2010 Legislative Session: Second 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 4, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Canadian navy centennial

Hon. M. Coell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Tulani Ackerman and StEps for Students

G. Coons

Burnaby Festival of Volunteers

R. Lee

Child care and early learning

M. Elmore

Sparkling Hill Resort in Vernon

E. Foster

Occupational safety and health

R. Chouhan

Emergency preparedness

J. Les

Oral Questions

Funding for education

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Costs of special adviser to Vancouver school district

R. Austin

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Funding for school districts and class-size limits

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Costs for child care facilities in schools

M. Mungall

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Funding for Surrey school district

H. Bains

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

J. Brar

Multicultural liaison workers in Vancouver school district

J. Kwan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Regulation of sale of optical products

V. Huntington

Hon. K. Falcon

Safety of oil pipeline and shipping from Port of Vancouver

G. Gentner

Hon. B. Lekstrom

R. Fleming

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010 (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2010

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Gunshot and Stab Wound Disclosure Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

Hon. B. Penner

V. Huntington

N. Simons

R. Fleming

S. Fraser

G. Coons

M. Sather

D. Donaldson

C. Trevena

[ Page 5183 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

CANADIAN NAVY CENTENNIAL

Hon. M. Coell: Today we commemorate and honour our Royal Canadian Navy for a hundred years of service to our country. The Royal Canadian Navy has a rich history and has left a memorable and favoured impact on the international community. Here at home in greater Victoria CFB Esquimalt is a defining part of the capital region.

The Freedom of the City Parade brought the navy to the Victoria community in grand fashion. The downtown business association and participating businesses hosted a barbecue for the entire parade and all the participants and their families. A homecoming statue was unveiled at the corner of Wharf and Government streets.

[1335]

Will the House please offer our thanks, respect and congratulations to the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy on their 100th anniversary.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I'd like the House to make welcome my constituency assistants, who are here for the first time: Bernadette Kudzin and Yvonne Parenteau. Would the House join me in welcoming them to the House.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have the pleasure of introducing students from Western Washington University. They're in a class called Canadian politics and government. They're here to visit us today. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I have the great pleasure of introducing two classes of 40 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy School in my riding, which is one of the best schools in North America. Joining them are their teachers Claudia Petersen and Nancy Bakken as well as 20 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to bring the students here so they can learn about the government. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Dalton: In the House today I notice that we have visitors from Christian Life Assembly, and Karen Reed, who spoke at this morning's prayer breakfast. There were about 20 MLAs that joined us. It was a great event. Thank you very much to Tim Schindel with Leading Influence Ministries, who helped lead it. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TULANI ACKERMAN

AND STEPS FOR STUDENTS

G. Coons: I rise today to speak about an inspiring young teacher, Tulani Ackerman. Tulani has a passion and determination to bring all stakeholders in children's education together to enrich the educational experience for all students.

To do this, Tulani has founded StEps for Students, which is an organization working to discover alternative ways to meet the needs of every student. On July 1, 2010, the StEps movement will hit the road to walk and bike throughout British Columbia in an effort to gather stories and ideas regarding the challenges faced by our provincial education system.

Tulani will be leaving from Prince Rupert on her 2,500-kilometre journey, walking and biking to the Parliament Buildings in Victoria and arriving on August 12. She'll be stopping at towns and cities along the way to deliver her message of collaboration and hope.

StEps for Students' mission statement is "To find new and innovative ways of meeting the needs of every student." The primary goal is to promote non-partisan dialogue between students, provincial government, parents, teachers, administrators and community members. A secondary goal is to build and bridge collaborative input and relationships.

Tulani is a teacher in the Prince Rupert school district. Through her passion for life and deep caring for people, she inspires others to recognize and pursue their full potential. She is particularly gifted at and committed to empowering children and youth from all walks of life. Tulani hopes to unite people to seek more positive solutions. She recognizes that it is from our young people, with their energy and idealism, that new ways of doing business will evolve.

I'm sure we all agree that we need to work towards proactive solutions to assist all children to reach their full potential as well-functioning adults and active, contributing citizens in our society. I would encourage all to watch for Tulani as she passes through our communities, and don't hesitate to join her in her journey.

BURNABY FESTIVAL OF VOLUNTEERS

R. Lee: Last month I attended the Burnaby Festival of Volunteers at the Lougheed Town Centre. This is an

[ Page 5184 ]

event that has been held for the past seven years. It's an opportunity for local organizations to recruit volunteers and also a chance for volunteers to find opportunities to help out in the community.

Groups such as the B.C. Genealogical Society, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Douglas College ICARE program, Katimavik, Purpose Society, Dixon Transition Society, Volunteer Grandparents, SUCCESS, Variety Club, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House and Burnaby citizen support were taking

part in this year's festival.

Even my fellow MLA and I had a booth at the festival to provide more information on government services but, more importantly, to let these groups know that we appreciate the work they are doing in our community.

[1340]

These organizations look forward to this event. It is a chance for them to share in ideas on how to best deliver their services to the public and at the same time offering those who want to help a great environment to do so. In most cases these groups are working to improve the lives of people in the community, and the fact that volunteers are helping is very encouraging.

Again, there was great volunteer support that helped with the organization of this event. Lee Faurot of Volunteer Burnaby has been a contributor to this event in years past and once again is leading to make this year's event a success and possible. Volunteers such as Ken Ryan, Preett Grill, Matt Visser, Maria Mena, Eudora Koh, Amy Fu and Geraldine Wall have contributed to making this year's festival a success as well.

As co-founder of this festival, I would like the House to join me to thank all the volunteers and non-profit organizations for their participation in this year's festival.

CHILD CARE AND EARLY LEARNING

M. Elmore: As we celebrate May as Child Care Month, we extend our appreciation and thanks to all child care providers, early learning educators, professionals in the field, advocates and, of course, parents for their commitment and dedication to performing the essential work of nurturing and supporting our most precious and valuable resource — our children.

As well, we recognize the rights and important role that children themselves play in our society. As per the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, we are reminded that children have rights in early childhood and that young children are active social participants. Further, children are positive, participating citizens who are entitled to a full share of society's resources, meaning that they have a right to make claim on the government and receive services that support them.

A key foundation of lifelong learning, with long-term implications for prosperity at the societal level, is good-quality early childhood education and child care. This valid concept is embraced by many, including social scientists; policy experts; economists, including business leaders; and, of course, parents and grandparents.

As such, it's disappointing that British Columbia in Canada has the dubious distinction of ranking last out of OECD countries in terms of spending on child care and early learning. B.C. also has the worst poverty rate in Canada for the sixth straight year. More than ever, we need a quality, affordable and universally accessible early childhood education and care system.

Such a system is important to support children because it assists children in reaching their full potential and builds a strong knowledge-based society that supports family, especially parents who are in the workplace. It's also an essential part of gender equality that allows women to fully participate in social, civic and economic life. Such a system builds equity in quality of life and social infrastructure for rural, northern, remote and First Nations communities and also children with special needs. It's essential to reduce the poverty level.

As we mark Child Care Month, let us affirm that an early childhood education and care system builds social inclusion, and it is indeed the best way to support our children.

SPARKLING HILL RESORT IN VERNON

E. Foster: Last weekend my wife and I had the opportunity to attend the grand opening of a new world-class resort and spa in Vernon. Sparkling Hill Resort and Wellness centre is a 240,000-square-foot, $120 million investment in our community that will create 130 full-time jobs.

The resort boasts over 66,000 square feet of spa; 150 rooms; the first cold sauna in North America, which drops to a bone-chilling minus 110 degrees Celsius; therapeutic pools; 48 treatment rooms; a first-class fitness centre; and European fine dining. Sparkling Hill has everything you need. With the travelling time being only 25 minutes from Kelowna International Airport, it makes it easily accessible for not only people living in our community but for out-of-town guests who want to visit our region.

This world-class facility was the dream and vision of CEO Mr. Hans-Peter Mayr. Hans-Peter approached Mr. Gernot and Miss Eva Langes-Swarovski of the world-renowned Swarovski Crystal company. Their influence is seen throughout, with approximately two million crystals incorporated into every part of the resort, from the crystal fireplaces in the rooms to the four crystals embedded in the backs of the dining room chairs, magnificent chandeliers and crystal waterfalls.

[1345]

Hans-Peter and his team have left no stone unturned in the planning and construction as they brought his dream to fruition. I would like to thank the Langes-Swarovskis

[ Page 5185 ]

and Mr. Hans-Peter Mayr for their vision and for choosing Vernon as the home for this one-of-a-kind, world-class wellness centre.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

R. Chouhan: This week is North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. NAOSH Week occurs every year during the first week of May to focus employers, employees, partners and the public on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace, at home and in our communities.

Last week, on April 28, we remembered 121 workers who lost their lives at the workplace. When we were remembering them, we all talked about how important it is to take care of the safety and health of all workers, including ourselves. After we make the statements, when we finish the remembering, then we forget about it. So this week is a good reminder, again, for all of us to make sure that we take care of our workplaces.

The politicians are the worst offenders. All of us know. We sit around our desks. We go to all kinds of events during the week. We never talk about preventing injuries to our health, because we are not doing enough exercise. We do enough exercise of our jaws, but our bodies need help. So make sure during this week…. When you go home, talk to your partners, to your staff, and make sure you do enough exercise.

Do walking. There's enough material downstairs near the coffee room, the dining room. Pick one leaflet from there. Do some stretching when you're working, sitting at your desk. It's so important that we take care of ourselves. We should be role models for others.

We can start now. That's a good way to start. We should set up a goal at our workplace and then create awareness of these goals within and outside our organization.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

J. Les: I rise today to help dispel any obliviousness to natural and other disasters. This year we've seen major earthquakes in countries such as Haiti, Chile and southern China. We've seen floods recently in the southeast United States and wildfires in California, Australia and, of course, right here in our own province. Yet you still hear people say: "This won't happen to us."

This week is Emergency Preparedness Week, a national effort to shatter that myth and to encourage action now that could be beneficial later. Here in British Columbia we face 57 known hazards, ranging from wildfires to earthquakes to tsunamis and chemical spills.

In my constituency of Chilliwack the potential threat of flooding on the Fraser River looms every spring. Last year in the Greendale area of my constituency a mixture of heavy rain and melting snow on frozen ground caused homes, farms and fields to flood. On the hillsides mudslides were triggered, and sadly, a couple of homes were lost. A local state of emergency was declared, and residents and volunteers came together to prepare and pile sandbags and help one another out.

How many of us have taken the time to proactively prepare for emergencies? Having an emergency survival kit that you can grab and go is one simple thing that each of us can do to help prepare ourselves and our families in the event of an emergency.

Many communities are hosting information sessions during Emergency Preparedness Week, which runs through the eighth of May, and I encourage all British Columbians to get prepared. There are also great resources available online at pep.bc.ca and getprepared.ca Emergencies can happen at any time, so please, let's all do our part to get prepared.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind members about the content for private member's statements.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

R. Austin: The Vancouver school board is facing a massive multi-million-dollar shortfall, and like the other districts, they'll be forced to lay off staff to balance their books. Right now the Vancouver school district is preparing layoff notices for teachers, special education assistants and other support staff.

[1350]

Children only get one chance at education, and this government is playing roulette with the future of our children and our economy. My question is to the Minister of Education. Why is the government underfunding our school system at a time when it is even more important than ever to invest in education?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is clearly a demonstration of do as I say and not as I would have done. As we are aware from the NDP platform in the previous election, they would have invested, in the last two years, 60 percent less than we have on this side of the House in education.

We've increased education funding each year….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The members opposite are well aware that we've increased education funding every single year. While enrolment has declined by some 56,000 students, this year we are investing more than

[ Page 5186 ]

$1.3 billion more than we did ten years ago in education in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The B.C. Liberal platform, as I remember, promised to protect public education and not bring in the HST.

Vancouver isn't the only district that's axing staff. The Delta school district is eliminating 16 teachers and 15 support staff. The Vernon school district is cutting 17 teachers and six support staff. The growing Central Okanagan district will be laying off 18 teachers and 22 support staff.

My question again to the Minister of Education: how does cutting teachers and support staff improve our education system for our children?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What we all are aware of — and this is not something that anyone can be blamed for — is that we have got declining enrolment around this province. We have 56,000 students fewer, and districts are projecting next year that we will have some 60,000 fewer students than we did ten years ago. Mr. Speaker, 52 of the 60 districts in this province have declining enrolment, and they continue to face that. In spite of that, we've increased education funding every single year for the last ten years.

What we are saying to school districts, including Vancouver, is that we need to do things differently. We need to look for administrative savings. We need to start doing things differently around the province so that we can reinvest those dollars in education.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

COSTS OF SPECIAL ADVISER TO

VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT

R. Austin: I think this minister needs to quit with the misinformation. She knows, or she should know, that the Vancouver school district has proposed more than $2 million cuts in administrative costs.

Although districts across the province are making cuts and laying off staff, this government has chosen to single out Vancouver by sending in a special adviser to look at their books.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Austin: Parents want this government to spend education dollars in the classroom, not on flying a special adviser and his staff back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver.

My question is to the Education Minister. How many staff does the special adviser have, what is this costing, and why isn't this money being spent on educating our children?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We have appointed the comptroller general, and she is going in. She's working right now in Vancouver with her staff. Even the Vancouver school board has said that they welcome another look, that they welcome the possibility that there are things they have missed.

But this is a school board which has 12,000 fewer students than Surrey and yet spends significantly — $3.6 million — more on administration. This is a school board where there are a dozen schools that have 40 percent or more empty seats.

The special adviser is doing her work, and we look forward to the report at the end of May.

[1355]

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS

AND CLASS-SIZE LIMITS

K. Corrigan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Burnaby school district doesn't have declining enrolment and has the second-lowest administrative costs in the province. Here is what Ron Burton, a longtime school trustee, said about funding under this government. He said: "They're saying there's more money than ever before, and there isn't." He said he's never seen anything quite like it in the 22 years that he's been a trustee. The Burnaby school district has more students than ever before. They've had to cut 42 staff to make up a $5.2 million shortfall.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Is she telling the truth about education funding? Then how come she can't explain why districts of every size in every region of the province are cutting staff?

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member to be very careful with her language.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm pleased to go over the investments that we are making this year in education. This year in British Columbia we have increased education funding by $112 million. This is at a time….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[ Page 5187 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is at a time when governments around North America and indeed around the world are struggling as we come out of the worst recession since the Depression — at a time when our government expenditures are $1.7 billion greater than the revenues government is taking in. Yet in spite of that, we continue to invest in education and expand the programs that we're offering.

With respect to Burnaby, Burnaby's per-pupil funding is almost $2,000 higher annually than it was ten years ago — a 33 percent increase.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: With regard to extra money, here's what the chair of the board, Diana Mumford, said: "The extra money that the district is receiving is far surpassed by the increased costs, wages and benefits coming from the contracts that this ministry has negotiated."

The district has also been forced to increase class sizes in Burnaby secondary school because of these cuts. Across the province more than 12,000 classes break this government's own class-size and composition law. Why is this government refusing to give districts the resources they need to comply with the government's own class size and composition?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a government that has invested in Burnaby. In fact, next year this district will be receiving an increase in its funding of $3.5 million. So to say….

Mr. Speaker, it's a substantial increase in their funding. Not only that, in this school district alone we have invested more than $65 million in capital projects as well. We continue to invest in schools, in their capital funding and in new programs like full-day kindergarten. But what we're not going to do is continue with the status quo, and we are urging school districts — and in fact, we're working with school districts — to find administrative savings, to not have duplication of services in each and every one of the 60 school districts. We need to find ways to do things differently, and that is our intention.

COSTS FOR CHILD CARE

FACILITIES IN SCHOOLS

M. Mungall: School cuts aren't just impacting classrooms. In my region day cares are the latest victim of this government's chronic underfunding of the education system. The Creston Valley First Steps Infant Toddler Centre is looking at a $14,000 annual rent increase because school district 8 can no longer afford to host the program.

My question is to the Education Minister. How does she expect schools to become neighbourhood hubs when districts can't even afford to offer basic programs, let alone support community organizations like First Steps Infant Toddler Centre?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Kootenay Lake school district is one of many that has had really substantial declining enrolment. We recognize that it is difficult when enrolment is down. The enrolment in this district is 21 percent lower than it was ten years ago.

[1400]

In spite of this, funding year over year has increased, but we do acknowledge that governments at every level — federal, provincial, municipal and school boards — who are elected to govern, are faced with difficult choices today. We're in an environment where the government revenues are $1.7 billion lower than what is being taken in by government.

We have increased education funding, and we've increased the amount that's going to districts around the province. But districts do need to find ways of doing things differently, and they need to make decisions at a local level.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The Creston Valley First Steps Infant Toddler Centre is not the only day care being hurt by this government's failure to fully fund our public education system. In fact, both Care to Learn in Nelson and the Salmo Children's Centre are facing a 140 percent rent increase.

My question is to the minister again. Will she get out of her message box and tell British Columbians how hiking day care costs helps to fulfil this government's promise to enhance early learning and support vulnerable children?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's interesting to hear from the members opposite about early learning and their devotion to it, seeing as how they voted against the budgets that would support full-day kindergarten and StrongStart B.C. centres. We've invested over $43 million in StrongStart B.C. centres around this province in every single district, including three in the member opposite's own riding. There is one in the Creston Education Centre, in Winlaw Elementary and in Crawford Bay. So Mr. Speaker, we're investing.

Next year half of the students in this province will be attending full-day kindergarten, a program that is absolutely embraced by educators and parents alike and that early childhood educators tell us is the best place we could make our investment in education.

[ Page 5188 ]

FUNDING FOR SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT

H. Bains: This minister is flip-flopping from one reason to another reason for the funding shortfall in the school districts. Now she's saying that bad economic times are the reason why we are not providing them the funding that they need, but the Premier can charter five jets to fly his friends in for an announcement. He had money for that, but no money for the children in this province. Shame on you guys.

The school district of Surrey has suffered blow after blow at the hands of this government. Now they are left with no option but to cut specialist teachers, support staff because of the government's funding shortfall of $12.3 million in a growing district — 1,300 new students. These cuts will leave the Surrey district with ten fewer counsellors, eight fewer teacher-librarians, 13 fewer learner support team teachers.

My question is to the minister. When will this minister and these Liberals realize that their downloading costs and funding cuts are resulting in a poor quality of education for the children of Surrey?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member needs to listen more carefully, because while I spoke of the economic downturn, I said that in spite of that, our government has increased education funding last year and this year.

The district of Surrey is going to receive $14 million more in funding next year than they did in the previous school year — $14 million. Their per-pupil funding has increased by 36 percent over the last ten years. This is also a district in which we've invested over $200 million in new capital projects.

[1405]

We are investing in Surrey and working hard with that school district to meet the demands — the member opposite is correct — of a growing district.

J. Brar: Some 1,300 new students are entering Surrey schools this year. Despite that, the minister is forcing the Surrey school board to cut teachers and support staff to deal with a $12.3 million budget shortfall. In addition to the cuts that will directly impact the classrooms, the board will also be making $4 million in cuts that will lead to less maintenance and less cleaning services in our schools.

My question is to the Minister of Education. When will she open her ears so she can hear the pleas of the Surrey school board and provide them with the funding they need to deliver quality education to the children of Surrey?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The members opposite have acknowledged on a number of occasions and in a number of places that we have an excellent education system here in this province. Let's be really clear about that — an excellent education system with good outcomes, and an education system that has had increased funding every year for the last ten years.

Surrey is growing rapidly. There's no question. But an additional $14 million in their budget is not a cut.

MULTICULTURAL LIAISON WORKERS

IN VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT

J. Kwan: The fact is that school boards across this province are faced with an education funding crisis because of this government's funding shortfall, and that's the truth. Under this government's watch, the Vancouver school board has already had to cut $51 million in education programs and services in the last eight years.

On the chopping board this year are multicultural liaison workers. Twenty-five percent of the students are K-to-12, ESL-designated students in Vancouver. By 2031 Metro Vancouver's visible minorities will comprise 59 percent of the total population. With immigration on the rise and the average caseload of 2,000 students per Chinese-speaking liaison worker, would the minister agree that B.C. needs more multicultural workers in the school system and not less?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think what I really hear from the member opposite is support for our appointment of a special adviser. It's not only the member opposite who is supportive; it's also former NDP Finance Minister Elizabeth Cull who is supportive of the appointment of the special adviser.

We are urging this school board, in fact, to look very carefully at the fact that their administrative costs are substantially higher than those of Surrey, in spite of the fact that they have fewer students. Surrey, with 12,000 more students, is spending $3.6 million less a year on administration. These are the kinds of things that this school board needs to look at and address and work within the budget that they have.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't listen to the question, and she didn't care to answer the question. The fact is that there isn't $16 million in administrative cuts in the Vancouver school board.

Robert Li is working with a grade 8 ESL student. The student felt isolated and excluded in her new environment and began skipping school. Luckily, Robert Li was there to connect with the student and to act as a bridge between the student, the educators and the parents.

[1410]

For $225,000 the Vancouver school board could save all four multicultural workers in the system. Will the minister act today and call on the Minister of Finance to

[ Page 5189 ]

cut the fat in the $28 million in the spin doctors' budget, the public affairs bureau's budget, to save this valuable service for the students in the city of Vancouver?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would remind the members opposite that this is a school district that, in the ten years we've been governing, has had an increase in their funding every single year. In fact, I believe that the last time this district had a reduction in their funding was when the member opposite was actually at the cabinet table and voted that reduction in.

School districts around the province need to be finding different ways to do things, and many of them are. Many of them are. They're protecting classroom funding, and they're finding different ways to manage within their budgets. We urge Vancouver to do that.

REGULATION OF

SALE OF OPTICAL PRODUCTS

V. Huntington: Prior to the announcement from the Minister of Health that he had unilaterally changed regulations to permit on-line purchase of contact lenses and eyeglasses without prescription, can the minister tell us what research he did to assure himself that the decision would not adversely affect the health of British Columbians?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, staff actually did an enormous amount of research, scouring the medical evidence. I would refer the member to the Mayo Clinic, and look at the standards for suggested visits to an eye health practitioner, depending on your age range. In the 20s it suggests once every ten years. In the 30s it's maybe twice every ten years. It has a varying amount.

I would suggest that the Ophthalmologist Society also has recommendations I would refer the member to. The bottom line is this. On this side of the House we believe in the public's right to make informed choices, the public's right to purchase eyewear where it makes sense for the public, where they can find value for the public. As responsible consumers, they can do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for his answer. However, an FOI request for details on MSP referrals by optometrists to ophthalmologists shows that in 2005 alone there were almost 123,000 referrals for significant diseases like glaucoma, diabetes mellitus, retinal detachments and disorders, and cataracts — 123,000 referrals. Almost half of those referrals were for individuals under 65 and 4,200 alone for children under 18.

What controls has the minister put in place to ensure that non-prescriptive on-line purchases won't end up costing the system more when it eventually has to deal with serious medical problems not caught by routine eye examination?

Hon. K. Falcon: First, I would refer the member to the proposed regulation, because the member will see that it doesn't include children. It's actually for healthy adults, asymptomatic — that means they have no eye health symptoms — between the ages of 19 and 65.

I think that if the member looks into the medical evidence, what you will find is that there is no medical evidence that would require or support government making a decision that would force people to have annualized medical eye health exams. What you will find, if you look at…. Whether it's the Mayo Clinic or the ophthalmological society, you will have a consensus of recommendations by experts within the field — not medical evidence but a consensus of recommendations — that will suggest visits anywhere from once a decade to three to five times a decade, depending on how old you are.

[1415]

At the end of the day, we actually believe, on this side of the House, that an informed member of the public is capable of making appropriate health care decisions, just as an informed member of the public today can determine whether they wish to visit their general practitioner or their family doctor every year or every two years or every five years, depending upon which symptoms they determine they're experiencing. It is no different on eye health.

safety of oil pipeline and shipping

from port of vancouver

G. Gentner: Some 300,000 barrels a day of crude oil capacity runs through a pipe from Alberta to the Lower Mainland right now, and there are plans to expand it to 700,000 barrels a day. The Port of Vancouver saw a 94 percent increase in crude oil shipments last year compared to 2008, and the amount of crude shipped out of Vancouver will continue to grow.

To the Minister of Environment: what is this government doing right now to ensure we are prepared for the eventuality that something…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 5190 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think it's important, and we talked yesterday, briefly, about the environment, but being a member of any political party doesn't give you the benefit of saying: "I care more about the environment than anyone else." I think we all do.

But when it comes to tanker traffic, I want to read an interesting quote.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It says: "In regards to northern tanker traffic" — this is from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the NDP leader — "we've certainly given it a yellow light and a caution about looking at the environmental concerns." Yellow, in my mind, means "Proceed with caution," hon. Member. I think you should get it straight. We care. We will always protect the environment in which we live, but make sure you check with your own leader before you get up and make a policy announcement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: We're not asking the Minister of Energy if he cares. I think we're getting an idea about that through his answers to a number of questions this week. We're asking him whether his government is prepared, because Kinder Morgan, through the Port of Vancouver, has increased shipments. From 2008 to 2009 crude shipments doubled. That's the very same year that the Ministry of Environment's environmental protection branch was cut by 60 percent. That's the branch that is supposed to be prepared for oil spills in British Columbia. So the question to the minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: Given the plan to more than double the volume of crude oil planned for supertankers on our coast, will the minister assure this House that environmental protection will, in fact, keep pace with that expansion in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I find it surprising with the question. Here we have a member and an opposition that are opposed to clean energy development. They're opposed to Site C. They're opposed to wind development. We're looking, and we're proud of the development of clean energy on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reality is that we live in a world that requires the use of fossil fuels. I'm sure the member opposite, at some point, if he didn't drive here today, actually has been in a vehicle recently. The reality is that we're going to develop clean, green alternatives in this province, something we can be very proud of, something that all members of this province should be excited about, and we're going to ensure that we do it in an environmentally sustainable manner, one that protects the environment as well.

[1420]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 11.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

The Chair: Minister, with your indulgence, we'll begin at

section 166 and then return to 149, the

section that we stood down prior to the recess.

section 166.

A. Dix: I can't help but be delighted by the interest that the cabinet has in this particular debate.

The first question is to the minister with respect to the process. He will know that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has expressed — I think it's fair to say, by the standards of these communications — strong opposition to these provisions in this legislation. In particular,

[ Page 5191 ]

he refers to the process in a letter that the minister, I know, has in his book, dated April 22, 2010.

He expressed concerns about the process and describes that "increasingly, expediency is consistently trumping privacy with respect to the protection, in particular, of health information. These proposed amendments continue that unfortunate trend and raise mounting concerns about the privacy of British Columbians."

He notes that in the first week of March ministry officials provided the commissioner with a draft of the amendment act. Subsequently the commissioner provided on March 29 his response. Rather than address the issues in the response, the government, while continuing — I gather, government staff — to propose that meetings would take place…. Their response is essentially to table the legislation without telling the commissioner.

Given that the commissioner and the government are working on some of these very issues — the designations of health information banks — can the minister comment on the commissioner's concerns about the process that was undertaken in developing these amendments?

Hon. K. Falcon: Our staff regularly consult with the commissioner over issues around privacy. But this is one of those areas where we are really making it very clear that while it is very important that we respect and understand the issues around the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, increasingly the

interpretations being utilized in that act actually prevent the Ministry of Health from responsibly and properly operating in its role as a steward of the health care system. I can tell you, as the Minister of Health, that is just not going to be appropriate.

What I would say to the member is that…. Perhaps in form of explanation I'll take some time on this, because I do think it is a very important point. It's actually central to why we're here discussing the statutory amendments which will provide clarity and certainty around the needs and the requirement of government to have access to appropriate secondary data information that allows us to be appropriate and responsible stewards of the system.

What is happening and what has increasingly been happening, Member, is that under FOIPPA — if I may refer to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by its acronym…. FOIPPA treats each health authority as a public body, each hospital as a separate public body, and increasingly has been essentially saying to those bodies that they are prohibiting them from sharing important information with the Ministry of Health that is necessary for the Ministry of Health to operate as its function as a steward of the health care system.

I can tell the member opposite that literally hundreds of hours of staff time, both in my ministry and the health authority–level ministry, have been spent over this issue and literally thousands of dollars on legal opinions, trying to determine who the health authorities should be listening to.

[1430]

On the one hand, you've got the Information and Privacy Commissioner suggesting that they shouldn't be sharing information with the Ministry of Health. By the way, it has been shared for decades, including while that member was in government — routinely shared with the Ministry of Health for decades and always has been.

So we are in a situation now where information that has routinely been shared with the Ministry of Health as the steward and organizer of the health care system — and, by the way, the ones held responsible for the system…. Now we are getting

interpretations from the Privacy Commissioner that that kind of information, which is not the personal, detailed health information of individuals…. I heard the member on second reading try to suggest that that was the case.

We are talking about basic information like health care card numbers, information on hospital admittance information — when they were admitted — demographic information, income information, which allows us to actually operate the health care system in British Columbia for the benefit of the public of British Columbia.

Increasingly, what has been happening is we've got health authorities saying…. Well, their lawyers are saying that they are not allowed, under the

interpretation of the Privacy Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act, to be sharing information that has long been shared with the Ministry of Health, and they're not able to do so. So we have ironically been put in a strange position that….

I could solve this problem overnight by bringing back all the health authorities under government and making them not separate and independent as we have done to better provide delivery of that service. That would solve the problem overnight. But of course, that is just nonsensical.

We should not be required to have to take that extreme a step to demonstrate we are one system. We are one health care system. It is one integrated system that is responsible for delivering the best possible care we can for the public of British Columbia. The amendments will address the need to maintain that critical information flow so that we can manage our health care system and be held accountable.

Ironically enough, we've actually got two competing recommendations coming to us. On the one hand, we have the Auditor General, who regularly does reports in the health authorities. For example, the Auditor General completed a report on the home and community care programs, emphasizing that the ministry should work with the health authorities to finalize comprehensive information for system planning, identifying key priorities,

[ Page 5192 ]

timelines, expectations, and improve the documentation of roles, responsibilities and processes for data quality.

In short, what they are saying is that they are expecting the Minister of Health and the ministry to be accountable to ensure that health authorities are responding accordingly. The member opposite would know this, because the member is always quick to say that we should be adopting the recommendations of the Auditor General in the various reviews that the Auditor General undertakes.

I would agree with that. But the only way that we can be held accountable is if we have access to information that allows us to measure within the system and be held accountable to the system.

So on the one hand, we've got an Auditor General saying that we need to improve and do a better job of making sure we work with the health authorities to have the appropriate information and be held appropriately accountable for ensuring that the health authorities deliver on that information in their role as public bodies responsible for delivering care.

On the other hand, we've got a Privacy Commissioner saying, "No, you can't have that information," because the health authorities or the hospitals are deemed to be a public body. Therefore, the sharing of that information, even with the Ministry of Health which is responsible for the stewardship of the entire system, is not appropriate.

So we are, by statute, clarifying and making it very clear that the Ministry of Health has that right, as it's always had that right in British Columbia, to make sure we can appropriately manage and be held responsible for the system.

I regret that we have a disagreement with the Information and Privacy Commissioner with respect to this issue. But I do think it is important to recognize that we do operate one system, and it is one system that we — and I in particular — are being held accountable for appropriately by the public and by other bodies and legislative officers.

The other issue that I think is important to mention here, as the member would well know, is that the Ministry of Health manages close to half of the provincial budget. Because we are responsible for almost half the budget, it is absolutely fundamental and critical….

[1435]

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member points out it's closer to 40 percent. The member is correct on that, but the member knows that it grows every year.

It won't be long — in fact, a matter of years — before almost half the provincial budget is under the Ministry of Health. Obviously, that's something we're trying to deal with in some of the other debates I've had with the member opposite — the need to bring about change in the health system, to bend down that cost curve. But in the meantime, it is a very significant part of the entire budget, as the member would know.

It is absolutely, fundamentally critical that we have data necessary to ensure that the right services are being provided in a responsible manner and that we are able to oversee that that has taken place.

Back when I was operating my own businesses in the private sector, we used to have a saying that you cannot manage what you cannot measure, and it is absolutely true. It's particularly true in health care. You have to have information that allows you to measure how you're doing and whether you're actually improving or indeed not improving so that you can make necessary changes.

These amendments are about administrative and program data, as I mentioned — like personal health numbers, demographic information, income information. We are not talking about access to a person's hospital chart or the chart that they may have at their care facility.

The other thing I would mention is that these amendments work in concert, I would argue very strongly, with requirements under FOIPPA. There are no notwithstanding FOIPPA provisions in the statutory amendments we're talking about here today. It is entirely consistent. We need to have clarity and certainty for the health authorities and for the ministry and the public at large to know that the ministry has the right to have access to that data, that kind of secondary data information, so that we can properly be stewards of the health care system and properly manage the health care system.

That's where we have a respectful but fundamental disagreement with the Privacy Commissioner. These statutory amendments will make it very clear that we do have the right to that information.

A. Dix: That is hopeful.

The minister's position, if I understand it, is that he is stuck with two options: (1) that the Ministry of Health just throws it all away and gives up and not be a steward of the system — right? — or (2) to blow up the health authorities. There isn't a third option.

But let me suggest because it's plain on paper. We had this debate two years ago. We sort of had the debate. We didn't have a debate at committee stage because that particular bill was passed with closure, but we sort of had the debate two years ago on this question. We passed the E-Health Act, which the government doesn't want to follow, two years ago — not a hundred years ago, not 200 years ago. Two years ago we passed that bill.

The third option — and this is astonishing — is for the government to follow the bill it passed two years ago. That's the third option that the minister seems to have a difficult time with.

I ask the minister just very precisely, because in that time they haven't designated…. I'll even quote from the

[ Page 5193 ]

Privacy Commissioner, because the Privacy Commissioner has said it well here. He says that since the passage of the e-health bill:

"Since that time…the ministry has not designated existing databases as health information banks where the opportunity and need are in fact clear. Instead, the ministry is…resorting to a piecemeal approach that avoids the transparency and privacy protections offered through the E-Health Act. It may be argued that designation of health information banks is complex, but no evidence" — no evidence, hon. Speaker — "to support such a claim has ever been offered. The tools are there under the E-Health Act and…should be used, rather than the expedient of piecemeal amendments to other statutes."

Surely the minister, when he frames the issue as, "We'll have to bring all the health authorities in or else we won't act as stewards of the system," is ignoring the option of using not the NDP's legislation, not the Social Credit legislation, but his own legislation.

So can the minister explain here in this House under what conditions he will use that legislation, under what conditions he would designate a health information bank, as recommended by the Information and Privacy Commissioner not only in his letter to the minister but in his investigation report, which found the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority had not acted consistent with the law, in the PARIS review?

[1440]

Will he tell the House under what conditions he would designate, say, PARIS or anything else a health information bank and whether he thinks that process is too complex? Since that process was adopted in a government bill in 2008 in the Legislature, that's a very surprising conclusion.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, the member is wrong. Actually, we have designated. The lab system, for example, was designated one year ago. We currently have a working group committee made up with a representative from the freedom-of-information office that is currently working on other new e-health databases to register.

The reason we are working on the new e-health databases is because these are the databases that have the intensely private personal information that requires the highest level of security, very appropriately. These are things like lab tests, diagnostic imaging results and prescription information. They do warrant that high standard of security. That includes the potential of even having our old legacy systems come under the E-Health Act. The chronic disease management database, for example, would be a likely candidate for that.

That's why we have the working group. That's why the working group will make recommendations. When those recommendations are made, those databases will come under the E-Health Act.

But even if the E-Health Act covers all of our databases, we still have the fundamental issue where secondary information needs to be provided to the Ministry of Health so that the Ministry of Health can do its job as an appropriate steward of the health care system. It is my responsibility and my role to defend and make sure that that is not going to be compromised.

I can tell the member right now that what is happening today is that information is not being shared by health authorities to the Ministry of Health, which we need in order to properly manage the system. I wish that we could have sorted all this out. We have been unable to do so. We are clarifying, by legislation, making it very clear that that kind of secondary information is information that is valuable in the need to be a responsible steward of the health care system, and we are ensuring that we can do exactly that.

A. Dix: The minister is saying it's too onerous for the Ministry of Health to follow its own law in this case. It's too onerous for them designate the relevant ministry database under the E-Health Act as health information banks. Is that right?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, and the member likes to do this. The member likes to put words in my mouth. That's not what I said at all, so the member should listen carefully.

Actually, what I said is that there is a working group that has been put together, made up of representatives of the freedom-of-information office. That working group is looking at the databases, with the priority being the electronic health record databases. Those are the ones where the privacy information is very succinct and very specific, and those are the areas that require the highest levels of privacy protection.

That's why lab tests have already been designated. That's why diagnostic imaging results and prescription information are the kinds of things that that working group is looking at. Once that working group has made those designations, they will look at legacy systems too, and they will make some decisions around that. As I mentioned, the chronic disease management database might be one example that might be appropriate.

In spite of that, even with the E-Health Act having coverage, we still need to make it clear by legislation that information necessary for a responsible and proper stewardship of the system is not going to be denied to the Ministry of Health so that we are able to do our job properly on behalf of patients and the public in British Columbia. That is what we are making clear through this statute amendment.

A. Dix: So is the minister saying that this act is an interim step before he declares the databanks in the Ministry of Health, health information banks? Is he saying this is simply an interim step to get him through that process, or is this actually an end run of that process? Is it his plan to designate the relevant Ministry of Health databases as health information banks under the E-Health Act?

[1445]

[ Page 5194 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: What this is doing is ensuring that the information that has flowed to the Ministry of Health…. This is what I would call longstanding, legacy information that flowed during the years that the NDP was in power, during the years that the Social Credit Party was in power and, of course, during the years that we are in power. That kind of information will clearly, through this legislation, continue to be able to flow — secondary information, granted, but important information for the management of the system.

Whether a database is designated under E-Health Act or not does not take away from the fact that we will have clarity and certainty with this legislation. That kind of longstanding, legacy information will be able to continue to flow to the Ministry of Health so that we can be proper stewards of the health care system.

A. Dix: Just a question on the definition of "stewardship purpose." The commissioner has argued and, I think, argued well that the definition of stewardship purpose — and I'm going to quote from him — "should be exhaustive so that the purposes for collection are explicitly stated. For reasons of certainty, clarity and transparency, there should not be the ability to expand the

definitions by prescribing other enactments or purposes in regulations."

So why not follow the commissioner in this regard? While the commissioner has called on the minister to withdraw the legislation; while he sees the legislation as, I think, negative and overriding privacy considerations; while he has criticized the government for doing exactly what I was suggesting it had been doing, which is avoiding its own e-health legislation, he did also make a series of very specific criticisms and suggestions to the government.

So my question to the minister is: why have such a broad definition of stewardship purpose? Why not actually define what you mean by stewardship purpose in the act? Make it exhaustive, so that, as the commissioner says, the purposes for collection are explicitly stated.

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: The definition of stewardship purpose speaks to the key responsibilities and obligations of the minister and ministry and is consistent with the Auditor General's report in 2008 on public sector governance. It conveys the need for the ministry to manage personal information that is essential to conducting its business.

The definition is flexible enough so that further stewardship purposes may be defined at a later date. But if those are to be defined, they must be done through a decision of cabinet and the appropriate regulatory change, if it was necessary to meet future stewardship purposes that we're not contemplating today.

A. Dix: What stewardship purposes are we talking about here? Is there something beyond this already broad definition of stewardship purpose that the minister can envision? What is he talking…?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Of course, if we knew what it was today, obviously it would have been included. We believe that this stewardship purpose explanation is certainly sufficient, but all we are doing is responsibly saying that if in the future, down the road, there was some other stewardship purpose that needed to be included in the definition, then that would have to go to cabinet. Cabinet would have to make a decision and a regulatory change based on that.

A. Dix: We're talking about fundamental issues of privacy here, I think, and isn't it reasonable…? Given the exhaustive nature of (

a) to (

e) under "stewardship purpose," isn't it reasonable, if the ministry is going to go beyond its already wide definition of stewardship purpose, that it would come back to this Legislature?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, I think that what this does is very clearly state what the stewardship purpose is. What is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health as a steward of the health care system? We believe that this definition is adequate in defining exactly what that is and will allow us to properly manage the system as has been managed for decades in British Columbia.

I think that the member needs to know that this isn't a theoretical debate. I mean, this is a real, on-the-ground challenge that we are having in the ministry to properly manage the system as a result of

interpretations and legal

interpretations of orders of the Privacy Commissioner about what can and what cannot be released to the government. We are one system after all.

The Auditor General continually, even when doing investigations of health authorities and their different practices, quite appropriately almost always comes back and says to the government: "You need to learn from whatever recommendations I've made here, and you need to be accountable for ensuring that that is applied equally across the system."

Well, applying it equally across the system and appropriately being stewards of the system mean that we have to have at least enough information to be able to responsibly undertake that role. That is exactly what we are doing here — clarifying what stewardship purpose is. I think this is absolutely appropriate.

If at some point in the future government decides that they need to further clarify what stewardship purpose is, then the minister must take that to cabinet. Cabinet must consider that in its fulsomeness. Cabinet must make a recommendation, and that recommendation would be in the form of a regulation that would be out

[ Page 5195 ]

for discussion in all the usual approaches that we have with respect to regulatory change.

A. Dix: I'm guessing, then, that if we made a friendly amendment to drop

section (

f) from this bill as unnecessary…. What we're talking about here…. The minister isn't talking about clarifying. He's talking about expanding here. That's the purpose of (f) — to expand the definition of stewardship purpose. It seems to me in this case that it requires no expansion and that if it did require expansion in the future, the minister could and should — whoever that minister might be — come back to the Legislature and provide reasons to the people of B.C. why that purpose would be expanded.

[1455]

A further question just on the definition

section here — the "personal information" definition. Again, this is a suggestion, and I wanted the minister to explain an inconsistency with the E-Health Act, which refers to personal health information. In this case, the definition is of personal information, which seems broader.

Can the minister explain the difference and why he has chosen to refer to personal information — or the government, in this legislation — rather than personal health information?

Hon. K. Falcon: For the purposes of simplicity and not to make my answers too long for the member, I'll answer the first part of his question now and then take a minute to review the second part.

In terms of stewardship purpose, I really want to be clear. This is not expanding what the Ministry of Health has access to. I want to be very clear about that. This is clarifying what has always been the practice.

That is the fundamental issue for us as the Ministry of Health: that what has always been the practice is running into roadblocks because the definition of a health authority as a public body is having the Privacy Commissioner then say, "Well, any information you're sharing with the Ministry of Health" — or much of the information you're sharing — "is inappropriate to be sharing with the Ministry of Health," even though that has been a decades-long practice for appropriately being stewards of the health care system.

This is actually clarifying that to make sure there is no misunderstanding or doubt about what has always been the practice. That's all this does. I'll just take a moment and then respond to the second point of the member's question.

The reason why it's defined as personal information and not health information — this is a very important point — is that, for example, Member, even your personal health number is considered personal information. That's not considered health information. So personal health numbers are, for example, a fundamental aspect of information that we need to be responsible stewards of the system.

The other reason is that personal information includes other non-health information that we reasonably require to be stewards of the system. So for example, demographic information — how old people are, for example, to determine their eligibility for services like residential care; for example, what their income information is, to determine whether or not they are qualified for subsidies under our system.

That is considered personal information, but that is the kind of information that, again, the Health Ministry has always relied on for decades in British Columbia, and we need to have certainty around that so that we can continue to have access to that information so that we can appropriately be managers and stewards of the system.

A. Dix: The minister will be familiar with the investigation into the primary access regional information system at Vancouver Coastal Health. This is a little bit of what he's talking about, I think, in the bill — the results of that investigation. The recommendation specifically about that database was that it be designated a health information bank under the E-Health Act.

Now, can the minister explain to the House why they have chosen — at least, not chosen to date, because the third answer, I guess, is that they're working on it — not to do that?

[1500]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that Vancouver Coastal is considering that, but their priority right now is to deal with priorities around security system issues that were raised by the Auditor General and make sure that they deal with those forthwith. I think that's entirely appropriate, but I understand they have not ruled out the designation of the PARIS system as part of the health data banks.

A. Dix: I know that this saga of the PARIS system has many elements. I do remember when it was being adopted by the Ministry of Children and Families. I asked why, and the minister of the day said it was because it was working so well at Vancouver Coastal Health. I think we've seen that's not the case, and these successive investigations certainly show that.

The minister, in that case, is suggesting that perhaps that designation would occur and would be appropriate. Presumably the sharing of the information with the ministry would then be incorporated into that question, and it would fall under the E-Health Act, as in

section 10(4)(

a) here.

I guess the next question I have is further to

section 10(1) and in general through this section. The minister is essentially saying here that there's an obligation on public

[ Page 5196 ]

bodies to provide — and I think the commissioner raised these questions as well — and disclose information in their custody and control whenever the Minister of Health Services is satisfied that personal information is reasonably needed to fulfil a stewardship purpose as defined in the act or potentially defined in other ways in future.

Here's what the commissioner says: "The implication is that the minister is usurping the discretion of the heads of all 2,900 public bodies under FIPPA to disclose personal information."

I want to ask the minister just in a general sense to respond to that. I think he dealt with it a little bit previous to it, but what the legislation says…. It's actually

section 11 that we're referring to. I apologize to the minister. We'll come back to

section 10 in a minute, but

section 11.

Basically, if the minister determines that this is the case, information from all 2,900 public bodies would come to him, and they would enter into information-sharing agreements to do that. Is that the purpose of that section?

Perhaps the minister can respond to the statement of the commissioner where he says: "This begs the question as to why have separate public bodies under FIPPA if the Minister of Health Services can simply request personal information from any public body for vaguely defined stewardship purposes. When one considers the breadth of the social determinants of health, the extent of the minister's authority would potentially be sweeping."

I think those are strong statements from the commissioner with respect to

section 11 of the new legislation contained in

section 166 here. I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to respond to those strong criticisms of this

section by the commissioner.

[1505]

Hon. K. Falcon: The bottom line is that it's just simply not true, just simply not the case. The amendments actually limit what information could be captured to those public bodies that have information necessary for a health stewardship purpose and only if the ministry has a reasonable need for the information in order to carry out a stewardship purpose.

The Blueberry Council is a public body, but there is no good reason why we would have a health stewardship purpose with respect to the Blueberry Council, to give one example. The vast majority of public bodies do not have or disclose health care information, nor do they have a mandate to partner with the Ministry of Health Services on programs necessitating that kind of information exchange.

I think, with the greatest of respect, that is a total…. I would never try and characterize something that way. It's simply not the case. It's not even practical or realistic, by any reasonable person looking at the legislation.

Hon. I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: I note in the gallery a visitor who I have not seen for a while, David Hoff, who used to work with Bell Canada and who I got to know a number of years ago as someone who was very supportive of the…. It used to be called the Bell Walk for Kids. Because this weekend I was just at the Walk for Kids phone line walk, I remembered him fondly. When I saw him in the gallery today, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for visiting. I'm not sure what brings him to Victoria, but I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Dix: I was anticipating a healthy defence of the health properties of blueberries from the Minister of Healthy Living. It wasn't there, but I think it's possible, I say to the Minister of Health Services.

Just to be clear, then, the minister has, on the question of stewardship purposes…. He feels that he has defined stewardship purposes appropriately. He's leaving himself the option of expanding that, and he feels that the concerns pretty eloquently expressed by the Privacy Commissioner are not relevant.

In fact, of course, what this says is that he can seek out that information from public bodies if, given this very broad definition of stewardship, the ministry thinks so. That seems like a reasonable concern by the commissioner, but the minister has assured us…. Essentially, his position on that question is: "Well, just trust me."

What I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about now is the issue of designation orders. Again, I think some of these issues…. Because they've been raised so eloquently by the commissioner, his statements are worthy of a response. I think the minister will agree that's the case, so I would ask him to respond to this comment from the commissioner.

The commissioner says:

"A designation order made under

section 3(2) of the E-Health Act must clearly spell out, in a clear, comprehensive and transparent manner, what personal information may be collected, used and disclosed from, by, to whom and for what purposes. Through a properly drafted designation order, the indirect collection and use of personal information by the ministry would be explicitly authorized. All designation orders are available to the public and in fact must be included in the personal information directly published by the Ministry of Citizens' Services, thus providing transparency."

He goes on further:

"We understand that information is needed in order to support evaluating and planning" — so he understands the purpose that the minister has — "but we are concerned that this proposed legislation would compel disclosure of personally identifiable health

[ Page 5197 ]

information without the protections offered by the E-Health Act.

"We strongly believe the E-Health Act" — not the Ministry of Health amendment act, 2010 — "should be used to acquire personal health information for planning and evaluation uses."

I think these issues are of significant importance. I think the minister would agree that the confidence in the system and the confidence in the privacy of the system are no small matters in terms of the overall effectiveness of the e-health initiative. If people feel that confident — and that includes health care professionals and patients — then the system will work effectively and help improve the health care system.

How does the minister respond to the concerns with respect to designation orders and the provision on designation orders in the act?

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon: We are absolutely committed to following the directives under the E-Health Act for those declared databases. No question about it. But as I said in response to an earlier question, the priority databases for the Ministry of Health to move forward on are those databases that do have very sensitive, detailed personal health information of British Columbians.

That's why we were talking about things like lab tests and diagnostic imaging results and prescription information. Those are the kinds of things that most reasonable British Columbians would agree are highly sensitive information that should come under the auspices of the E-Health Act. But you know, we're going back to the original debate and discussion we had.

What we are talking about is clarifying that this ministry has a right to secondary data information that is currently being restricted as a result of increasingly narrow

interpretations by the Privacy Commissioner — information that has always been made available to the Ministry of Health, information that is critical to the Ministry of Health in order to carry out its responsible stewardship of the system.

That is personal information. I acknowledge that. But it is personal health numbers, demographic information and income information, which is information that is absolutely essential for this ministry to be able to continue in its role as responsible stewards of the system and to be held accountable. As another independent officer of the Legislature, the Auditor General, occasionally points out quite rightly, we ought to be held accountable for that.

Without the appropriate information, we cannot be held accountable. This is bringing clarity to that. It is saying that the information that we have historically collected in British Columbia under multiple different jurisdictions is information that is continuing to be allowed to be collected so that we can enjoy our role as a steward of the health care system.

As I said with the E-Health Act, that's why we have a working group in place with representation from the freedom-of-information office to go through the process of designating which databases should come under the E-Health Act.

The priority, as I have mentioned, is those databases that have detailed personal health information. That is the most important priority, I am certain, for British Columbians but certainly for the ministry and the Minister of Health.

A. Dix: The minister said repeatedly that this is really just about secondary data. So we're only talking about secondary data. Where does that limitation exist in the act?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, that clarity is provided through the definition of "stewardship purpose" and also through the definition of "personal information." I just went through explaining to the member at some length that even a personal health number is considered personal information. Income data is certainly considered personal information. Demographic data is considered personal information.

[1515]

That is information that is required for the proper stewardship of the Health Ministry. The definition of stewardship purpose is laid out very, very clearly, as I mentioned earlier on, in

section 166.

A. Dix: Would the minister, for example, describe the information in the PARIS system, which had been shared with the ministry, as what he calls secondary health information?

Hon. K. Falcon: The distinction is that the information that wouldn't be shared, of course, is information that would be captured by freedom of information. That would be information that's not necessary for the proper stewardship of the health care system.

The information we require for the proper stewardship of the health care system, of course, is things like the personal health number and the home and community care, for example. Under PARIS, that would be shared. It would be information like income information, like demographic information and health care number information that provides the appropriate stewardship information to allow the ministry to appropriately undertake and operate the program.

A. Dix: My only point is that the minister's statement about "secondary" is not contained in the act. I mean, that's an assurance, but it is not in fact a protection in the act. This is the difference. Certainly the information contained in the PARIS system is actually fairly broad.

In any event, I appear not to be convincing the minister on this point, which disappoints me but doesn't surprise me.

[ Page 5198 ]

Interjection.

A. Dix: The member for Cariboo North thinks if I'm more scintillating, I'll convince the minister somehow. I worry about that, but there you go. If that were the case, I will certainly try.

Just a question about information-sharing agreements. The minister will know that under the E-Health Act…. He'll know this because, of course, we debated the E-Health Act two years ago. Even though the government has chosen essentially administrative convenience over following the act, nonetheless that act contained minimum requirements for information-sharing agreements.

I guess the question is: in this case, why for information-sharing agreements in this Ministry of Health act has the minister not simply replicated those minimum requirements for information-sharing agreements?

[1520]

Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 11 recognizes and does not change the minister's

section 3 right to enter into any agreement with any person. It is adding clarity again to what has been practice. It does not actually make any changes. It just recognizes that reality.

A. Dix: Let me just read

section 11. "Without limiting

section 3, if the minister is satisfied that the collection, use or disclosure of personal information is reasonably needed to fulfill a stewardship purpose, the minister may enter into an information-sharing agreement with any person." There are similar provisions elsewhere in the legislation.

The question just is…. There are minimum conditions in the E-Health Act for what those information-sharing agreements will contain. I'm asking the minister why he doesn't think those provisions should be replicated in this bill.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's because, as we discussed earlier, the E-Health Act has much higher requirements that we've talked about. The reason it has much higher requirements is because the data involved is much more detailed personal health data, and appropriately, it should have higher standards.

Again, the kind of information we're talking about here is the standard information that has been collected for many, many decades that is necessary for stewardship purposes.

A. Dix: It is the minister's view, therefore, that the requirements of an information-sharing agreement under the E-Health Act are too onerous for the Ministry of Health?

Hon. K. Falcon: In a nutshell, I think, if I heard the member's question correctly, I would fundamentally agree with him in the sense that, yes, the E-Health Act is there to protect the most important personal health information that you can imagine the public would want to make sure is protected. But you don't necessarily want to apply that same standard to basic what I call secondary data, but data nonetheless, like personal health numbers or demographic information or income information that's necessary for stewardship purposes.

We do believe that the priority absolutely ought to be those health banks or data banks that contain the kind of personal information that the public would be very concerned about — their prescription information, diagnostic information, lab information. Those are the kinds of things that are the priority for this government to get dealt with first under the E-Health Act.

A. Dix: The minister is leading into my next question. He's helping me here, I think, and I know the minister always is here to help.

If it's the case that the minister is choosing this end run around the E-Health Act because it's just taking time, that they've only been able to designate one health information bank in two years since they passed the legislation and it's just a very onerous process, why wouldn't he put a sunset clause on these provisions?

[1525]

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I would disagree entirely. It is not an end run, as the member talks about. It's an entirely appropriate use of the E-Health Act for those databases that have highly sensitive personal information that ought to be covered by the E-Health Act.

The member says: "Well, you haven't designated all these other ones. You've only done lab systems." That's because as we're doing system implementation under the electronic health record and as those systems are being put into place and are coming into place, then the designations will follow. That is entirely appropriate.

We haven't got the electronic systems up and running on all of those programs yet, but as they come into force, so will the designations come into force. That's why we have a working group, as I mentioned before, with representation from the freedom-of-information office to make those designations as those systems are implemented.

A. Dix: The minister is saying two things. He's saying that it takes a while, on the one hand, and on the other hand, he's saying that the data that the Ministry of Health holds — and some of that data is exceedingly personal information; I know we call it personal information here, very personal information — should be held to a lower standard. I mean, that's what he's saying.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

[ Page 5199 ]

All I'm asking the minister is: is it the case that he thinks that a lower standard should be applied to the Ministry of Health with respect to privacy, which he's argued for? Or is it the case that it just takes time for the government to comply with its own legislation? If it's the latter — that it takes a while to conform to its own information — the government should consider this to be temporary legislation. But it's not, of course. This is the plan for the government. This is the legislative framework they're going to go forward to, which is essentially outside of the E-Health Act. They don't want to use the E-Health Act for Ministry of Health data banks. That's pretty clear.

I guess what I'm asking the minister is — and he seems to be answering this question: is it the case that he just thinks that the Ministry of Health should have a permanently lower standard with respect to privacy? If he does think that, then clearly we can understand why the Privacy Commissioner is so adamantly opposed to this legislation.

Hon. K. Falcon: Of course, that's just utter nonsense. I have to state that on the record. The member talks about a lower standard. Apparently, it was a standard perfectly acceptable for the ten years that you were in power as a government, Member. You were the chief of staff….

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Through the Chair, if this was such a big issue to the member while he was the chief of staff in the government of the day, he didn't view it as a lower standard. It's just a nonsensical argument.

The fact of the matter is that what I need to hear from this member…. He apparently thinks that it's okay today for information not to be shared with the Ministry of Health because these are considered public bodies, and that that information, which includes basic information necessary for being proper and responsible stewards of the system, is not okay to share with the Ministry of Health as it has been for decades.

That's what's happening in the real world, Member. That's what's happening in the real world, where hundreds of hours of staff time at both the health authority and the Ministry of Health level and literally thousands of dollars in legal fees are being spent because of a very narrow

interpretation being applied by the Privacy Commissioner that these, as public health bodies, should not be sharing that information, which is information that is absolutely critical and crucial for the Ministry of Health to be responsible and held accountable for the stewardship and the operation of the health care system.

Now, the member calls it a lower standard. No. It is just the standard that has been in place for decades in British Columbia.

What we are saying is that we want clarity. We want clarity that does not in any way take away from any provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but clarity that defines what stewardship purpose is — which is in fact what has been done for decades in British Columbia — so that we do not spend hundreds of hours of staff time both at the health authority and the provincial government level and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees having lawyers look at rulings of the Privacy Commissioner to determine whether information that has been shared for decades with the Ministry of Health is now appropriate to be shared or not.

The fact of the matter is that the E-Health Act is there to deal with the personal, highly sensitive private information that most members of the public would absolutely accept is very, very sensitive information and is appropriately governed by a higher standard than what is governed by personal health numbers and demographic and income information utilized by the Ministry of Health to properly oversee the system.

[1530]

Now, the member may not think that is an issue and something that doesn't need to be addressed. This minister certainly does. This minister knows, as other legislative officers of the House require, that for me to be held accountable, I have to have the information necessary so that we can be held accountable. That is why we are bringing clarity with this legislation, to make it very clear that, for the purposes of stewardship of the health care system, that basic information that has been provided for decades to the Ministry of Health — not an expansion of the information; the same information….

We are bringing real clarity to that to be certain that there is no misunderstanding between public bodies, whether they be hospitals or health authorities, that they can share that information with the Ministry of Health — after all, we are one system, and I am responsible, as Minister of Health, for that system — to ensure that we can operate that system appropriately. That's what these sections do.

A. Dix: I fear that I haven't convinced the minister yet, but there's always hope. There's always hope. And there are so many ministers here that it's…. I just say in a joyful way, not in an inciting way, that they're clearly fascinated by this debate. One almost wants to continue indefinitely this discussion of privacy.

When the minister says…. I forget what word he uses. He uses a sort of revolving door of ridiculous, absurd and so on. He is, of course, referring to the learned opinion of the Privacy Commissioner, who is also working every day on the health information bank, so I guess that relationship is going well.

What the minister is saying — and there's just a disagreement on this, fundamentally, between not just the

[ Page 5200 ]

minister and the opposition but the minister and the Privacy Commissioner — is that his administrative convenience trumps personal privacy. That's his position.

He talks about how the health care system has functioned for a long time. One of the reasons that we increased…. The minister has acknowledged that this is a lower standard than in the E-Health Act. We increased the privacy protection in the E-Health Act. That wasn't the initial intent of the government, but the Privacy Commissioner intervened, the government listened, and there was an increase in the protection of privacy in that act when it was finally passed in the Legislature.

It was, of course, that the personal privacy and personal health information is, if anything, more vulnerable today than it has ever been. I think that's a fair point. I think that's why the government proceeded the way it did. For the minister to say that there aren't risks to privacy is…. What's his word? Ridiculous? Absurd? Whatever that word was that he used.

In any event, since the minister's view is that a lower standard is acceptable, since the minister's view is that the Privacy Commissioner's legitimate request to defer this legislation so that he could work through it in the government in the processes that the ministry itself has set up is rejected, then really all we have left is to express our difference on this vote and to have a vote on this section.

[1535]

Section 166 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

Horne

Letnick

McRae

Stewart

I. Black

Coell

McNeil

Chong

Polak

Yamamoto

Bell

Krueger

Bennett

Hawes

Hogg

Thornthwaite

Hayer

Lee

Barnett

Bloy

Reid

Thomson

Falcon

Penner

de Jong

Hansen

Bond

MacDiarmid

Abbott

Lekstrom

Coleman

Yap

Heed

Les

Sultan

McIntyre

Rustad

Cadieux

van Dongen

Howard

Lake

Foster

Slater

Dalton

Pimm

NAYS — 30

S. Simpson

D. Black

Fleming

Farnworth

Kwan

B. Simpson

Austin

Karagianis

Brar

Hammell

Lali

Thorne

D. Routley

Horgan

Bains

Dix

Mungall

Chouhan

Macdonald

Corrigan

Chandra Herbert

Simons

Gentner

Elmore

Donaldson

Fraser

B. Routley

Huntington

Coons

Sather

[1540]

Section 167 approved on division.

Section 168 approved.

A. Dix: We still have to pass, on division,

section

Section 149 approved on division.

Sections 169 and 170 approved.

section 171.

H. Bains: If I could ask the minister about "(

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following." Can the minister explain whether this applies to the owner of a vehicle, or is this to deal with a facility where the inspection takes place?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the patience of the member opposite. Would you mind rephrasing that question for us now that my deputy is here? I appreciate it.

H. Bains: This new language that is being substituted by repealing subsection (1) — does this apply to the owner of a motor vehicle, or does this apply to the facility where the inspection takes place?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: It actually applies to the facility and to the inspector in the facility.

H. Bains: Can the minister advise this House how this language would help to better maintain those facilities where the inspection takes place for the safety of the vehicles?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what it allows for is a broader scope of data collection. It also allows the flexibility to actually make the determination to cancel a particular designation.

H. Bains: I think my question was: how is it different than the previous language? I mean, the director had the authorization and the rights to cancel those designations previously. How does this enhance that ability?

[ Page 5201 ]

Hon. S. Bond: In the current situation, in fact, there is a very narrow scope under which a cancellation can be determined. There are very specific criteria, and it's a very narrow scope. This actually allows a broader look at general activities and a number of other additional features within a designated inspection facility. So it actually broadens the opportunity, and it creates more flexibility.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain specifically: how does this add to the rights that the director already had? What other areas are we including that the director now will be able to expand the scope? How does it do that? What are the specifics around it?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the best way to describe it is that currently there are specific criteria under which you can actually cancel a designation. With the new language, for example, if a facility is processing an extraordinarily or unusually large number of vehicles, we would now have the opportunity to look at that and base a cancellation on those kinds of circumstances.

Another example would be that if there was a very high number of vehicles coming out of that shop that on further inspection were found and taken out of service, we would be able to look at that as well. So it's a much broader base of information that would allow us to determine whether or not we would consider removing a designation.

[1550]

H. Bains: I guess in order to do that, if we're expanding the scope of inspections of these facilities, it means that we must have additional resources available to the director in order to conduct these additional inspections of these facilities. So does this require directors to have certain minimum inspectors or staff in order to carry this out?

Or we could make the changes, but if the director does not have the staff to conduct all those inspections, all changes could be just the paper changes. How do you actually physically go out there and inspect, if the resources aren't available to the director? So what resources would be added on to conduct these inspections of these facilities?

Hon. S. Bond: I think what's critical is that it's actually coupled with an additional enhancement — that, in fact, we will be creating a database on which we can regularly monitor and track information. So what will happen is we will see a far more streamlined approach. Our inspectors will be able to do less paperwork and focus more appropriately on the actual on-site inspections.

You know, we do hundreds of inspections today, and obviously, that will continue. What we will do is do it differently. So the database will certainly streamline the process and allow us to concentrate on the most important work, which is the on-site inspections.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister for leading me to my next question on the database. Who is required to keep this data? What are the minimum requirements or guidelines under which the database must be collected and maintained and stored, and who has access to this data?

Hon. S. Bond: The system is an on-line system, and it will be a government-secured database. So an inspector will come into a facility, gather the data, sit down and do the data entry, and it will be kept in a centralized government database which will be fully secured. The information…. A paper copy of the inspection is left at the designated inspection facility, but the rest of the data is transferred to a centralized government-secured database.

[1555]

H. Bains: As I understand it from the answers from the minister, the inspector will be going to the facility and entering the data at that facility by collecting it from the inspector who is the designated inspector of the facility. Then, from thereon, that data will be moved on to the central location?

Hon. S. Bond: We have a lot of inspectors in this process, and I think the member opposite and I may be on two different topics here. In the facility there are actually inspectors who inspect the vehicles. Those are the people who input the data as they do the inspections and as they go through the inspection process.

Our CVSE team then looks at the data that's inputted into the system. So there are two separate sets of inspections. One is the actual person inspecting the vehicle. Our CVSE team audits or monitors that data.

H. Bains: That does clarify it much more clearly, because now I think we are staying with the facility, and the designated inspector in that facility is responsible for collecting the data, entering the data and transferring to the central location.

Can the minister advise us: how often are they required to do that? On a daily basis? On a weekly basis? Or as they go through the inspections, do they enter as the inspection is completed?

Hon. S. Bond: The information has to be inputted within ten days of the inspection.

H. Bains: Isn't that a bit long a period of time — ten days? If the vehicle has gone through the inspection today, for example…. And I'm sure that some of them will have a number of vehicles going through those facilities,

[ Page 5202 ]

so I guess it depends on if there's one inspector or two inspectors. Is there more than one inspector in a facility, or can it be worked under one inspector with other people simply doing the inspection?

Perhaps the minister would advise us: who actually does the inspection? Is it the designated inspector of that facility or other people who may not be designated but working under the supervision of this inspector, doing the actual inspection?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly expect that authorized inspectors would be people that are actually doing the inspections of vehicles. One of the reasons we're bringing these amendments into the Legislature today is we want to ensure that we have as many tools as necessary, to be clear, to ensure that we have designated inspectors in inspection facilities that obey the laws. We're bringing in some additional tools for us to manage that.

[1600]

An authorized inspector is the person who should be doing the vehicle inspection. They might have a clerk that would help with the data entry, but it's important to point out to the member that, in fact, after an inspection is done, a paper copy of the inspection is provided to the person whose vehicle has been inspected, along with a decal. There is a written record of the inspection from the moment it is done.

Certainly, it's our understanding and practice that the data would be entered much more quickly than ten days, but that is the maximum that's permitted.

H. Bains: Is there any language in the proposed legislation that requires the designated inspector to do the inspection?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly we would, in regulation…. For example, there is a regulation that says a person must not issue an inspection certificate for a vehicle unless he or she is an authorized person for that class of vehicle and the vehicle has been inspected by him or her at a designated inspection facility for that class of vehicle.

I think there are very clear expectations that if you're going to inspect a vehicle, you had better be an authorized person. Again, one of the reasons we want to bring these amendments to the floor is to make sure that we have as many tools as possible to accomplish just that — that we have only authorized inspectors in appropriate designated inspection facilities.

H. Bains: As I understand the minister's explanation of these changes, the amendments to the current act, when the minister talked about expanding the scope of inspection, one of the examples she used was if there is a heavy volume of vehicles coming out of that facility. Other than that, is there anything in this language that would explain that we are actually expanding the scope — other than just the number of vehicles coming out of that facility?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly don't have an exhaustive list, but I think the intent of the language is to allow for people who are experts in monitoring the inspection process to be able to recognize when there's an anomaly. We'd like to be able to follow up on that. Currently we can't do that because the requirements are very specific.

For example, as I mentioned to the member opposite, if there's a heavy volume of vehicles coming out of one inspection facility, if their out-of-service rates are higher than one should expect from a facility…. Another important one that…. Let's say, for example, a vehicle is inspected, and five days later it's stopped in a roadside inspection, and in fact we find that there are significant issues with that vehicle. We'd like to be able to go back and ask some very important questions about why that's the case.

The language has been included to allow us that type of leverage so that we can ensure that vehicles are being inspected appropriately.

[1605]

H. Bains: Perhaps, on this one, can the minister explain: do we have any recording measures that actually can be used to track whether these amendments that we are talking about today are working in getting the unsafe vehicles off the road? Is there going to be some mechanism of recording what is going on, on the roads today in comparison to the experiences prior to these amendments?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly do have an ongoing audit system. What this would allow us to do is to compare future audits to past audits, and that would be one of the measurables. We'd obviously want to see a trend of improvement in the designated inspection facility results.

We also have baseline data from our roadside checks. We do random checks, and this database would allow us to compare the past to future outcomes. In the last year we shut down 11 designated inspection facilities, and of course, that's another outcome that we can measure as we move forward.

Our goal is to ensure that owner-operators can feel safe that when they leave a designated inspection facility, they can be confident their vehicle has been properly inspected. The database gives us, partly, the tools. It enhances our ability to monitor these facilities over time and compare them to past results.

H. Bains: I think one of the issues is the facilities themselves and how the director can actually use these

[ Page 5203 ]

additional powers to follow up on and, if necessary, lift their licences. But I think, on the other hand, we have vehicles on the road that come from different facilities in the province that are conducting these inspections. My question was more to do with those roadside inspections.

Will those roadside inspections be used to compare and analyze where the inspections of those particular vehicles were conducted? And then, through that, somehow, there will be different criteria to judge those licensing or inspection facilities — whether their licences should be kept up. Is there any baseline? Are there any criteria that they must cross over that line before the inspectors start to go and move into those facilities? Or will it be at the discretion of the director?

Hon. S. Bond: It would be the decal that the vehicle actually is given once the inspection is done, and then we would do a random roadside check, and the decal would allow us to trace exactly what the member opposite has pointed out.

There should be consistency between a random roadside check and what happens in the designated inspection facility. If we find that that's not the case, then obviously it would trigger further action. Certainly, if we see that there is a lot of inconsistency between vehicles caught in random inspections and particular designated inspection facilities, that's exactly what we'd be able to do. We'd be able to track that back to a facility, wherever it is in British Columbia, and ensure that it is brought into compliance.

[1610]

Sections 171 and 172 approved.

section 173.

H. Bains: My question on this one…. It seems to me the only changes I see between the current language and this language is the addition: "…while they are inside or outside British Columbia…." The "inside"

part is added on; "outside" was already in. Can the minister explain: how does this help gather the information, plus how does this help us to make sure that those vehicles are maintained safely?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. It's actually just a housekeeping correction that needed to be made with the regulation, so it doesn't change anything significantly. It's housekeeping.

H. Bains: So this is the requirement of the operators. It's not the facility that we are talking about here. The operators of the motor vehicle are required to maintain the information that is actually listed in here — the records and safety records. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: This actually refers to the carriers and operators, and it's a requirement of the national safety code. It just means they have to maintain records both inside and outside of the province. As we were reviewing the legislation, it was an area that we needed to clarify, so we decided to make the housekeeping correction at this time.

H. Bains: Whose responsibility is it? Is it the responsibility of the owner-operator, for example? Or is it the responsibility of the company that the owner-operator is actually employed with, who happens to provide them with the work?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it is the carrier, and obviously, some are owner-operators.

H. Bains: I guess, in order to further clarify…. There may be a company, say the ABC company, that employs ten owner-operators. My question is: whose responsibility is it to maintain these records as they are required in this language? Is it that individual owner-operator employed by this company, ABC, or is it the responsibility of the company?

Hon. S. Bond: Ultimately, it's ABC company, or whatever the name of the carrier might be. Obviously, there's mutual responsibility because owner-operators or drivers also have to provide certain documentation to the carrier. But ultimately, it is the ABC company that would be responsible.

Section 173 approved.

section 174.

H. Bains: Hon. Chair, are we going to go through the subsections or the entire

section itself?

The Chair: We'll do the entire section, and the members can break down subsections as they go through.

[1615]

H. Bains: Then in that case, my question is on 174(f). It says: "for the purpose of assisting the director to carry out the director's duties and exercise the director's powers under this section, requiring persons authorized or designated under

section 217 (1) (

i) to keep prescribed records in the prescribed manner…."

My question here is: how is this conducted? Is this different than 171, which we talked about? What's the difference — that we are trying to ask for the requirement and different powers for the directors in here?

Hon. S. Bond: This was very specifically crafted so that in fact it requires the records to be kept where

[ Page 5204 ]

you do the inspection. We have had challenges in the past with an inability to practically access records, dependent upon where they were kept. This requires that where you do the inspection…. If you do that inspection in Prince George or if you do it in Surrey, the records would need to be kept in those places, where the inspections are done.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could advise this House: are we talking about the same facilities that we talked about under 171? We talked at great length about their responsibility for maintaining records, entering the data and transferring it over to the central location. Now we're talking again about maintaining those records and where those records are kept.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is the paper copy that we're talking about in terms of the actual inspection form. It carries a broader range of information than one would input into the database. It's essential that we have that complete record in the place that the inspection takes place, so we have access to that paper copy. Not all of the data on that form is inputted into the central database.

H. Bains: That is a bit confusing. Perhaps the minister is going to help me. I thought that earlier we talked, under 171, about how, once the inspection is conducted by the designated and authorized inspector, they're required to enter all of that data within ten days. That data is then transferred over to a central location.

Now we're talking about paper copies. I thought the paper copies were given to the owner of the vehicle, whose vehicle has gone through the inspection. Is it a copy of the inspection that is kept at that particular facility?

Maybe the minister could explain: why that additional requirement of having a paper copy when you already have data that is transferred over to the central location? Isn't this supposed to be the same data that they're entering from the paper copy to the central location?

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: I don't think it's as confusing as the member opposite might think. Basically, there is a paper copy created, one which is given to the driver when they leave the inspection site and one which remains. This would require a copy to remain in the physical place where the inspection is done.

The data that's collected is the important data that would be the basis for an audit, so there is information that does go into the central database. There are additional, very specific data and other records that remain in the physical place where the inspection is done. We collect enough data to create a meaningful database to allow for future action, but of course, there's a paper copy. The person who brings in the vehicle gets one, and the inspection facility keeps another.

H. Bains: Let's make this a little more clear. When the minister said earlier that the data will be entered once the inspection is conducted, within ten days, is that data any different than the data on a paper copy, or is it exactly the same? They must enter everything that is on the paper copy to help the central location do their job, to make sure that everything is being conducted according to the rules. Or is it only a portion of the data that comes from the paper copy that is sent to the central location?

Hon. S. Bond: The most important and relevant data is collected consistently, and it is a subset of the information that would be contained in a complete inspection record. All of that information is consistent. It is entered into the database, but not every piece of information during an inspection is entered. It's a subset of that information.

H. Bains: Wouldn't it be much more efficient that the designated inspector is required to enter all the pertinent information on the paper copy that is available at the central location rather than duplicating this and having the inspector physically go into that facility and look at the paper copy, when they could sit in their office, as the minister said earlier, look at that data, find all the information and make a judgment call on whether there is something not being conducted according to the rules? Do we need to make some changes — or the facility may be given a warning?

Hon. S. Bond: All pertinent data that is relevant to triggering further action is entered into the database, but there is obviously an official record of the inspection kept on file. That is the inspection document. It is also the signed document.

It's important that we maintain the paper copy. It's also a backup to the on-line system. Certainly, all of the relevant and pertinent information is entered into the database, and the official record is kept. This now requires that the official document is kept in the actual facility where the inspection took place.

H. Bains: I want to move down to the next subsection, (j)(i). It talks about "empowering the director in circumstances or for purposes set out in the regulation to (

i) exempt unconditionally or on conditions the director considers desirable, a vehicle or a person authorized or designated under

section 217 (1), from a requirement of this Act." Can the minister explain: what are the circumstances where this exemption is provided?

[1625]

[ Page 5205 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, it would permit very unique circumstances, and I can actually give the member opposite an example of that. We have a fire truck on the Gulf Islands. We don't want to have to take the fire truck out of service and take it to a designated inspection facility. What we actually would like to be able to do — and this would permit — is allow the inspector to go to the fire truck.

H. Bains: That is a very interesting example the minister used. If the fire truck is unsafe to drive, what does that say about our fire department and their ability to do the work in case there's an emergency?

There is a requirement that within a certain period of time your vehicle must be inspected and a permit be issued. Is it once a year? Is it more than once a year? If that is the situation, how does this example that the minister used about the fire truck that is used in fighting fires fit into these criteria?

Hon. S. Bond: I think this amendment actually fixes the concern that the member has. Obviously, we don't want an unsafe fire truck on the road. The only option we'd have at the moment is to exempt the fire truck from an inspection. We'd rather be much more practical and bring the inspector to the fire truck. The frequency for commercial vehicles is a six-month inspection.

H. Bains: If I compare the language that is under 217(1) now, basically what 217(1) talks about is: "For the purposes of

section 216, the director may (

a) authorize persons to inspect vehicles, (

b) designate facilities operated by the government or a municipality or other person as facilities for different classes of inspections, and (

c) on conditions the Lieutenant Governor in Council requires, exempt a vehicle from inspection."

It seems to me that some vehicles could be exempted, according to the current language. Now we're giving authorization to the director to exempt vehicles unconditionally or on conditions.

[1630]

Would it not be that other people can use this language? For example, a school bus driver says: "Look, you know…." Maybe that's not a good example. Maybe another example where someone says, "Look, it's absolutely necessary to move these folks from point A to point B. Can I get an exemption for one day, two days, three days until I have time to put my vehicle through the inspection?" or "The inspection period has expired, but I need two additional days because of reasons A, B and C."

Is it going to be on a case-by-case basis, or is there a set designation — the type of vehicles that actually can get the exemption?

Hon. S. Bond: The reason we're here in the House today is because we're going to focus on road safety in British Columbia, and what we want to do is tighten up the exemptions, tighten up the regulations and provide more tools for ensuring that designated inspection facilities do their jobs properly. This is just the legislative piece, and obviously, regulations will be built underneath this.

I can assure the member opposite that as we put the regulations in place, we're going to be narrowing the exemptions and making sure that we have as few exemptions as possible. But the key principle here is that instead of exempting the fire truck that needs its inspection, what we're going to do is allow for the inspector to go to the truck. That makes a lot of practical sense, and we think it will actually reduce the number of exemptions.

H. Bains: I fail to understand, Minister, and perhaps you could help me. Right now under the current language, in order to get exempt, it requires an order-in-council, as I read it. Now we're giving powers to the director. At the discretion of the director, these exemptions can be afforded. How is that tightening the rules?

Perhaps the minister could also explain to me: is there a designation of vehicles or some conditions, the criteria under which the director may provide exemption? For example, is it only the ambulance vehicles? Is it only the fire truck vehicles or police vehicles, or does this apply to public vehicles as well?

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: As I pointed out in the earlier answer, this gives us the legislative framework to build the regulatory requirements below it. We would be very clear that there would be a very specific and very narrow focus of vehicles that would be exempt.

In fact, it happens extremely rarely today, and the person responsible for making a decision about that exemption is the director of the CVSE unit. So it is an experienced person. We expect there to be very few exemptions.

Our number one priority both as a ministry and as a safety vehicle inspection team is the safety of British Columbians, so we don't intend for there to be very many exemptions.

The issue that this language deals with is the exemption in very specific circumstances. The best example that we could provide was emergency vehicles on islands where there is no ferry service able to actually move…. We'd have to barge the fire truck to get the inspection. We need language in place that allows us to take the inspector to the vehicle.

H. Bains: If that was the case, then the language would say that the director will have the authority to allow the inspector to go to the facility, but this thing

[ Page 5206 ]

talked about "exempt unconditionally." That's the worry — unconditionally or on conditions?

If it was only on conditions, then I could understand the argument the minister is putting forth. But when I compare this language to the existing language in the act under 217(1), I think 217(1), to me, looks much stronger as far as the safety of the vehicles on the road is concerned and the safety of the public who drive around those vehicles, or are around those vehicles, is concerned.

Now there's a higher standard to be met. It has to be order-in-council. So somebody has to go higher up and convince the cabinet minister or ministers and say, "Look, these are the vehicles that should be exempted" or "These are the circumstances where we need some exemption," and they are listed.

Here it simply gives the director the authority, without having to go to any higher authority, to provide the exemption unconditionally or on conditions. If it was only a matter of allowing an inspector to go from the facility to the vehicle, then I could understand that language could be in here. But that language isn't here.

[1640]

That's a serious concern. On the one hand the minister is saying that we're tightening up these rules, but on the other hand, it seems to be that these rules are now much looser than the existing language that we have.

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that has to be done is the member opposite has to look in totality at the amendments that are being tabled here today. In fact, the amendments allow us to physically go to inspection facilities to actually monitor more effectively with the collection of data, to remove the ability for inspectors to inspect and inspection facilities to be shut down.

It is the intent to create by regulation a series of specific circumstances that would minimize exemptions. In fact, it is necessary to provide some degree of flexibility related to the examples that I provided the member opposite — for example, emergency vehicles on islands. The intent is to have a very narrow scope of exemption. The person that is authorized to make those exemptions is the director of CVSE.

In fact, we expect there to be minimal exemptions. That's why we're looking at a package of amendments to allow