Hansard -- Thursday, October 23, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 6 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of the Whole House		7463
	Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 74)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7463
	Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 74)

Committee of the Whole House		7463
	Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. T. Nebbeling

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7472
	Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76)

Second Reading of Bills		7472
	Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 81)
	Hon. K. Whittred
	J. MacPhail
	J. Bray
	E. Brenzinger
	Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act (Bill 82)
	Hon. K. Whittred
	J. MacPhail
	E. Brenzinger
	J. Bray
	B. Locke
	B. Suffredine

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 74; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 74, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

COMMUNITY CHARTER
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS,
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
AND OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 76; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: This section is really around definitions. I just want to preface my questions with this comment. Bill 67 itself, as we have been advised by the ministry and by the minister, is basically a procedural bill. In fact, in most bills there would merely be the final chunk of operational — that is, the consequential and transitional — sections at the back of a bill. Since there was a push to get Bill 14 in, these other areas were put in a separate bill together.

With that, we understand that there are some 50 amendments to Bill 67, mainly technical and housekeeping in nature, and rather than deal with such a messy bill, the government decided that it was better to pull Bill 67 and bring in Bill 76 instead. Bill 76 has two aspects — that is, the transitionals and consequentials.

I just want to put this on the record. We understand that, really, the substantive changes between Bills 67 and 76 are in section 14, the annual municipal report, and section 15 on the disclosure of gifts and personal benefits. Then there are consequential changes to which I will ask some questions relating to the sections related to the regional district, because there are a number of sections around there, and then section 546. Essentially, as we have been advised through the briefing from staff, these are the areas with substantive changes.

The one other area that I would like to canvass would be related to the revenue mechanisms. Yesterday in second reading debate in response from the minister, I think he advised there was a new section that deals with new revenue mechanisms for municipal governments. In our understanding of the bill, there aren't new revenue mechanisms, but the section that the minister referred to I think is section 18. So we'll be trying to explore what is new in the revenues there.

So I'm putting this on the table here just so people can organize their thoughts with respect to questions, because it is rather confusing as we're looking at sort of like three bills, and it is quite thick and heavy in its content.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm ready to go to section 14 and to canvass questions around the annual reports.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, I'd like to introduce staff. I have with me Marijke Edmondson and Gary Paget, who are going to assist me and guide me through the myriad of questions that will undoubtedly come forward.

Just to give a quick clarification on the reason that Bill 67 has been replaced with Bill 76, as the member knows — and I explained it yesterday in my introduction — when a bill is introduced, we traditionally see the consequential amendments and transitional provisions included in a bill. However, considering that Bill 14 is a considerable shift from what the Local Government Act represented as being the tool for local governments to work with the provincial government, it was clear, with all the changes from the local government to a Community Charter, that there was going to be large number of consequential amendments needed. We must remember that when we started this whole process, we had the Local Government Act with 1,130 sections that, to a large extent, were made up of sections that actually told local governments how they had to do their business. It was very much based on the

principle that local governments truly are not a real form of government but are merely a creature of the province. What this means is that any decision a council makes has to be approved by the provincial government.

Where did this start? Well, in 1867, when the Fathers of Confederation got together, they decided that municipalities or local governments truly should not have direct powers but that any action done by local governments would come from the direction of the provincial government. Now, in 1867 this may have made a lot of sense, because at that time, of course, the population was primarily living in rural areas, and urban areas were fairly rare. At that time, I can understand why the decision was made.

However, 130 years later there clearly is a shift. Today most of the population do live in urban areas, and local governments today still work with the rules that were indeed created in 1867. After 130 years, local governments really felt it was time for a change and to see a fundamental shift when it comes to that power. The Community Charter we have introduced, introduced a new concept of how the relationship between local governments and the provincial government will be handled in the future. It is certainly based on empowering local government, recognizing local governments as the government form that is closest to the members in the community.

That has driven the whole initiative to get local governments recognized as a form of government that truly can be responsible for those issues that are of interest to local governments. It is the way for local governments to recognize what their necessary action requires to truly reflect the desires of a community to move forward. That, under the old bill, of course, was very difficult, because any change in direction a municipality would take would always have to come back to Victoria as a bylaw for approval. That will no longer be required.

When we introduced Bill 14 — what was the Community Charter — we at that time recognized…. I've got 15 minutes, I believe, so let me….

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Exactly. Maybe a little bit of historical perspective is important for you too.

Through the introduction of Bill 14 in the spring session, we introduced the consequential amendments at the same time in a different bill. That was done because of the magnitude I just explained.

One of the advantages we enjoy today with our parliamentary schedule is that…. With the former government we had one session, and every action taken had to be done in that particular session. We have a fall session and a spring session. During the spring session we introduce bills, and then we have some time to look at the bills so that we can deal with spelling mistakes that inevitably, with a bill of that size, will happen and other necessary steps to make the bill functional. Where in the past, indeed, the former government often had to come in with House amendments to clarify or correct mistakes in the bill, we have taken the time to look at what was needed to make the bill — I would say — a product that can stand up as being correct.

We went through it. We identified 50 necessary amendments, and these 50 amendments were primarily made up of housekeeping amendments dealing with spelling mistakes, missing commas, dotted i's, plus some of the transitional provisions. That was the reason that we changed from Bill 67 to Bill 76 — to incorporate all these changes that we had to make, rather than what happened in the past when there was only one session during a year where, during the committee process, these amendments often had to be introduced and had to go through the whole system. It was not only time-consuming but also often difficult in regard to the timing of introducing and passing the bill.

We have chosen the route we did, and that is to let Bill 67 stand as it is now, and introduce Bill 76 and include all these necessary amendments. In this way, we have produced a very clean bill, and that is the bill that we are now in committee discussing.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I can't help but respond to the minister's comments. While we're revisiting the history of the bill, let me just revisit this history. Actually, in the new-era campaign, the Premier promised that within 90 days after the election they would bring in the Community Charter. Well, it's now two and a half years later. This pet project of the minister is finally coming before this House with the pieces that are necessary to make the Community Charter that we debated in the spring operational.

In most instances where bills are brought forward, the consequential amendments and the transitional provisions are usually attached to the bill. They're not two separate chunks of the bill. In other bills they're usually attached. In this instance, you know what? Those weren't there. Why? Because the government was in a big rush to push forward, to bring forward the bill — Bill 14 — and then later on introduced Bill 67. They had to delay that process, because they weren't able to bring the consequential amendments and the transitional provisions.

Really, in essence, we debated a bill in the spring with respect to the Community Charter that could not be operational, and the minister knows that. So they can cover up however they want to cover up. The reality is that they didn't get their ducks lined up. They could not deliver on the Premier's promise. The Premier, as I understood, actually had all his fingers into the bill itself, trying to pull it all together. He couldn't do that, because it was a mess. It was a mess, and that's

why we now have not one, not two but three Community Charters in front of us to be dealt with. So let's just be clear about this history, seeing as the minister can't move on and admit that is what really happened. I can't help but actually clarify the incidents and the progress, or lack thereof, with respect to the Community Charter and its development.

With that, my questions will start with section 14. I'll also be asking the minister when he says, substantively, the bills are to deal with dotting the i's and crossing the t's, and so on and so forth — 80 percent in second reading stage, and the other 20 percent would be substantive…. I certainly would be interested in hearing from the minister what that 20 percent in terms of substantive changes might be.

J. Kwan: On section 14, Mr. Chair, could the minister explain the phrase in the bill around the annual reports?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I cannot miss the opportunity to quickly correct some of the misstatements by the member opposite. She focuses very much on the time frame it took for the Community Charter to come to the House. The Community Charter is one bill. As the member well knows, it is not two and a half years.

Yes, it took two years, but again, considering that this is a bill that fundamentally changes how local governments and the provincial governments have a new relationship, it is very important that we took the time to consult with local governments. We went through a very comprehensive process of getting the voices of local government members, who very much dictated some of the much-needed changes so that they, as local governments, really feel that they now have a place in our political system that is meaningful — something that has not been the case before.

I just want to remind members of the House that we're dealing with section 14 of this bill. I'd like to get back on track here to committee stage, please.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I will certainly speak on section 14. However, in my introduction to get there, I have to correct some of the misstatements that were made by the member before.

Prior to the introduction of the Community Charter, I remind the member that she, as the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, was responsible for introducing the Local Government Act from the existing Municipal Act that was in place until 1996. May I remind the member that this member took three years to basically rewrite the Municipal Act, and that Municipal Act was the….

Hon. T. Nebbeling: To me, two years for the Community Charter, being such a fundamental shift, is a good time frame considering that the Municipal Act was replaced by a municipal Local Government Act. That took three years to complete. Having said that, during the debate, no doubt the member will continue to try to introduce into the debate the misinformation that she is trying to make a standard as to the quality of Bill 14. When that happens, I will be there, of course, to rectify that particular approach.

Bill 14. As I said in my introduction, we as a government are determined to see local governments in charge of what happens in their local communities. We are determined that this be done not just by a council but by the community as a whole. We have introduced an accountability system to be used by local governments that will allow the citizens to be truly part of the decision-making process — how a community moves forward. That is very unique. It is the first time, I believe, in any province in Canada that this accountability approach has been pushed to a height that has not been seen anywhere else.

What happens here is that local governments, under the Community Charter, are mandated to present an annual report to their citizens. Mr. Chair, you may well be aware — and the member certainly is aware — that in the past, local governments would prepare a report once a year, send it to Victoria, and that was the end of it. Rather than being accountable to Victoria, local governments are now going to be accountable to the citizens.

This report will have a number of requirements that have to be fulfilled. These requirements are very much focused on the details of the action of a council over the past year. That report also requires forward-looking elements so that local members have an opportunity to really get a sense of where the council wants to go for the upcoming year.

Then this report will be made public. It will be the subject of a special council meeting where local governments can ask questions about the report; about the direction the government is going; about what the council has done in the past and how they have done it, and where they can truly give the council directions where the community at large believes the council has to go for the upcoming year. This is a very fundamental change from reporting in the past. As I said, local governments up to now, including this year, are mandated to report to the provincial government. Starting with the charter, that will change, and the reporting

will go directly to the community members. Because this is a fundamental change, we have to recognize that local governments will need time to get this system in place. For that reason, we have decided to give a three-year transition period for local governments to come up to speed with the requirement of section 14.

J. Kwan: For a while I thought we were actually engaging in second reading debate. For the minister to actually rise in this House…. How embarrassing it is for this minister.

The Chair: Member, will you please be seated. Member, we give a lot of latitude on section 1 for general statements. I think that I've given that latitude. We've completed section 1 now. We'll carry on with section 14, and be specific to that section, please.

J. Kwan: Well, this leads specifically to section 14, but I must preface my question to section 14 with these comments, Mr. Chair, just like the minister did with his answer to my question on section 14. You know, when we are dealing with section 14 and with this bill and the substantive issues around this bill…. This minister claims that they recognize government and the local authority within government. We just did, a couple of days ago…. For this government to take away local government authority under Bill 48 around the fish farms…. There is no local government autonomy. It's a farce and hypocritical for this minister and this government to say such a thing.

Then for this minister to say: "Hey, hold up. We promised that we were going to bring the Community Charter, and we delivered on that promise…." With an exception: the promise was to do that within 90 days. It is now two and a half years later. Now we have a bill before us that the minister says, in his own admission in his second reading debate, will make this bill, the Community Charter, operational.

Yes, the previous government, when I was minister, brought in the bill to change the authorities for local government as well. We did it, yes, and we took some time to do it. We consulted. With the exception that — you know what? — we didn't promise we would do it within 90 days. We said we were going to consult, we brought in the necessary changes, and that's how we began that process. With respect to section 14, Mr. Chair, those are my opening comments to preface section 14 with the minister.

The phase-in period in terms of the requirements. The minister says that it would be important to give three years for the local government to do the phase-in around the annual reports. The disclosure on the property tax forgone, which is subsection (2)(b); the requirement for report on municipal services and operations, (2)(c); and the requirement for a progress report in (2)(d)…. The delay, three years…. How was three years chosen? Was it a suggestion from local governments? Did they say that they needed a three-year transitional period, or how did they arrive at that?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: As I explained in my previous statement what the reasons are for introducing this accountability reporting to the community, I also explained that this will have a need for a transitional period. So in the first year, what you will see happen is that local governments will indeed do their report, and that report will be based on looking ahead to the following year. The reason is that the bill will be coming into effect January 1, and at that time local governments are going to work under the new rules. They do not have a full year for looking back to report on the community.

So the first year is looking forward. Talk about the future of the community and get the community members involved in a dialogue — what they believe that future should incorporate, what they believe is best for the community, what kind of direction they want to go as a community.

As you know, this government has introduced a number of initiatives. We have the heartlands initiative; we have the resort development initiative, communities that see opportunities to tap into the tourism industry. Councils now have an opportunity to create plans on how to tap into the tourism industries that are phenomenal for this province. Anybody who doubts the opportunities hasn't really looked at the material that is available to identify how the experts see tourism to become one of the major economic drivers in this province. Many communities throughout British Columbia are tapping into that opportunity.

This accountability process will allow the council, after the report has been presented to the community, to get the community together and get input from community members on how the direction is going. Is that what they want to see happening? Can it be done differently? Can it be done better? That's the whole purpose of getting community members involved in the debate.

So that is the first year. In the second year we then have an opportunity to look ahead but also to look at the present. What have we done in the past year, and could we have done things differently? Again, it is the community members that will have the say on if we had done this or that, and a dialogue between council members and community members will take place. That's very healthy.

We always complain about the fact that local elections do not really get the amount of voters coming out to make it meaningful for a community. It has been the situation for a number of years now that people often don't bother to go and vote. I think that by introducing this kind of accountability process, we'll make community members much more interested in what's happening in the community. It's also going to make them much more interested in making sure that the people sitting on the councils are the people representing the values that they as a community hold strongly to. It is, in my opinion, a great democratic step forward when we see community members more interested in the election of local government members. So that is the second year.

Then, in the third year we look ahead again. This becomes an annual tool. We look at the present, again, and at what we have done in the past year, and we look back to make sure what has been done over the first couple of years has led to the result that was intended to be the direction of the community.

It is not something you can just introduce as a new system to get community involvement with local governments. It is a tool to build the various segments that, in the long run, will be required to make sure not only that the direction of the community is part of the direction the council has taken but that it is also implemented in a way that it can be considered successful and according to the directions the community has given the local government.

J. Kwan: Section 15 deals with the disclosure of gifts and personal benefits. There appears to be substantive change in this section. This has been changed so that the disclosure requirement will apply only after the charter comes into force. In other words, no gifts or personal benefits need to be disclosed until January 1, 2004.

When I say there seems to be substantive change, I'm talking about between Bill 76 and Bill 67. Under Bill 67, there was a clear effort to prevent a rush of gifts between the time of royal assent on May 29, 2003, and January 1, 2004. This has now been eliminated in Bill 76. Why?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: In Bill 14, we introduced new guidelines on how local government members receiving gifts have to disclose the gifts and the value. This is so we have a good accountability system in place for members of the community to see how…. Local governments are, as part of the job, often asked to receive gifts from visiting dignitaries, and we accept that it is the standard practice. Local governments often present gifts to visiting dignitaries.

What we have decided is that in order to make local governments accountable to the new rules that will be more strict, more restrictive, as far as gifts are concerned — and as the bill doesn't come into effect until January 1, 2004…. The council members today work under conditions that are different. To introduce a bill and then on the day we introduce the bill to say, "Okay, this is a clean start; from here on, we are going to deal with gifts this way, and we're not going to go retroactive to previous years," made a lot of sense. I mean, basically, council members are working under the new rules, and we just want to make sure that the new rules apply from the day the bill is actually enacted, which is January 1. It is a new day for local governments, it's a new day for accountability rules, and that's the day from which all these rules have to be applied to actions by councillors and anybody else who works in the municipal service.

J. Kwan: Well, does the minister agree that to allow for this delay — at least, it would appear to me — there's the potential or at least the appearance that there is an opening until January 1, 2004, for intense lobbying and gift-giving? The local governments know this is a provision that has been put in place, and that the government is intending it. They know it.

It's not that difficult to actually write on a piece of paper what gifts you got. It's not that difficult. It's not onerous, I don't believe, for local governments. Having been a councillor before, it's not difficult to report out what gifts you have received. That rule applies now for the MLAs in this House. It's not an onerous rule that would be difficult for council members, elected politicians at the municipal level, to follow through.

In terms of needing some time to prepare, I'm not quite sure I actually understand that. What kind of time does a person need to prepare to write down on a piece of paper what gifts they got? The openness and accountability was out there for everyone to review when this bill was brought through royal assent in May of 2003.

It would seem to me that there would be an appearance or the potential to allow for intense gift-giving to have this lag time between now and January 1. Does the minister not agree?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I understand why the member is asking questions on this section, because this is a section that is unprecedented in Canada where we as the provincial government allow local governments more control over their affairs. However, as I said before, by giving more power to local governments, we also want to see council members more accountable. The change here is that after January 1, local governments and local government members have to report or disclose gifts over a total of $250 over the past 12 months, and it is that section over the past 12 months…. Today that requirement is not in the Local Government Act.

January 1 is the first day of the 12 months. The following year, when the disclosure forms have to be made, is when local government members have to look back and say: "Okay, this is the total of the gifts I got over $250." That's the reason we do not go back to right now. It's because the rules that local governments are working under are still the same rules that have been in place since the member opposite, when she was in government, introduced the Local Government Act.

That's the reason for it. It's a 12-month period that we look back at, and that 12-month period starts January 1, 2004.

J. Kwan: It doesn't actually, to be honest, make sense to me to delay the time period. When the minister says we have to go back to right now, right now is

the here and now, and council can actually, as I say, write down what they've received and then report that information out. It's not difficult. It's not onerous for people to do that. Local governments should be required to do that. Yes, there's a small period in which you do go back in time, which is May 29, but when Bill 67 was introduced…. It's clearly stated in Bill 67 under section 14 in terms of this requirement. It states:

I would suggest we go back to this wording that was proposed under Bill 67. It makes sense to me. I think it would prevent the perception — at least the appearance, if nothing else — of intense lobbying and gift-giving to take place between now and January 1, 2004. It is not an onerous process for politicians to write down and report out what gifts they have received. I think it should be done in order to prevent the perception of intense gift-giving and lobbying between now and January 1.

To that end, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment, and here are three copies of my amendment — a copy for yourself, Mr. Chair, and a copy for the minister.

The amendment is essentially to return the language on gift disclosure to what was originally planned under Bill 67 in order to avoid, as I mentioned, this opening for a rush of gift-giving and the appearance of this rush before the accountability measures come into force on January 1, 2004.

There's a typo in my amendment there, I notice. I've put in "all gifts" twice — just to correct that typo.

I move the amendment as I've put forward, Mr. Chair, and I've explained why I think it's important to do that.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Clearly, the member misses, in my opinion, a very important part. That is, January 1, 2004, is the day that local governments will work with the new tools and the new conditions, including accountability conditions. Going back using retroactivity would just confuse people. They would be forced to go and look back at the past 12 months at what they received in gifts and what the values were. It would complicate the whole process. It would certainly confuse a lot of people that suddenly would be required to react to this amendment.

In order to have a cleaner transition, including Bill 14, it is based on a record as of January 1, 2004, from 12 months back, forward. In that period council members have an opportunity to basically catalogue every gift they receive, if they receive gifts. It's not that every council member receives gifts on a monthly basis. It is just that we want to make sure that nobody would receive gifts that go beyond what we think is reasonable, and that's the $250 value, which can be cumulative from one person over a period of a year.

J. Kwan: I think that municipally elected officials are intelligent folks. They can do this. I don't think it's that difficult, as I mentioned, to have it effective now for local governments to have to go back. Yes, it would be starting from the end of May, June, July, August, September, October. You're looking at about five months, six months at best, but between now and January the following six months would be items that they don't have to think back in memory what new is coming….

They're intelligent people. It's not a difficult task for one to report out on, I think, a very important issue, and that is the perception of openness and accountability if nothing else. That is to say to the public that there won't be any window in which intense lobbying could take place, that gift-giving could take place without any accountability between now and when the act comes into force. That was the original intent under Bill 67, and it was a good idea when the original intent was brought forward. It is in that light that I've moved the amendment. That is exactly the same wording that was adopted in Bill 67.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to help the member understand why I take this position, I quickly want to read the pertinent sections because it is the section that deals with the accumulative value of gifts. Section 106(2) reads: "In the circumstances described in subsection (1), the council member must file with the corporate officer, as soon as reasonably practicable, a disclosure statement indicating: (a) the nature of the gift or benefit, (b) its source, including, if it is from a corporation, the full names and addresses of at least 2 individuals who are directors of the corporation, (c) when it was

The consequence of not doing this is: "A person who contravenes this section is disqualified from holding local government office for the period established by section 110 (2), unless the contravention was done inadvertently or because of an error in judgment made in good faith."

This section, as I said before, is unprecedented in Canada. It is a whole new way of dealing with accountability, which is an important part of what local governments in the future will have to incorporate in their operating mode. This change is significant enough that I say it is fair and real and right to introduce this section on January 1, when the bill comes into effect and will start from that day on, including the requirements that local governments will be subject to as a consequence of receiving gifts.

J. Kwan: I'd like to just close on this debate, then. I understand the new intent of this government in terms of post-dating the requirement until January 1, 2004. I just don't agree with it — I think that's where we fundamentally differ — especially in light of most recent reports around some situations on the federal side with various individuals. I just think that at a time when there is so much out there where the role of politicians and the work that we do are undermined time and again…. The earlier, the quicker and the faster we bring in these open accountability measures, the better it is. I think that the government actually — I'll say this even on record — had it right under Bill 67. This Liberal government had it right under Bill 67 with respect to this provision, and that's the wording of my amendment. With that, I'll simply close debate and understand that we simply disagree.

J. Kwan: The next question that I have actually relates to section 18. Although this is not a new section in the bill, it does tie into the revenue opportunities for local government, so I was going to canvass questions about what is new in terms of revenue opportunities for local government under that section.

I just want to ask the minister this question: what is new in this bill with respect to local governments' opportunities for increased revenues? In our briefing — my staff had a briefing with his staff — we were advised that there were no new provisions with respect to revenue opportunities for local government. So I want to make sure we were right that there is nothing new in this bill in terms of new revenue opportunities for local government.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The answer is very simple. Section 18 is not a new revenue source provision.

J. Kwan: Is there anything new in this bill that's a new financial authority mechanism for local government?

J. Kwan: Is there anything new that is a new financial authority mechanism for municipalities? Is there anything new in this bill with respect to that? My understanding is that there isn't. I just want to be sure that, in fact, there isn't and I haven't missed anything.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Because we're dealing with section 18, I can guarantee that this is not a new revenue resource.

J. Kwan: Moving above and beyond section 18, let me repeat the question for the minister very slowly: is there anything new at all within this bill that is a new financial authority mechanism for local governments? My understanding from his staff in the briefing is that there is nothing new in this bill. Setting aside section 18, is there anything new at all in this bill with respect to financial authorities for local government?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Not in Bill 76. No new revenue sources are incorporated in this bill.

J. Kwan: I just needed that clarity about that, making sure that I haven't missed it because it is a substantive bill, and it was introduced last week. Of course, the government had introduced, I believe, about five other new bills.

As we're plowing through all this information, I want to make sure we haven't missed anything and to simply say that it is unfortunate that in this bill there is nothing new in terms of financial authority mechanisms for local government. That was one thing that I know they were looking for, and especially in light of all the downloading that's taking place. It is unfortunate that there isn't anything new, but we'll look forward to the day when something new does come forward for local governments on that.

J. Kwan: There are a number of sections. Let me just find them. I think I'm going to — if it's all right with you, Mr. Chair — group these questions together.

Sorry, not section 97. I misread my information here. It is actually sections 224 and 344, which replace sections 236, 237 and 794 regarding regional districts. Let me just make sure that I'm right with respect to whether I've got the right sections here on regional districts.

Let me just ask the minister to confirm that those are the right sections to discuss regional districts. Those

are sections 224 and 344, which replace 236, 237 and 794. If I'm right, then we're ready to move to 224. I just want to confirm that.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: This section that the member asked a question on deals with public access to documents. One of the actions we have taken when it comes to regional boards….

The Chair: Minister, if I could just pass the previous sections, then we can deal with that section.

J. Kwan: I'm going to group the questions that I have for the related sections for the regional districts, because they kind of skip here and there. I think it would just be simpler if we tied those questions into this section here.

Does the minister expect any of the changes to be controversial or pose practical difficulties to regional districts? Those would be the changes affecting regional districts in this bill.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to give a general picture of the changes we have incorporated in the charter in Bill 76 to achieve one particular call, that is to harmonize on the different board levels of regional districts the position of a council member who participates at a regional board level as well. So these changes are done to avoid, in the future or until such time as there will be a charter for regional districts, the situation where a council member would work with new rules established by the Community Charter. If we didn't harmonize these rules with the boards of the regional districts, then these council members would work with different rules in the regional district, and it would be very problematic, as you can well understand.

These changes are for the purpose of ensuring that we work with the same tools as a council member regardless of whether it's at the council level or at the regional board level. We have worked together with regional chairs and administrators to go over these provisions that were required. We have prepared a best practice guide that will be made available to all elected officials and staff, obviously, and anybody else. It will be available on the Internet. Having taken this step, I believe it will truly make the transition after January 1 for how council members operate on the regional level much more fluid, and it is also done in a way that is very acceptable and understandable. The best practice guide will certainly be of assistance for local government to know in what areas the Community Charter has changed the practices on the regional board.

J. Kwan: I take it from that answer that the minister doesn't expect these changes to be controversial or pose any practical difficulties for the regional districts.

Setting that aside, we had also assumed, though, that there had been an effort to bring regional districts under the Community Charter in a more substantive way — that is, more than what is included under Bill 76 here. However, it appears not to be the case. Could the minister explain what problems are causing this delay, and could the minister outline the problems that perhaps this endeavour has caused?

In my years as Minister of Municipal Affairs, the regional district representatives had been wanting substantive changes. After many rewrites of the Community Charter, one would have assumed that some of those substantive changes would have made it to this third rewrite here, but it appears not to be so. Perhaps the minister can explain what the problems are. And when does the minister expect that those changes will be brought before this House for debate?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Let me first of all assure the member that there are no problems when it comes to our relationship with regional districts. The member obviously has followed, right from the beginning, our commitment to a Community Charter. The member has also, no doubt, followed our commitment to a charter for regional districts. But these are two different approaches. We made it clear from the beginning that we wanted to have a Community Charter for local government and that we were going to concentrate on creating that. Ultimately, that is what created Bill 14, which was introduced during the spring session.

Regional districts — and I've had many meetings with the regional districts — have always known and accepted that the Community Charter process had to be completed in order to start looking at how regional districts can be more effective. As the member well knows, there are many concerns within the province, on a regional level, about how they can act out what they see as their responsibility. One of the reasons that we separated the two is that regional districts, more so than local governments, are clearly bodies that have a much bigger diversity than local governments do. When I talked to the regional district in the north, the Peace, their concerns and their issues are completely different than the lower mainland. The same goes for North Island. Their issues are different than the Peace.

So rather than continue to do what has been the practice up to now by just making one rule apply to all, once the Community Charter is done, we have committed to go through a process, to initiate a process of consultation — again, just as we did with local governments — where we are going to find and hear what the issues are directly from the people who work at regional levels. Then we have to go through a process of evaluation to see how we can sort out some of these problems that are unique to areas, rather than to the province.

We have made that commitment. The regional districts are very comfortable with that approach, and once the Community Charter is done, we're going to start this process, again, of consultation. We will be

travelling through all the regions, we will be meeting with elected officials, and we will be meeting with the administrators and other staff members so that we get a real comprehensive picture of where the bottlenecks are in regional districts, where the problems are. Then, through a dialogue process, we have to come up with solutions that reflect the needs of certain areas rather than trying to find a solution that would apply to each regional district — even if the issue, for example, is a problem in the north but doesn't exist in the lower mainland or in the south.

That's a process that we'll start once we have put this one to bed, Bill 14, and I look forward to a lot of input from the regional districts. One of the things that I think has made a fundamental difference with Bill 14 is the fact that we truly went out of our way to go to local governments, be it through their municipal associations or the UBCM. We have had dialogues with hundreds — if not more — of elected officials, administrators, clerks and other staff from other departments to make sure that we knew exactly what was needed for local governments to get that control over what happens in their community. We have committed to go through a similar process with the regional districts throughout the province, and depending on the length of the dialogue that will be required to come up with not only identifying the problems but also finding the solutions that are workable for all, that's going to take some time. I cannot predict in any way, shape or form how long that will take.

J. Kwan: Well, then the long and short of it is that the government is unable to move on to regional district issues, because they actually haven't gone it right on the other stuff — that is, the rest of the municipalities. That's what I heard from the minister.

So there really aren't any problems in terms of the delays in dealing with the regional district changes, but rather the government just hadn't actually gotten their act together to move on. I would certainly assume, then, there would be another bill at a later date to deal with the regional district changes.

J. Kwan: Section 546, as I understand it, returns the industrial and business improvements permissive tax exemption by regulation provision to its current wording, which permits exceptions to both improvements and land as required to maintain an existing authority for the Vancouver Airport tax-exemption regulation. Could the minister explain what led to this return to the Local Government Act language?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: If I ever need an example to show the wisdom, after introducing Bill 67, of taking some time to reflect on the consequence of introducing Bill 67, I can say that the majority of directions in Bill 67 were just fine. On this particular issue, what we found out was that the tax exemption that applied to, for example, airports and the changes that were reflected in Bill 67 — a change where any tax exemption provided by a local government to a section in the business community that would qualify for that tax exemption…. Under the old rules, we found out that when it came to airports, the exemption applied to improvements and to land.

Of course, what we introduced in Bill 67, with the tax exemption applying only to the improvements, meant that a fundamental problem arose for the Vancouver Airport, because the tax exemption the Vancouver Airport enjoys today is based on improvements and land. We decided to go back to the provision that was in place prior to the introduction of the bill, and we will work in the future to clarify and adjust the rules under which this tax exemption can be given the local governments.

J. Kwan: That is to say the language that is being used, which is being re-adopted in Bill 76, is the language used under the Local Government Act. So when the Local Government Act, which was introduced earlier by the previous government, actually got it right under Bill 76, that section is missing altogether. So that actually fixed the problem? That's the way I understand the situation.

These are essentially all the questions we have for the minister relating to this bill. However, I'd like to ask a final question of the minister. The minister said in his second reading debate that 80 percent of the bill is minor changes, as he calls them — dotting the i's and crossing the t's — but 20 percent, he says, is substantive. The sections that I've canvassed, it appears to us, were the substantive sections. Could the minister advise what other sections, if we haven't canvassed those already, are in his view substantive in Bill 76?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I compliment the member for having identified, indeed, the sections that merited some questions and clarification. That's what she did, so I really feel she touched on the issues that were the ones needing some further dialogue. We had that this morning, so I'm pleased with the procedures.

Bill 76, Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

I know the opposition critics are making a change here, and of course, we need a little time for staff. So could we have a short recess to prepare for that bill?

Amendments set out in the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, provide for a change in the regulatory framework of pharmacists from a separate statute to the purview of the umbrella Health Professions Act. The relevant provisions of the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act will be repealed, and the profession will be governed under the Health Professions Act as amended by Bill 62 earlier this session.

Several of the repealed provisions that are unique to the practice of pharmacy and that are not provided for in the Health Professions Act will be re-enacted in Bill 81 to create a separate part in that act, similar to what has been done for medical practitioners under Bill 62. Bringing pharmacists under the Health Professions Act is consistent with the designation of "other established health professions" and is another step in fulfilling a longstanding policy objective that has been a major commitment for this government.

It should be noted that there was consultation with the College of Pharmacists in the development of these amendments and that the college supports designation of the profession under the Health Professions Act. These amendments in Bill 81 are also consistent with recommendations from an extensive review and report to government by the former Health Professions Council regarding health professions legislation, as well as the findings in the 1991 report by Justice Seaton, Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, that recommended a single consistent regulatory system for health professions.

These amendments that bring pharmacists under the Health Professions Act dovetail with the designation of six other established health professions enabled by the amendments in Bill 62, which received third reading earlier in this sitting. Bill 62 enacted a number of important changes for health professional colleges relating to improved safety and protection for patients and to the public interest. They include increased public access to information about health professionals' registration status and disciplinary records, where the public will be able to contact the registrar of a professional college for information on a health practitioner's status; new mandatory reporting obligations of professionals, where health professionals and employers will be required to report health professionals who may pose a danger to the public as a result of an addiction or lack of competence; and a requirement that colleges establish quality assurance programs to promote good practice to improve the way health services are delivered, by setting standards for health care practices. Those improvements will now apply equally to the College of Pharmacists and the practice of pharmacy.

Finally, I should also note that the inclusion of the College of Pharmacists under the umbrella of the Health Professions Act reduces regulatory duplication and will foster improved multidisciplinary care for patients in the long term through a uniform regulatory framework for all professions in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I rise today to support Bill 81, the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. The Minister of State for Long Term Care has given a good historical outline of how we reached this point, and yet I think we can truly say that in British Columbia we have taken our time to do this right. It has been about a decade-long process to reach the Health Professions Act.

This, as the Minister of State for Long Term Care has said, now amends the Health Professions Act to include pharmacists. So let me take this only opportunity, in my support for this legislation on behalf of the opposition, to honour pharmacists who, as the minister has pointed out, are part of the integrated health care team. In a way, sometimes we don't realize how important pharmacists are. Often, in the small, small towns the pharmacist in very many cases is literally the front line in administering health care and therefore should be recognized and take his or her rightful place as part of the health care team.

The inclusion of pharmacists under the Health Professions Act will give pharmacists that recognition and that ability to provide quality and safe health care. It's for the acknowledgment of not only the value of pharmacists but the value of this legislation that the opposition supports Bill 81.

J. Bray: I, too, am pleased to rise in support of Bill 81, the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. I spoke earlier, when we were doing the other professional association amendments, of the critical importance of that legislation to bring under one regulatory stream all of the health professions that take care of patients in hospitals, in clinics and in their homes. I, too, am very pleased that pharmacists have now taken

I am pleased that the Minister of Health Planning has brought us to this point. It is yet another step in streamlining the health care system so that we get regulations out of the way of providing care and free up professionals in our health care system to actually focus on patients. I am very pleased that Bill 81 has come forward.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I want to take this opportunity to focus a bit on pharmacists and the role they play in the delivery of health care and also to focus a bit on the two select standing committee reports on health that did take a look at pharmacists. We heard from pharmacists in our tour in 2001. We heard a lot from pharmacists about their desire to take a more leading role in health care. In fact, if I could read a quote from the report. This is from the president of the B.C. Pharmacy Association, Geoff Squires: "The key goal of the profession of pharmacy is to ensure the responsible provision of drug therapy for the purpose of achieving health outcomes that improve a patient's quality of life…. There is no other health professional that has a comparable degree of specialty training in drug therapy as does a pharmacist."

In fact, that is what they study, and they study for a very long time. It's a seven-year degree. We rely on pharmacists sometimes when we're trying to pick out cough medicine, but we don't actually realize that they are a critical link in the expanding use of pharmaceuticals in treatment services.

In 2001 our committee heard a lot about the role of pharmacists and opportunities and the desire of pharmacists to become more involved and more integrated into the delivery of health care. Bill 81 is a large regulatory step towards bringing everybody under the same umbrella. It's also a recognition of the important role that pharmacists play in the delivery of health care both at the corner drugstore and, as well, the pharmacists that actually operate out of our tertiary care centres. When drugs make their way up to various rooms, it's actually a pharmacist dispensing that in the hospital, and they also provide a critical function for the delivery of health care in our acute and tertiary centres.

In the 2002 report of the Select Standing Committee on Health, we again took a look at pharmacists and reviewed those issues. One of the recommendations we made, recommendation 15, was: "Your Committee recommends that further discussion and negotiation occur about ways to better use the knowledge of B.C.'s pharmacists to improve patient health." I'm very pleased that the Minister of Health Planning is moving in that direction by bringing in Bill 81 and creating the same recognition and the same regulatory framework for pharmacists to help move us further along in integrating all of our health professionals to focus on the areas they should focus on, which is integrated patient care.

I'm very pleased. I congratulate the Minister of Health Planning on Bill 81, and I am happy to support it.

The new Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act introduced by the Health Planning minister, Sindi Hawkins, today will strengthen the ability of the College of Pharmacists to self-regulate in the public interest.

What I'm going to do, so the public is clear, is read the general points of this bill so that it will be in Hansard, and it would also be simplified for people who aren't sure about what's going on.

Moving the regulation of pharmacists under the Health Profession Act will improve accountability of the pharmacy profession. Self-regulation is something that is supported by the College of Pharmacists. The change is one more step towards ensuring that all health care professionals have consistency in standards and quality assurance for the protection of the public in their regulations by being under a single statute.

Our government is acting on the recommendations made by the Health Professions Council's report released in March 2001 that included ten years of consultation with all the health professions. These changes also align with recommendations made by the 1991 Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs that recommended a consistent regulatory system for health professions as important to achieving coordination and cooperation among the health care providers and to ensure an integrated approach to the delivery of health care services.

I support this act. I think it's going to bring strength and ability to our College of Pharmacists. I commend the minister for putting this through and for working so hard on it.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 81, the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care closes debate.

Hon. K. Whittred: I was very pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is in general support of this bill, and I look forward to detailed discussion in the committee phase.

Hon. K. Whittred: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 81, Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act will re-enact the existing provisions for licensing, operations, inspections and other matters currently administered by the College of Pharmacists. As was stated upon introduction, the vast majority of this bill re-enacts existing legislative provisions.

Bill 82 is a companion piece to the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, which was introduced this session as Bill 81. Those amendments will permit pharmacists to come under the umbrella of the regulatory framework of the Health Professions Act. In most respects, provisions regulating and licensing pharmacies will remain the same under Bill 82, and none of the provisions in place to protect the public will change.

The College of Pharmacists will continue to be accountable to government and the public for regulating pharmacy operations in the public interest through its bylaw and drug schedule-making process. Similar to the Health Professions Act, the Minister of Health Planning retains authority to impose new or amended bylaws or drug schedules on the College of Pharmacists, if necessary, under this new act as well.

These re-enacted provisions include a streamlining and deregulation amendment, giving the college the power, subject to ministerial approval, to enact regulations that adopt, by reference, National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities' drug schedules that govern how a drug can be sold. Thereafter, government approval of future changes to the NAPRA drug schedules will not be required in the normal course of events. However, there will be an immediate ministerial override available in case of a health or safety emergency.

In addition, this legislation transfers responsibility for dealing with research requests for disclosure of PharmaNet data from a committee of the college to a new, independent PharmaNet stewardship committee. This committee is appointed by the minister and comprises representatives from the government, the College of Pharmacists, College of Physicians and Surgeons, the research community and the public. I should note that this change is in response to a request from the College of Pharmacists. The office of the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner was also consulted in advance on the transfer of responsibility and potential privacy concerns.

While we recognize the value of the information contained in PharmaNet, we will always place the greatest weight on patients' rights to confidentiality. In order to ensure transparency of the new committee's activities, the Ministry of Health Services will ensure that the public is aware of the rules being used by the committee in approving disclosure of information. In addition, that ministry will ensure that an annual summary of the committee's activities is provided to the public. At a minimum, both will be posted on the ministry's website. This move will ensure that British Columbians can have even more confidence in the security of the PharmaNet system than they do already.

Finally, the legislation presented today for second reading establishes a separate act to formally recognize the existing responsibility for veterinary drugs by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: It's a banner day. I'm rising to support another government bill, so everybody…. [Applause.]

The Speaker may have to get some libation at lunch, or something, for this one. Just kidding. I'm just kidding.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for allowing me to address Bill 82. It is a continuation, as the Minister of State for Long Term Care has said, of work that was done previously. Really, it's a technical bill, but it allows us to take a moment to celebrate the achievements.

I also failed to note in debating Bill 81 that the Ministry of Health Planning offered and we accepted a briefing on these two pieces of legislation, which has assisted us greatly in understanding what sometimes appears quickly to be technical matters that need explanation. So thank you to the minister and Ministry of Health Planning.

We support this legislation, and the Minister of State for Long Term Care has articulated the value of PharmaNet and the drug schedules. I want to make one point on this, though, that's directed at the federal government.

The federal government has been promising that it would have a national system of patient information with all of the privacy protections that are needed, which would greatly assist in the delivery of health care in a timely, cost-effective way and would improve health care. They're sadly lacking in delivering on that promise, which puts provinces in a dilemma about whether or not they should be proceeding with their own information system instead of waiting for the federal government.

I would urge the federal government to look at British Columbia as a model of patient information systems, some of which is epitomized by the PharmaNet system, and should get on with delivering on their promise of a national patient information system. The Romanow report is almost a year old now, and that recommendation was front and centre in the Romanow report to the federal government.

Why do we need these patient information systems? Well, first and foremost, I agree with the government: we need to protect patient privacy above all. Yet having said that, in that context it makes eminent sense to keep track of the various medications and prescriptions that individuals use because of the sometimes contraindication between and amongst prescriptions. That's exactly what PharmaNet does. PharmaNet was revolutionary when it was established, I think, in…. Let me see. I was Minister of Health in '97, and it was…. In '96? Help me here. PharmaNet was established in '94 or '95, it must have been — the be-

ginning stages — and it's been improved upon throughout that period of time, up to and including under this current government.

It was established because there were huge costs associated with prescription use that were creating contraindications that led to admissions into our hospital system and sometimes death, particularly amongst seniors. The pharmacists themselves, working with physicians and the then government of the day, said: "Let's keep track of this." Let's allow pharmacists the ability to point out confusion, contraindications or even waste of drug prescriptions by…. Basically, one prescription could be made null and void in its effect, given that another prescription was being prescribed for that very same patient.

It's good health. It's good health care, and it's good health, as well, that we keep track of — that we allow professionals to have the fullest database of information on a patient-by-patient basis. It has also given an opportunity to pharmacists — this is my own personal experience with it — who can now take time to educate their patients about all of the implications of pharmacological health care. It has proven to be a very, very useful tool.

Then lastly — and while this doesn't apply to a very high percentage of the population in British Columbia; in fact, a very low percentage — it does allow pharmacists to pick up when there may be abuse, as well, in terms of addictions and start discussions there from a health care point of view.

This legislation confirms increased patient care, affirms patient privacy and promotes — through incorporating in legislation — great policy around the use of PharmaNet. It is with that, that the opposition supports this legislation.

E. Brenzinger: I also am pleased to actually follow the opposition in something that's positive and that we both agree on.

I would like to speak to Bill 82 and outline what the new act will do. We're looking at the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, which will be repealed and replaced by Bill 82, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act. Bill 82 is a companion piece to the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, which was introduced this session as Bill 81. Those amendments will permit pharmacists to come under the umbrella of the regulatory framework of the Health Professions Act.

In the act, we will maintain and re-enact provisions around pharmacy operations that will continue to be administered by the College of Pharmacists. None of the provisions currently in place to protect the public will change. Transfer the regulations of pharmacists from the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to the Health Professions Act as a companion piece to Bill 81. Enable the transfer of responsibility for dealing with requests for disclosure of patient information from the PharmaNet database from the College of Pharmacists committee to a PharmaNet stewardship committee appointed by the Ministry of Health Services, which will have representatives from the College of Pharmacists, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, government, the research community and the public.

It establishes a separate veterinary drugs act to formally recognize the existing responsibility for veterinarian drugs by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. This does not change the regulatory framework that guides the approval and sale of veterinary drugs in B.C.

That's pretty well a synopsis of what this new act will do. I just wanted to stand up and outline that for the public.

J. Bray: I'm informed that joining us in the members' gallery is a group from the transition Work Streams program along with their instructor, Ms. Jo Acampora. Ms. Acampora has been with Work Streams since 1998 and works with her clients in the transition program to achieve independence and employment. Work Streams now has three sites located in the Victoria area and works with thousands of clients each year.

J. Bray: I, too, join to stand in support of Bill 82, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act. I won't go into some of the detail that some of the other members have with respect to this bill. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, a lot of this is a technical piece. It's in companion with Bill 81 that we just debated a few minutes ago.

I want to continue further the theme I mentioned earlier around pharmacists and the importance of pharmacists, and the importance as we look at information management, the role of pharmacists and primary care reform. One of the issues in the Select Standing Committee on Health that we've addressed in both of our reports is a recognition that the current system of primary care — that is, the care you get at the storefront — needs to be changed and updated. The federal government has made a commitment to work in this area, and our committee, certainly in both of our reports of 2001-02, spoke to that.

One of the issues around primary care that we talked about was the issue of access. Very few people will ever claim that they didn't get excellent health-care when they got into the system. The complaint is often: "I can't get into the system." We hear of terms like "orphaned patients" and general practitioners who have a full roster of patients and aren't able to take on new patients. Often the issue is access.

Primary care reform talks about looking at different ways in which we can create access into health care and change the process in which patients move around within that system to actually enhance their health care. One of the issues is looking at integrated health clinics. That is, rather than going into your GP's office, who then says, "I'm going to refer you to such-and-such, " you actually go into a clinic that may have several of those specialists and different health professionals in one location. It could be a doctor, a nurse practitioner, a podiatrist, a vision specialist, a dietitian — you name it. The idea is that you walk into that clinic and you see the actual person you need to see — not always having to go through one person, taking up an appointment time to then get referred somewhere else.

As we talk about primary care reform and integrating the roles of different health professionals, pharmacists have to be a part of that integration. Pharmacists are the chemical experts in the health care field, in fact. That's what they study. PharmaNet, which is the information management system that deals with prescriptions on a patient basis, is one of the tools that allows pharmacists, in this more integrated system, to play a more critical role in dealing with individual patients' health care. They are able to make the kind of advice and education that patients really need.

For instance, in the Select Standing Committee on Health report that we released last year, some of the evidence we heard was quite shocking. One of them is that 23 percent of all seniors admitted into emergency rooms are in for incorrect drug interactions. That's an astounding number of our seniors who are actually entering the hospital system because of some of the therapies they're receiving. So pharmacists can provide a critical link in how we deal with that to reduce that.

PharmaNet also helps to make sure there are no abuses of the system, including the division or dispensing of narcotics and other drugs that, in fact, create ancillary problems. What PharmaNet also shows, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, is that when you get an integrated information management system, you start to reduce some of the problems that you get with drug therapies. That is a strength.

If we can look at information management in the health care system in an expanded role, then what you can do is start to better coordinate the various health professionals involved in patient care to actually improve the outcomes. So where primary care, even a few years ago, talked about having all the health professionals in one place, what we can look at with PharmaNet and expand beyond that is, in fact, we can have a virtual case management system. The health professionals don't have to be in the same bricks-and-mortar, but they have to have access to the information that allows patients to get the kind of integrated care they need.

The last issue I'll mention on this bill — and I'm glad it highlights the issue — is that patients and British Columbians understand, I think, the need for more integrated information management, but nothing is more personal in our lives than our health records. By ensuring that we have strong provisions for the protection of that data — professionals having access to it and signing professional agreements to protect that privacy — that's a critical piece that I think gives our communities a great sense of comfort.

I am pleased to support Bill 82, and I again congratulate the Minister of Health Planning for bringing it forward.

B. Locke: I, too, rise in support of Bill 81, the Health Professions Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. More and more the pharmacists in our community are becoming an integral part of all of our health care, and I think this act speaks to that. It addresses their new link with the Health Professions Act, and I think that's critically important. We all know that our neighbourhood pharmacist is the first stop for many, many families, and so this act really does bring them into that professional category. I'm pleased about that.

I think, too, the whole issue around dealing with the technology and the patient data is critically important. Making sure that data is distributed in a way that is appropriate and cared for is important to everyone. So I'm very pleased to see that the freedom-of-information officer has worked with the minister in making sure the needs of British Columbians to have their privacy protected is well enshrined in this piece of legislation.

I want to commend the minister for taking this one on, because I think the role of pharmacies and pharmacists will grow as we move along and will help to reduce the costs of health care. So with that, I just want to express my support of Bill 81, and thank you very much.

B. Suffredine: I rise in support of the bill. I can't resist beginning by remarking on how unusual it is not only for the Leader of the Opposition to agree with a government bill but also for me to agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I was at a presentation last night by the Genome research people, and they pointed out on a T-shirt they had that I have 99.9 percent of the same genes as Einstein. Someone also pointed out to me this morning that that means I have 99.9 percent of the same genes as the Leader of the Opposition. I can only say thank goodness for the 0.1 percent. The differences are a good thing to have.

The reason I raised the genome thing wasn't, actually, to be hard on the Leader of the Opposition, but because genome research, in fact, is integrally related to pharmacy. The dean of pharmacy from UBC was at the presentation and was active in presenting how this will affect the pharmaceutical industry and how they see it leaping forward over the next five years. Without going into detail about that presentation, it was pretty exciting news for what it will do for the medical profession in general and the way we run health care.

The significance of all of this and, I say, the most significant part of the bill is that the details are great.

The most significant thing I take from it is what it means when you get out and work with industry and talk to the people who are in the business, and they come forward with suggestions that will make things work better. Any company that listens to its employees knows that if you have a workforce that works with you, you get a lot more done.

The Premier has spearheaded a number of initiatives where we now get out and listen to people and listen to people who are in business and industry. We're not shy about saying that we want to hear from people in the business about the best way to run it. This shifts the responsibility for pharmacists to pharmacists.

When we travelled on the Health Committee last year — and I must say it was quite an interesting task that I at first thought was going to be a lot of fun; it turned out to be more work than fun, but it was very interesting, very enlightening — we heard from all kinds of groups. We heard from every profession that goes near the health sector — doctors, local health groups, chiropractors, alternative medicine practitioners, Chinese medicine, drug companies and pharmacists as well. We listened — and this is an example of listening — to how we can make things work better in the health professions and how we can lower our costs.

That's what this is all about. We let the pharmacists do the job that they can do efficiently, and we lower our costs in health care. We make health care work better by listening to pharmacists and letting them tell us the ways we can deliver the service better.

In my submission, that is the most exciting part of these changes. It brings the pharmacists in as partners and treats them as equals, as they should be. They're highly qualified professionals. I congratulate the minister for leading the way.

I must say that it's very refreshing to have so much unanimity around the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, on this particular bill. It is indeed quite a technical bill. It does, however, walk that delicate tight line between balancing the need for information management and for utilizing new technology that's available to us in health care and the concerns of patients about privacy. I look forward to the committee debate.

Hon. K. Whittred: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 82, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY