans.

The formulary, in the way it is used here and pursuant to the definition sections of the act, also contemplates substances like dietary substances or devices. For example, an insulin pump would qualify as a device in certain circumstances. The regulations — the member is correct — would on a regular basis be updated to set that formulary.

I am reminded that there are literally thousands of drugs that are listed as part of a formulary. It changes on a regular basis. There are drugs that are no longer produced that come off of the formulary and new drugs that are added, following testing around their clinical effectiveness and safety.

That's the general proposition that is being set out here. The member is correct. Ultimately, the formulary is set by regulation. In some instances, where agreements have

[ Page 12439 ]

been signed with manufacturers — and this is subsection 3(2) and (4) — those agreements may themselves contain specific requirements around notice for changes to the formulary affecting those products, substances or devices, and the act does not propose to excuse the state or the Crown from abiding by those contractual obligations where they exist.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister detail as to how that differs, or if it does in fact differ, from current practice — the regulations anticipated in this particular area?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that what is contemplated under the legislative regime is precisely the same process as is followed at the moment, though it would then be pursuant to statutory authority as opposed to policy.

M. Farnworth: That statutory policy would then be determined by the regulations that are going to be determined at cabinet. Are there any plans to do any consultation around this particular area with the regulations, given the fact that changes can be made?

I'll give you an example. I understand that there are thousands of drugs on the formulary and that they change. They come and go out of business. But then there are others. There will be, on that, products that are extremely widely used — or there may be insulin pumps, for example — whereby a change would have a significant impact and a change in government policy could have a significant impact.

So I'm wondering. Is there is any contemplation that there would be the ability to seek information or give notice of changes in situations like that?

[1440]

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I'll get this in the order that is helpful to the member and the committee.

Initially what's contemplated is to take the policy that we now have and enshrine it in the context of the legislation. I wouldn't want to suggest to the member that there is going to be extensive consultation around that exercise itself, because we'd be replicating what is in place now.

Going forward…. I should say this, because I may have inadvertently left the wrong impression with the member by my use of language. The formulary as it relates to those thousands of drugs is fluid enough, I am reminded, that it would not be set in an order-in-council-style regulation. It just changes too regularly for that to be workable. But there are….

Section 64, which we'll get to, talks about the regulations and the process by which they are set and the general regulatory authority.

In the example that the member has given, I would say the answer is yes. As we contemplate additions or changes of the sort mentioned…. Insulin pumps are partially covered today for youth, not generally for adults. Those are the kinds of matters that would very much be the subject of consultation. The process by which a drug is added or approved to be added to the formulary is laid out in the sections we are now coming to, and it is — as the member, I think, knows — a fairly specific process by which drugs are added to the formulary.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Farnworth:

Section 4 deals with establishing and maintaining related services lists, and again, it is also subject to regulations. So can the minister explain if there are going to be differences in how this

section works, compared to how the establishment of lists and the maintaining of lists currently is in place, and again address the issues of notice or lack of notice?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is yes. These ancillary services that relate to each of the plans….

[1445]

Such things as, for example, community pharmacists providing medication management or prosthetics specialists advising about the fitting of a prosthesis device — those are things that happen now and would continue to happen. The act is not intended to change any of that functionally or operationally.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Farnworth:

Section 6 deals with special payments. What I'd like for the minister to talk about or to let us know is how this

section is going to work — again, how it's different, if there are any differences from existing policy, or any anticipated changes in terms of how special payments will be handled under regulations that may be implemented once this particular piece of legislation is passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Once again, I think the correct question has been asked, and I believe the correct answer is no.

There is a policy-based regime in place now that allows for the authorization of drugs, devices, substances or related services for limited coverage pursuant to certain unique sets of circumstances. There are policy rules in place now that allow for the extension of coverage or for special payments in unique circumstances where someone otherwise would not have access to PharmaCare coverage. Sometimes, for example, a baby born to visiting parents might fall into a category like that.

There are unique circumstances that arise today for which there is discretionary authority to provide coverage. This is intended to codify that ability and allow those exceptional circumstances to be dealt with on a

[ Page 12440 ]

go-forward basis, pursuant to the legislation.

M. Farnworth: Dealing with the issue of exceptional circumstances, then, it is codifying what is current practice. I take it from the minister, then, that those exceptional circumstances will themselves be discretionary in a sense, at the discretion of the ministry, as opposed to being codified or prescriptive exceptional circumstances. That's correct? And I see the minister nodding his head.

If he could just give us any idea on how often during the course of a year this provision is used.

Hon. M. de Jong: The exercising of the ministerial authority is pretty rare. The member will remember that from his time in office. This, I'm reminded, however, is also the

section that allows for the physician-generated special authorizations. Those, of course, are much more frequent. This is the

section that replicates the policy authority that now exists for a physician to seek a special authorization for exceptional coverage outside of the existing formulary.

[1450]

M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify with the minister. With this

section when we're talking about exceptional circumstances, we're not talking about — in relation to reference-based pricing, let's say — where I go in and a physician says: "No, you need a specific drug." This would deal more with the case of a drug that is outside the formulary that physicians feel in this particular circumstance is what's required. Therefore, that's how coverage like that would be granted. It would be under this section. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Farnworth:

Section 7 deals with confidential information. There's been some concern around this particular

section from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association as well as the commissioner.

Under this section, the minister may refuse to make public any information about the recommendations and deliberations that establish "(

a) the listing of a drug, device or substance on a formulary; (

b) the listing of a related service on a related services list; (

c) the authorization of payments under

section 6."

Can the minister, then, given concerns around transparency in this particular section, explain how transparency will be maintained in this section? Does this

section exclude FOI requests under FIPPA, the Auditor General Act and the Evidence Act?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has correctly identified…. If I'm not mistaken, he was also provided with a copy of a letter generated by the officer of this Legislature, the Privacy Commissioner, who articulated some concerns.

Let me alert the member and the committee to the balance we are trying to strike here. It is, on the one hand, to ensure that there is open, unimpeded access to the decision. The member, I think, will…. I know he understands and appreciates that these are decisions that, for the manufacturers of drugs or devices, are worth sometimes millions of dollars, and there's a great deal of interest, sometimes pressure, associated with it.

What we wanted to do was ensure there was a balance between having unimpeded access to the decision so that people understood what was being decided and could see that clearly, openly, and providing some measure of protection to the people on the advisory committee, who may wish to generate, as the

section contemplates, notes relating to the deliberations and recommendations that they generate.

Without the advice that I was provided with, what I can say to the hon. member was ultimately determinative for me in agreeing to the inclusion of the language that we see here was the realization that as part of that review process, members of an advisory committee would be generating notes, would be generating documents that they would rely upon in coming to a decision around a recommendation.

[1455]

I have been persuaded that it would be appropriate to protect those notes and to protect that material, not the final decision. Decisions should be available for all to see and all to understand and criticize, if that were the case. But for the members of the advisory committee to be able to generate their own material in coming to a decision….

The last thing I'll say is this, and it's why I'm in no way surprised or offended by the questions. I asked the same ones. Whenever we are purporting to include an exception to a statute of general application like FIPPA, that's worthy of asking questions.

I was persuaded that, in the limited circumstances I've described, it was appropriate to afford some protection to the notes and material generated as part of that advisory process. But I understand that the member wishes to explore that.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the response from the minister. I understand what the minister is saying in terms of trying to strike a balance.

We've had an initial concern expressed by the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner and officials. My question to the minister is this. Have they met with the freedom-of-information and privacy people? Have they satisfied any of their concerns? Are they contemplating addressing any concerns through regulation to

[ Page 12441 ]

this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes. Happily, that has become fairly standard fare now for that kind of discussion to take place.

The Privacy Commissioner identified some additional concerns — I can't remember what they were — most of which seemed to have been dealt with to the mutual satisfaction of that office and the ministry — in a couple of cases, essentially, an agreement to disagree.

I don't want to shirk or suggest that the Privacy Commissioner hasn't articulated the concerns that she has. She would, I expect, make the argument, as she has in the letter, that she disagrees with the balance — where we have landed in terms of the balance. I have been persuaded that it is a reasonable place and that sufficient protection exists, but not too much protection as to render appropriate access to information completely ineffective.

So this is one of I think two areas where we did not come to an agreement with the Privacy Commissioner on what the appropriate balance was.

M. Farnworth: The minister mentioned that there are some areas where they were able to achieve satisfaction. If the minister could get me the information of those areas that were achieved, I'd appreciate that, as well as the areas of disagreement. That would be useful.

My question to the minister would be: if issues arise in the future, is the minister open to using the regulatory framework or powers to him to address some of those concerns if ways can be found to address them with the privacy officials and the ministry to the satisfaction of both the ministry and the Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes. Again, in fairness to the member and the Privacy Commissioner, in providing that answer to the hon. member, I should point out — again, I think he knows this — that one of the themes the Privacy Commissioner has developed and pursued is a general hesitation around government relying upon regulation to address privacy issues.

[1500]

Her preference, I think, is generally to see those types of measures included in the legislation. That notwithstanding, the answer to the member's question is yes.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that answer, and I understand that the Privacy Commissioner would like to see things in legislation but sometimes…. This is more a criticism of government in general. That is, sometimes legislative amendments do take a fair bit of time to work their way through, and sometimes a regulatory change can resolve an issue much more quickly.

I'm going to ask the minister's indulgence at this particular point. I have some questions that the Pharmacy Association has around information and privacy. I think what I might do is ask the questions, and if the minister can give an answer now, that's fine. I would appreciate that. But they may require a more detailed answer, in which case I would ask the minister to get back to me with the information.

There are ten. Some of them deal with privacy matters in relation to the negotiations. One of the concerns from the Pharmacy Association is that there was some disclosure of their confidential proposals made by the Pharmacy Association to the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association. Was the minister's office involved in, or did they give information, pass on information, to the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association?

Another question is: how does the minister explain that his officials told the Pharmacy Association that they were not releasing the negotiating proposals to the generic association when FOI documents show that that was not the case?

The third question —and I'll wait for a response — is: why is it that FOI materials disclosed to the Pharmacy Association will not be published on the B.C. government's Open Information website? Shouldn't British Columbians have details of the government's discussions with generic drug manufacturers?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what I can do. I am generally aware of a concern that the Pharmacy Association has articulated around the events leading up to the ultimate presentation of this legislation. I can say this to the member. I've not seen any documentation from the Pharmacy Association, although I think a day or two ago I was alerted to a concern that they have.

Again, I'm going to be cautious because, not having seen any material but having heard the nature of the questions, it seems to me that the general theme of the concern seems to be around the nature of the negotiations and whether or not the government was negotiating at the same time it was preparing legislation which represented a significantly different approach.

The only thing I can say in a general way at this point…. And I'll endeavour to get more detailed information for the member. I am relying on memory now. Back in September — and the member knows some of the history of this, I think — it's clear the government was dissatisfied with the results of the negotiated agreement. It was not realizing the savings that the parties themselves had agreed upon.

I learned very quickly that it's a unique set of discussions. The agreement involves the Pharmacy Association. There are generic drug manufacturers who are obviously involved and have an interest, and influence the outcome as it relates to cost savings.

[1505]

When I met with — I think in September — both parties at the same time, I said: "Look, unless steps are taken

[ Page 12442 ]

to address this significant shortfall" — a shortfall measured in the millions of dollars — "the government has but one alternative to ensure that we do realize these savings, and it is a legislative option of the sort that you have all seen in Ontario. So if you want to give the government and the Minister of Health a problem, figure out a way to do that and have those discussions. Officials will be at your disposal to have those discussions."

Fast-forward to the new year, to 2012. I can't on the basis of my memory tell the member with certainty what date it was. But at a certain point, as minister, on the basis of advice that I was receiving from officials, I made the recommendation to the government that in order to secure the objectives that we had established for ourselves in terms of lower drug costs and cost savings, we should proceed to legislation to address those cost savings.

Now, there is another part to this legislation that's separate and apart from that, and that is enshrining PharmaCare in legislation. Arguably, that would, could, should have been done in any event, but that, I don't think, is what engages the attention of the Pharmacy Association. I think it is the chronology and what followed.

I will say this candidly. Having told the parties in September that unless the government can receive the assurance and the certainty that the cost savings targeted in the original agreement would be realized, we would be proceeding to a legislative option which, of course, is what we have ultimately done. It was not the preferred course for the Pharmacy Association, to be sure.

Beyond that, I'm not in a good position today to speak to the concerns that the member has raised on behalf of the Pharmacy Association about the exchange of information. I am told that the negotiations were conducted in strict conformity with the protocols that were agreed upon by the parties. That is a general answer to a specific set of concerns that have been raised, but that's all I can really say at this point.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response. I think what I will do is probably put these questions to the minister in a formal letter to him, and then I can get a response. I see the minister nodding. I would appreciate that.

I'll leave with just one final question I think may be possible to get an answer on here today. One of the concerns from the Pharmacy Association is, given the sweeping nature of the legislation, that only two weeks is allowed for stakeholders to provide submissions on two key elements of the bill: pricing and incentives. That is simply too short a time. Can the minister explain why the time frame was so short and why more time was not given?

Hon. M. de Jong: As part of the information I received a couple of days ago, I was also alerted to that concern. The association has, I am advised, now been notified that the period for returning written submissions has been extended by an additional two weeks.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's response. So I will get him those questions in writing, and we continue on the

section 7, which is around confidential information.

[1510]

I want to just get back to a sec. The minister has outlined the issue around the need for balance and around the concerns of…. The way I understand it is for the committee to be able to discuss freely and make notes on decisions around particular medications, around whether or not a drug or a device should be added to a formulary — that those discussions should be able to take place in as open and frank a way as possible and that there is a recognition of the concern around that from the government.

So I just want to make sure, then, that I've got it right. You know, you've agreed to disagree with the freedom-of-information commissioner on a number of issues, but other issues have been satisfactorily resolved. The minister can let me know what those are. I just want to clarify. Does this

section apply to the Auditor General Act and the Evidence Act? I gather it does in terms of FIPPA. That was what I heard from the minister. If I'm wrong, he can correct me. But does it also apply to the Auditor General Act and the Evidence Act in terms of being able to turn down an FOI request?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. The first thing I will say again, because I think it's important to emphasize, is that the final decisions on what drugs will be covered and detailed explanations as to why those decisions were made are public information and will continue to be public information and available to the public.

The specific question, though, relates to the statutory override that this

section represents. It is, first of all, a discretionary section, so it's not automatic, and the discretion is limited to information respecting the deliberations and recommendations. So to that extent, the inclusion of the phrase "or any other enactment" could potentially cover a request from another statutory officer. I'm not certain in what circumstances that would occur, but I want to be fair to the member. Those words are there, and "any other enactment" could include an enactment empowering another legislative officer.

But again, the discretionary authority is restricted to the deliberations as set out in that phrase — "the deliberations and recommendations."

M. Farnworth: Who would exercise that discretionary authority? Who would have the ability to decide in those particular cases?

[1515]

[ Page 12443 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The thing I was checking…. The

section of the act, of course, says "minister," but pursuant to the

Interpretation Act, the ability exists to delegate that to a specific individual. I actually think that is the appropriate step to take in this case, so there is a delegated official within the ministry.

M. Farnworth: That's what I was hoping to hear from the minister. My sense is that it's one of those things that I would prefer to see delegated to the Deputy Minister, for example. That would be one individual. But the bottom line is this. I think there is a concern around there — the fact that it is discretionary and is something that I would hope or would expect to be used in very limited circumstances.

Certainly, I don't believe that it should be intended…. I would hope that it's not intended in terms of being able to block something, for example, of the Auditor General coming in or the Evidence Act — not that I'm suggesting for a minute that there would be circumstances but you never know.

Unusual cases do arise from time to time in the same way that we have exceptions or discretion around things being added to the formulary. I would like to make sure, and I want it on the record, that I think that this needs to be used sparingly and that, as much as possible, that transparency is what should prevail.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

M. Farnworth:

Section 8 deals with the enrolment of beneficiaries. In accordance with the regulations, a person may enrol in one or more drug plans. Persons may be required to provide personal information for the purposes of the ministry to determine eligibility.

Has the ministry looked into whether or not this

section violates the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? It does require a person to provide personal information in addition to that that's required under

section 59(

c) of the regulations respecting provincial drug programs in order for eligibility to be determined for a drug plan.

Has that been done? Is this in line with current policy? Are there any differences between this

section and the existing practices that are currently in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is designed to precisely authorize the existing practice, and the most important dimension to this is, as the member knows, the sliding scale of eligibility within PharmaCare based on income. So it is the ability to access income information from the Canada Revenue Agency.

M. Farnworth: So there's nothing in this section, then, that is different from current and existing practices, and so there are no changes in this

section that will impact in terms of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act or in the way that current practices are administered?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question and can answer that nothing different is contemplated under this act than what takes place today under the policy-based PharmaCare program.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

[1520]

M. Farnworth:

Section 9 in subsection (3)(

a) states that "the provincial drug program must be considered insurance of last resort." Can the minister explain what that means? Does it in any way differ from existing policy?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two-part question, two-part answer to the member. No changes are contemplated to the practice that presently takes place. The short answer to the second part of the question is that if you have coverage pursuant to another plan — for example, a veterans plan — you look to that plan first. You access that plan first, and then PharmaCare benefits would kick in after you have exhausted your benefits from that other program.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

M. Farnworth:

Section 10 deals with cancelling beneficiary enrolment, and this is an issue which does cause considerable concern to people whenever they are cancelled. This

section is subject again, like many, to regulations that will be determined at the executive council level. Can the minister explain how this

section is going to work? Could he give some examples of how this

section —

section 10, in particular 10(2) — would in fact operate?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the previous deliberations we've talked about the various plans — nine of them. They are all in their own ways unique and contemplate different circumstances.

Here are some examples that would be applicable, which might lead to the exercise of the authority under this to cancel a beneficiary's enrolment and, to be sure, a significant step because of the implications for the beneficiary.

A couple of examples. In the general sense, someone who has left the province and no longer qualifies or meets the residency requirements — that would be an example

[ Page 12444 ]

where entitlements or beneficiary's enrolment could be cancelled. Under plan P, which is one of the nine plans, a beneficiary who is…. I'm going to be careful how I say this. Plan P refers to someone who is in palliative care. By definition, death being imminent, in a circumstance where a person happily finds themselves on the road to recovery, having been designated palliative, plan P would no longer apply. It would be a happy trade-off in that case.

A youth who no longer meets the age requirements for plan F, which is the children-at-home program, would be another case where this

section might apply. Again, nothing different is contemplated to what presently takes place beyond the need to enshrine the ability within the statute that will now create the legal underpinnings for PharmaCare.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

M. Farnworth:

Section 11 deals with the enrolment of providers. In order to be enrolled as a provider, owners of pharmacies, facilities and other places that provide drugs, devices, substances or related services may apply to the minister. If an owner has more than one facility, they must enrol each facility for the minister's consideration. The minister may designate providers as a member of a class of providers, and may also impose limits and conditions on the provider's enrolment.

[1525]

Can the minister clarify under

section 11(3)…? It states that "the minister may permit a person who is connected to a place referred to in subsection (1), but is not an owner of the place, to apply for enrollment." Can the minister provide details as to how this would work?

The way I would read this, this could almost be that if I am an owner of a particular facility, I could designate somebody else. That's the way I interpret that. Is that something that, for example, a chain pharmacy in a privately owned…. A chain grocery store, for example, may also have a pharmacy. Is that what this is intended to apply to? If the minister could clarify, that would be great.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this will help the member, because it's an interesting

section by virtue of how it's worded. The underlying principle is that each place where benefits are provided must be enrolled. There are important reasons for that.

For example, you could have a person who is not the owner of a place but connected to that place who needs to be enrolled, and you could have a pharmacist who is providing independent medication reviews at a doctor's office but who requires connection to PharmaNet. They also would have to be enrolled.

So every place where benefits are being provided must be enrolled. There will be circumstances, in the chain case or in the example that I've given, where the person may not be the owner of the pharmacy, and it may not even be a pharmacy, but in each instance there will need to be enrolment of that place and a person connected to that place.

M. Farnworth: I'll just ask a quick question, and then I'll yield the floor to the member for Abbotsford South who has an introduction.

So in essence, what this

section is ensuring is that everyone who is going to be prescribing medications covered under the act, under a formulary, whatever plan there is in place, must be enrolled and that the facility…. I see that, yeah. Anybody who is dispensing has to be enrolled, whether they are the owner of the place or they're not the owner of the place, but whoever is doing the dispensing must be enrolled.

Hon. M. de Jong: The only qualification I would make is: someone representing that place where the dispensation takes place.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Abbotsford South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to introduce to the Legislature today 29 grade 5 students from Alexander Elementary. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Natalie Grieve and 11 parents and teachers. I'd ask the House to make them all very welcome.

[1530]

Debate Continued

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

M. Farnworth:

Section 12 deals with duties, and it establishes duties for the following classes of people: providers, suppliers, manufacturers, franchisors, alternate payees; and former providers, suppliers, manufacturers, franchisors and alternate payees. A considerable number of people involved in the dispensing of pharmaceuticals are covered by the act.

Can the minister do two things? One, can the minister say or let me know whether or not there are any changes in this

section between existing policy and practices and, if so, what those changes are? Can the minister also elaborate on subsection 12(1)(c)? As stated, this

section applies to "a person prescribed for the purposes of

section 21 [incentives] or subsection (3)…."

[ Page 12445 ]

Can the minister elaborate on the meaning of that particular

section there, please?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: If I might venture a moment, I realize that for the students from Alexander this may not be the most scintillating debate. But I suspect, knowing Alexander as I do, that there is a doctor or a pharmacist amongst you, and I'm certain they will look back fondly on this moment in their early lives.

Actually, the biggest change of all with respect to this

section is its existence. One of the challenges, one of the rationales, one of the reasons for taking the policy and enshrining it legislatively is that there were difficulties associated with enforcement.

There have been circumstances in which there have been allegations of conduct that PharmaCare, the government and most right-minded and right-thinking people would say is not appropriate. The mechanism to address that — that conduct, where it is being perpetrated by someone who is part of the PharmaCare dispensation network — did not exist. Creating a codified requirement to abide by certain conduct is a fairly significant step from the point of view of providing the Crown with the ability to enforce its expectations and the terms of participation in the PharmaCare program.

Sub 12(1)(c), and I'm sure we'll get to this discussion later, refers to and anticipates the possibility of regulations that would prohibit rebates. I think the member is familiar enough with the trade that is generic drugs to know what I am referring to there. We haven't finalized that regulation. There will be consultation around it. But the

section clearly contemplates regulations that deal with the question of rebates, and that's why it appears there and in that form.

[1535]

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the response of the minister. We'll be dealing with the regulatory framework or the regulations further in the act. The issue of rebates is, I think, an important one to be addressed.

I agree. I think it is important that there is a code and that there are expectations and that that is legislated. I think the absence of that does create potential problems, so I think it's appropriate that it's here.

Section 13 would go along with that. That deals with changing or cancelling provider enrolment.

Section 13(1): "A provider may cancel his or her enrollment as a provider by giving 30 days' written notice to the minister."

Then subsection (2) is: "Subject to the regulations and after giving the provider 30 days' notice and an opportunity to be heard, the minister may (

a) change or cancel designation made under

section 11 (4) (b) [enrollment of providers], or (

b) cancel a provider's enrollment."

The question I want to ask the minister is: what's the rationale on giving 30 days' notice but without giving an opportunity to be heard? Under what circumstances would that take place? Why wouldn't you give someone an opportunity to be heard if you are going to cancel a provider's ability?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is, I think, what qualifies as an extraordinary power, because it allows the Crown to step in and impose conditions or even, in a serious enough circumstance, the ability to impose very serious limits or conditions.

Two examples that I can think of are where fraud has been uncovered, as it relates to billing practices; or in a circumstance where a provider was offering incentives on a scale, for example, to a methadone patient and the Crown wanted to immediately address that, recognizing that the opportunity to be heard wasn't likely to take place for a month or maybe two months while people got their evidence together and got their advocates lined up.

It is a temporary measure, to be sure, but one that would allow the Crown to step in on an expedited basis to deal with something that was deemed egregious enough to warrant the exercise of that extraordinary power.

M. Farnworth: Who would exercise that particular power, that authority? Would it be within the ministry or the minister?

[1540]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, pursuant to the

Interpretation Act, the minister or the ministry. I have trouble imagining it being a decision of the minister, although the act certainly contemplates that. My expectation is that, based on what I have seen and the manner in which PharmaCare is managed, it would be a decision from within the PharmaCare division. But the act would authorize the minister to step in and make the order herself or himself.

M. Farnworth: Has that authority been exercised very often on an annual basis? Are there many cases where this in fact does take place?

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess the short answer is no, because the statutory power hasn't existed and won't until the act is passed into law.

To be fair, as a matter of policy, the division has taken steps to suspend payment or attach conditions. Part of why the act is here is because it has been difficult, in terms of where the authority lies, to step in. Some of it has been contractual. There are agreements in place where a provider is in violation or believed by the Crown to be in violation of the terms of the agreement remedies. But

[ Page 12446 ]

it is the vagueness around that authority that is, in part, being addressed by the establishment of the power here.

M. Farnworth: Let me just rephrase that. We have existing practices, policies and procedures in place. This particular

section is codifying and bringing a lot more clarity to current practices. I guess my question would be: how common are the issues that are anticipated by this particular

section at present? How often, let's say, in the past year? Now that we've got this, how often do we anticipate using this particular section, given past history?

Hon. M. de Jong: I better understand the question. Well, it's rare. I am advised of one circumstance where suspension of payment, if I can use that phrase, has been applied. I am aware of another set of circumstances where a power like this might be utilized, but I am advised that those are examples that have occurred over the course of a decade. The hope is that….

By the way, I should say this. That is because the vast, vast, vast majority of providers wish to comply and do comply with the requirements of the PharmaCare program, and do so providing good service. I certainly don't want to leave the impression that we believe there is a cadre of providers out there that are somehow surreptitiously avoiding their responsibilities. It's a rare circumstance. But where the circumstance does occur and requires intervention, the power to intervene will now be clear.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

M. Farnworth:

Section 15 deals with the issues around identity numbers. As we have seen in the past, there are far more CareCard numbers out there than there are people in the province of British Columbia, a number of times over.

Can the minister just elaborate on this

section a bit? In particular, are there any provisions in this

section that are anticipating the introduction of the new CareCards that the minister and government have talked about in the past?

[1545]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member has correctly identified the importance associated with correctly identifying and confirming identity and has also correctly anticipated the linkage between this

section and the beginning of the introduction of the new services card that will include the photograph, the chip and the number. That's anticipated to begin this fall, over a five-year period.

In the case of the provision of PharmaCare services, I think the member has correctly identified the importance of having a reliable identification system in place and one that can utilize some of the e-technology that has developed and will develop over time.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

M. Farnworth: This

section deals with emergency circumstances. Can the minister explain how this

section is anticipated to work? In particular, are there any differences between current practice and what this

section will do once it's enacted as law — for example, if there is an outbreak of a particular disease or an infection? I don't know whether pertussis would fall under this, or the H1N1, for example.

If the minister could outline how this

section is anticipated to work, I would appreciate that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has correctly gleaned the circumstances in which this

section would become relevant — an outbreak of a communicable disease. In that case the authority would exist to provide benefits irrespective of whether someone is enrolled or not, the argument being that the overall societal interest in ensuring that treatment is available, protection is available, outweighs the otherwise legitimate expectation that people would be enrolled before they received those services.

The prerequisite to that occurring is that the provincial health officer must first declare an emergency under the Public Health Act. He or she can do that as a localized event, a regional event, a provincial event. Once that triggering event has occurred, the authority exists to provide benefits, whether or not that person is a beneficiary.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

M. Farnworth:

Section 20 deals with price regulation. In this

section the minister can set out conditions and limits on the amount that is paid for benefits, but these are subject to the regulations. Within the limits and conditions established by the regulations, "the minister may enter into agreements with any person respecting prices of, or amounts that may be charged" for benefits. If the minister enters into such agreements, the conditions "include, without limitation, conditions respecting the amounts charged and the use, or prohibition of the use, of incentives."

Can the minister just clarify subsection 20(3): "…include, without limitation, conditions respecting the amounts charged and the use, or prohibition of the use, of incentives"? Can the minister outline, just clarify, what this

section is intended to do and how it differs or will differ from current practice?

[ Page 12447 ]

[1550]

Hon. M. de Jong: I've just had the benefit of being reminded about the way sections 20 and 21 work together.

Section 20, generally speaking, would apply to brand-name drugs, and sub 20(3) provides that ability to limit or eliminate rebates as part of an agreement, a specific agreement. When we get to the next section, we'll be talking about the mechanism by which rebates generally can be prohibited.

M. Farnworth: We can do both sections together, if that makes it easier to do this part.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is suggesting that we have a conversation that relates to both 20 and 21, and I'm happy to oblige.

M. Farnworth: The issue of rebates and incentives is clearly a key one, in terms of how the changes proposed by this act will operate — pretty significant changes.

I'd like the minister to sort of take me through how he anticipates it working — how this will compare, for example, to what has taken place in other jurisdictions. I guess Ontario is the key model.

In terms of the discussion, incentives and rebates can pertain to particular medications or particular drugs that a drug company may wish to try and promote by offering an incentive. "If you use or promote this particular product, we will either give an incentive in a reduced price or we will give a rebate to the pharmacists or the pharmacy," in terms of either additional product or cash, or what have you.

This is, I think, central. This

section is central in terms of the government wanting to achieve its goals around savings within our PharmaCare system. I'd like the minister to sort of go through what the current practice is and what this

section will change, because this is pretty significant in the impact that it will have on whether or not this legislation works in the way which the government hopes that it will.

[1555]

Hon. M. de Jong: Three or four steps, I think, are important, and I am mindful of the essence of the member's question: what will be different following enactment of this bill, and of these sections in particular? There's a whole host of drug price regulations that exist today, and they will be captured and enshrined in this act.

The first key difference will be that as it relates to generic drugs, not only will the means exist, but the Crown, the government, intends to act on that new-found authority to set the price for those generic drugs, absent a negotiation. The member knows the history and commented on that in the second reading debate. But the creation of the power that will allow the Crown via this act to say, "And the price for these generic drug products will be X," is the first fundamental difference that I think most people understand going forward.

The second relates to the other matter the member raised, that in this complex supply chain the prevalence of incentives or rebates has had a negative impact on taxpayers and, I suppose, on the purchasers of pharmaceutical products. The ability will exist under these two sections combined to limit or actually eliminate that practice through the supply chain.

Those are the two key differences. I also don't want to leave any doubt in the member's or the committee's mind. The government intends to act on the powers that are created in this legislation and not simply hold it out there as some sort of a threat. The government intends to act and exercise the powers that are created by the act to set those prices by regulation.

M. Farnworth: The minister is anticipating my next question, and that is around the regulations. The key to this

section is the implementation of the regulations. As we know, sometimes when legislation is passed and it is left up to regulation, regulations can be enacted or not enacted many moons down the road.

What I am hearing from the minister is that the government intends to move quickly. If he could give me some sort of timeline as to when we could expect to see the regulations enacted, that would be great.

Does the minister also have a sense of what the price is going to be set at? At this particular point in time have decisions been made and reached on that? Are we going to be at the level that Ontario is, at 25 percent?

I'll throw in another question, and that is: are we going to the 20 percent for the top ten prescribed drugs, as Ontario has announced that it's going to do?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I'm going to do this in the order they were asked, but I will assure the member of this. My view is that British Columbians and, by extension, PharmaCare deserve to have the benefit of the most competitive generic drug prices in the country. I have stopped short of laying a number before the member, but he probably gets a pretty good idea of where this is headed.

The transitional provisions contained later in the act have been structured purposely in a way that will allow us to move first on these two sections. That work will take place over the next few months in the summer, with the results of it being available in the fall, so the answer to that question will be verified then.

I'll add this one last thing, maybe at my peril. I'm going to meet with the other ministers, and this specific subject isn't slated to be on the agenda. But I'll take advantage to highlight for the member and the committee that in addition to the benchmarking that we do in securing com-

[ Page 12448 ]

petitive pricing…. We benchmark against brand-name prices as a percentage.

I have had the benefit of meeting with officials, learned persons, academics from UBC. Professor Law wrote an

article that I'd read, and I've had the opportunity to speak with him. He correctly, in my view, points out that there may be additional savings available if the country can get together and, in a number of instances and certain drugs where there is a robust market, look at a different procurement model that does not rely exclusively on benchmarking against brand-name prices.

His short argument is that there is more money to be saved, as they have done in countries like New Zealand, where they have gone…. It may not work in all instances, but in some of the instances where generic drugs, where there is a robust enough market, a competitive enough market…. I intend to pursue that with colleagues later this week, when we sit down to discuss. But that, in fairness, is another subject matter.

I think the member has correctly identified that we attach great importance to getting on with the regulations associated with sections 20 and 21 sooner rather than later.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer. I think this is an important

section in other areas as well. One of the criticisms that is levelled against the bill by pharmacists — for example, a pharmacy association — is that with the enactment of this particular section, you are in fact going to take away sources of revenue that pharmacies currently rely on — the incentives, for example, or the discounts.

[1605]

Has the ministry had discussions with the pharmacy associations on that and the nature of the impact on them? What has been the result of those discussions, and is there any concern about a potential negative impact on pharmacists and pharmacies?

Hon. M. de Jong: That very much has been the concern expressed. Yes, there will be ongoing discussions, and yes, we will point out that under the provisions of the agreement that was negotiated two years ago, those pharmacies have enjoyed all of the benefits associated with changes in dispensing fees and so on and so forth and very, very little of the savings that were to accrue to the taxpayer and to PharmaCare were realized.

We will have those discussions, but they will take place against the backdrop of a failed agreement that saw disproportionate benefits visited upon one of the parties.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer.

Following up on that, I guess it's one issue in terms of major urban areas where many pharmacies are a part of either a chain or involved in selling a lot of other products besides just pharmaceuticals, but in smaller rural communities the question is slightly different.

Has the minister looked at the potential impact on rural pharmacies and rural pharmacists? Have we looked at the situation in Ontario — they've had two years of this in place — and how it has worked and how it has had an impact on their province? And are there any lessons that can be learned that can be applied here in British Columbia?

Obviously, there is a transition stage taking place. If the minister could enlighten me on that, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. M. de Jong: We're certainly alive to the issue. I think, as I cast my mind back, that was one of the issues that were featured most prominently in the debate that occurred in Ontario, the assertion being from, I think, the pharmacy side that this was going to have a devastating impact on rural pharmacies.

The analysis at this point, I'm told, reveals that there was no net loss of pharmacies. So was that an exaggerated claim? Perhaps, and in these discussions that is not unusual. That having been said, it is important for us to be alive to the need to maintain a viable environment for rural pharmacies. In fact, in many ways, that was one of the considerations that led to the negotiated agreement.

To that end, the rural incentive program was created. Support for rural pharmacies — $1.2 million since November of 2010, in addition to some other features of the agreement. There will be in the weeks and months ahead, as the regulations are finalized, a robust conversation, and I am certain that the issue around the viability of rural pharmacies will be very much at the heart of that conversation.

[1610]

M. Farnworth: This is an important change, and I think this is very much at the heart of this legislation and what the government is trying to accomplish. There are issues that the pharmacies, the pharmacists, have raised here in the province of British Columbia.

Is anything in this section…? Has the ministry looked into this with the Attorney General's ministry in regards to, for example, TILMA or any potential issues around a European trade deal in our ability to make changes in this particular area around incentives? Has the ministry addressed potential problems, looked at potential problems in those particular areas of the trade agreements that we have in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised of no concerns expressed by leg. counsel or by the Attorney General's ministry around trade-related issues that might arise. I can't say that that's a guarantee that they won't. I can only say that nothing has arisen or no alerts have been provided.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

[ Page 12449 ]

section 22.

M. Farnworth:

Section 22 and the following sections — 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 — deal with information management under the administration of the act. Again, this is one of those areas where the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner has raised a number of concerns, as have people concerned about the use of personal information.

section 22 concerns have been raised around the act. Can the minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner around these particular sections? I think it's probably best if we can discuss…. Actually, no, we'll go through them seriatim around the particular sections and whether or not issues that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner have been dealt with.

One of the ones in

section 22 that comes to mind, for example, is: what are the implications on this

section around e-health and FIPPA? Why are the new powers in this particular

section needed? There are two questions right there that we can start with.

Then I guess I'll throw in a third one. The use of anonymous data for researchers has been removed. Why is that, and has the ministry considered the implications of that?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll say this again. First of all, there were discussions with the Privacy Commissioner. I'm in no way critical of the Privacy Commissioner for exercising her responsibilities in serving as a watchdog on government and examining in detail the statutory provisions that come before the House in the form of a bill and to render her opinion on those provisions.

I'll say this in general terms and then try to be a little more specific about the parts of the

section that the member has referred to. There is — again I use this term — a balancing act. The data, I am told, that we hold and that has accumulated over the last number of years — decades, in fact — is exceedingly valuable.

I do want to pay tribute to two…. We've got a former and a present Health Minister engaged in this discussion.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the first Health Minister in the life of this government, has taken a specific interest in — to his credit, I might add, and to the benefit of myself and others, and others are awakening to this — how that data can be utilized in a way that does not compromise the privacy of individuals but could serve the interests of society. There seems, at an academic level, to be tremendous interest in and recognition of the value that that accumulated data set represents.

The hon. member has travelled extensively. I mentioned outside that just last week I had the chance to be in the Middle East for the first time, in Israel. One of the conversations we had amongst researchers and academia was on the value that those data sets represent, from jurisdictions that have publicly funded health care, publicly funded pharmacy or pharmacare programs.

Ensuring that we don't limit ourselves in the way that that information and data can be used is, I think, legitimate. Ensuring that there are safeguards, that that information isn't misused and shared for improper purposes and not just shared outside of government but shared within government for improper purposes — I think the Privacy Commissioner is always on guard to look at that.

The example that I always think of as my favourite example for what I deem to be an appropriate but unconventional sharing of information within government is the fact — and it's completely unrelated to health care — that incidence of collecting maintenance arrears has improved dramatically by tying that data set to the renewal of insurance and drivers' licences.

[1620]

Now, a fairly compelling argument could be made, from a privacy point of view, that that was an inappropriate sharing of information within government. The broader societal interest in that case, I think, justified the step.

Now, we're talking about an entirely different kettle of fish here as it relates to personal information and the need to protect that in the health care setting. But these sections in their entirety, I think, are drafted in a way that seeks to allow us — allow the Crown, allow the government on behalf of society — to make data sets available in a way that does not compromise individual privacy but unleashes the benefit that exists insofar as having these data sets.

It looks like that is going to involve the collection — because 22 is about the collection of data — or may involve the collection of data that would not be captured by the first two subsections.

It's rarely, in these cases, a matter of providing for the situations that you can contemplate. It's generally a matter, as the member knows, of making provision for the situations that you can't contemplate.

Again, I understand the Privacy Commissioner's hesitancy around that, but I would say the safeguard in this case is that we are talking about posted regulations that would be issued by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So we're not talking about some policy or document that would exist in hiding somewhere deep within the bowels of the ministry.

That's a long, rambling answer, but it's a theme that

[ Page 12450 ]

is emerging with greater regularity. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has played a role. There's a major forum coming up in a week or two that is attacking this issue at its heart. It's the raison d'être for the conference itself, so it's very topical. We see the implications of that manifest in a piece of legislation before the House today.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer.

I know there are some very important points that are being raised here. And I agree. The data that we have in this province available to us through our health care system, through our PharmaCare system, is second to none and is an amazing resource that can be of value to not just our health care system here in B.C. but to research around health care in general.

I agree that we should not squander that or relinquish the opportunities that that provides without a great deal of thought and consideration. I do share the member for Vancouver-Quilchena's enthusiasm for this particular topic. There is a lot that we can learn.

At the same time, there are the issues of privacy. I understand what the minister is saying and what the Privacy Commissioner is also trying to impart.

I guess the key question that it comes down to from this…. This is where I'd like a bit more clarification. The minister outlined subsection (

c) in terms of dealing with, for example, First Nations. But then, when you go further down to section (3): "The minister may disclose, outside Canada, personal information collected under subsection (1) for one or both of the following purposes: (

a) to conduct or facilitate research into health issues; (

b) to assess and address threats to public health."

[1625]

Section (2) is: "The minister may use and disclose, inside Canada, personal information…." So there's a

section dealing with inside Canada, and there's a

section dealing with outside Canada.

My question is going to be: are there any differences to how those two sections are anticipated to be implemented? Clearly, one would expect that in both cases you would not be dealing with named individuals, but rather, you would be dealing with anonymized data or information. If I'm right, that would be perfect, and if I'm wrong, please tell me how I'm wrong.

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay. The dilemma is that I'm trying to summarize. The authority for the collection, storage and release of this sort of information is the E-Health Act. So the alignment between these two…. There are differing rules in place.

The one thing, though, I need to put on the record and alert the committee and, most particularly, the member to is: personal information as contemplated in

section 3 is a defined term under the act. It does not follow that that in all cases would be anonymized. So it can be identifiable information. I'm just going to the…. Personal information is identified in the identifiable information.

What I can also tell the member is pursuant to the provisions of the E-Health Act, release of that information outside of Canada for research goes to eHealth and requires express consent of the person, the identifiable person, for research purposes outside of Canada. I'll stop there.

M. Farnworth: I think this is an interesting point. I think it's an important point. Let me back up a sec. We have the existing privacy protection act that, if this was not here, would cover these circumstances. What you are wanting to do in this act, you could do under the existing legislation.

[1635]

The question then becomes: if that's the case, then what is the purpose for having this here in this particular act at this point in time? Why now? That, the minister can answer.

The second point is on the issue of the data itself or the information that you have. If it's anonymized, it can be used for research purposes in a general way. This

section allows that to be outside of the country. So when that happens, you are then, in essence…. The proprietary nature of the fact that we own it…. It is our data; it's the provincial data. It then becomes accessible literally by anybody.

So the question becomes: is it research? Is it findings that can be outside, or is it the data itself that can be taken outside of the country? If that's the case, under what circumstances and how does that take place?

I see some puzzlement. The minister is nodding. He understands what I am saying. If he could address that, I think that would be particularly useful. I guess the final question on that would be: is this

section then anticipating our ability to use that information and for research to take place on that information outside of British Columbia?

[1640]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm trying to get this into a format that is understandable and available for logical critique. Here's the legislation that will impact upon this going forward. Today we have the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act which has provisions that deal specifically with PharmaNet.

The overall impact of this act will be to repeal the provisions of that act that deal with PharmaNet and replace them with these provisions. They will then be responsible. In addition, the E-Health Act, as it relates to accessing personal information for research purposes and the data stewardship committee that exists, will continue to have effect.

The short answer is that for the release of personal information outside of British Columbia, that can happen

[ Page 12451 ]

where there is a threat to public health. That is authorized. It does not require consent from the individual. In the case of the release or the transfer of information outside of British Columbia for research purposes, all of the protections that exist under the E-Health Act will apply, including the overriding jurisdiction of the data stewardship committee. That comes up later in the act as well.

That's sort of the delineation between research and public health considerations in allowing for the release or transfer of information and touches on the consent provisions — when consent is necessary and when consent is not necessary. In addressing the public health threat, consent would not be necessary.

M. Farnworth: Just a question on that, and then if we could take a five-minute break. Then my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan has some questions on this.

If I hear the minister correctly, if there's a threat to public health, then there can be notification. The question I would have: what constitutes a threat to public health? I guess if I come back from some foreign destination and I've got ebola virus or guinea worm or Marburg virus or one of those nasty things, then that would count. Or I guess that would be a circumstance under which….

So who makes that decision? Is it a public health officer who makes that determination? Or is it going to be done by regulation? How exactly will that determination be made?

Then on the other. As I understand correctly, then, data for outside Canada for research purposes must be anonymized. It must not be identifiable. Provisions of the act would apply in the sense that you are not able to identify an individual. If I've got that right, that would be great, and we can take our five-minute break.

[1645]

Hon. M. de Jong: What I've been trying to get straight in my own mind is, from an operational point of view: whose expertise would you be drawing on? I think, at the end of the day, it probably depends on the nature of the circumstances.

If we are talking about a large-scale epidemic-like threat to public health, the provincial health officer would be the logical person advising the minister or the ministry around the exercise of the authority under the section. But I'm also thinking about a circumstance where we might be dealing with a single individual arriving from another jurisdiction, for which there is concern, for which there might be a perceived public health threat, where advice might be sought from a regionally based medical health officer as opposed to the provincial health officer.

In both cases they would be public health officials providing advice that there is a perceived threat to public health, but dramatically different circumstances — one involving a large number of people and the other, perhaps, involving a single individual or a family. So those are operationally the circumstances that I would see, or the routing that I would see occurring here.

The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 4:57 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

D. Routley: The previous exchange between the critic and the minister was very interesting from the point of view of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. The minister mentioned the instances in which consent would or would not be required — that if there were a public health threat, consent would not be required.

Could the minister describe a circumstance where consent might be required?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer would be research that is being conducted outside of the country.

D. Routley: What form would that consent take?

Hon. M. de Jong:

Section 85 of this bill is a consequential amendment to the E-Health Act and stipulates that there needs to be "express consent, in writing, to the disclosure."

D. Routley: One of the concerns expressed during a review of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act around the notion of consent was the power imbalance in the relationship.

[1700]

If a person is seeking help from the government of one form or another or a service and then is presented with the request, which may be viewed as a requirement, for consent for the sharing of information, is the minister concerned that there might be a lack of understanding of the scope of that consent — that a person might feel as though they must consent to the sharing of their information in order to acquire a service and that that may not be fair to the person who is being asked to give their consent?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has raised and continues to raise an important point. When you are asking for someone's consent as it relates to research…. A lot of this research does now take place across international borders. I saw some examples of that last week — fascinating. Researchers in Israel were working with researchers in Vancouver. They've never met, and they're producing scholarship that is published in the New England Journal of Medicine . It is really dramatic and relying on access to data in that case — anonymous data.

[ Page 12452 ]

I think the point that the member makes is valid. When you approach someone for their consent to make personal information available for research purposes, they need to know that they have a choice. There are, to be fair, in the best practices that are employed by research agencies within the ministry itself, a set of guidelines and criteria about how to do that.

All of that is valuable as long as it's abided by and the people making the request communicate, in a fair and balanced way, the benefits associated with the research and how there is a broader societal good that will be served, and also the fact that individuals have a choice. That is the essence of asking someone for their consent and needs to be top of mind.

D. Routley: I appreciate the answer and understand the intent of what's been said. There is a lingering concern around the perception on the part of someone who's seeking help that this request may in fact be a requirement. That was one of the concerns that acting Commissioner Paul Fraser brought to the review committee that looked at the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On the one hand, there may be a misunderstanding of the request being a requirement and, on the other hand, the possi